Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May2013 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

EPA ID No.: NHN000105928

Contact Persons

Site Investigation: Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON)/ (978) 552-2100 Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III (START)

3 Riverside Drive Andover, MA 01810 (M r. Gerald Hornok, Ms. Carolyn Imbres, and Mr. John F. Kelly)

Documentation Record: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (617) 918-1436 (EPA) Region I 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109 -3912 (Ms. Nancy Smith)

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration, soil exposure, and air migration pathways were not scored as part of this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record as the scor ing of the ground water migration pathway is sufficient to qualify the site for the National Priorities List (NPL).

Surface Water Migration Pathway (not scored)

Two HRS watershed s have been iden tified for the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility [64, pp. 1

- 15]. A release to the overland /flood component of the surface wa ter migration pathway for the two

watersheds has been documented; however, the impacts to downstream targets ha ve not been adequately

characterized [20, pp. 4; 34, pp. 1

- 6; 35, pp. 1

- 7; 36, pp. 1 -4; 47, pp. 1 -3; 49, pp. 1

- 4; 50, pp. 1 -2; 57, p. 12; 100, pp. 1

- 7; 101, pp. 1 -2]. The refore, the Surface Water Migration Pathway is not presented in the

HRS documentation record.

Soil Exposure Pathway (not scored)

Sampling has documented the presence of soil contamination at the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility [ 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55

- 56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161 ] . T here is no resident population at the facility , and no nearby population is known to be affected by contaminated soil . Due to

the lack of residential and nearby targets , and since much of the affected facility areas are paved, this pathway does not contribute significantly to the overall site score. Therefore, this pathway is not presented in the HRS documentation record.

Air Migration Pathway (not scored)

N o release of hazardous substances to the ambient air from sources is known to have occurred

, and no impacts to nearby residential populations or sensitive environments have been documented. The evaluation of the air migration pathway would not impact the listing decision. Therefore, th is pathway is

not presented in the HRS documentation record.Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 1 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 HRS DOCUMENTATI ON RECO RD

Name of Site: Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Date Prepared: May 2013

EPA Region: I

S tree t Address of Site*: Off Route 11 between Paulson Road to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill Road to

the SE

City, County, State, Zip Code: Farmington, Strafford County, New Hampshire ( NH ), 03835

General Location in the State: South east ern NH

Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Sur vey, Baxter Lake Quadrangle

, New Hampshire

- Strafford Co.,

7.5

- minute series Topographical Map. 1987 provisional edition [8 ].

Latitude**: 43 o 22 ' 19.2 " North

Longitude**: 71o 03 ' 31.5" West

Scores

Air Pathway NS Ground Water Pathway 100.00

Soil Exposure Pathway NS Surface Water Pathway NS

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

NS = Not Scored

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent on e or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the

f ocus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, disposed or placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility bou ndaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed

as to where the contamination has come to be located.

** The geographic coordinates of the site were measured from the approximate location of the former tetrachloroethylene ( PCE ) solvent storage tank [8; 10 ]. See HRS Figure 1 for the location of the latitude and longitude measurement point.Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 2 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 WORKSHEET FO R COM PUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S S 2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) (from Table 3-1, line 13) 100.00 10,000

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component (from Table 4-1, line 30) NS NS

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component (from Table 4- 25, line 28) NS NS

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. NS NS

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S

s ) (from Table 5-1, line 22) NS NS

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S

a ) (from Table 6-1, line 12) NS NS

5. Total of S gw 2 + S

sw 2 + S

s 2 + S

a 2 10,000

6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 

### 50.00

NS = Not ScoredCollins & Aikman Plant (Former) 3 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 HRS Table 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum

Value Value
Assigned

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 NS

2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS

2d. Travel Time 35 NS

2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 NS



### 3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32

Targets :

7. Nearest Well 50 50

8. Population:

8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 7,500

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0

8c. Potential Contamination (b) NS
8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 7,500

9. Resources 5 NS

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 NS

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 7,550

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500] (c) 100 100.00

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:



### 13. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated , subject to a maximum of 100) c 100 100.00
(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Maximum value not applicable. (c) Do not round to nearest integer.Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 4 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 ACRONYM/ABBREVIA TION LIST

> Greater than 1,1,1- TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1- DCA 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1- DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene or 1,1- Dichloroethylene 1,2- DCA 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2- DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene or 1,2- Dichloroethylene AGQS New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards Apr. April

AS/SVE Air Sparg e and Soil Vapor Extraction

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry bgs Below Ground Surface

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

c is -1,2- DCE c is -1,2-Dichloroethene or c is -1,2-Dichloroethylene

CLU

- IN 

### Contaminated Site Cleanup Information

Co. County

COC Chain -of-Custody

Collins & Aikman Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc.

CVOC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds

DCE Dichloroethene or Dichloroethylene

DNAPL Dense Non -Aqueous Phase Liquid

DRC Davidson Rubber Company

EAI Eastern Analytical Inc.

EP Extraction Procedure

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ft/ft feet per foot

ft 2 square feet

GEI GEI Consultants, Inc. (formerly known as Geotechnical Engineers

, Inc .)

GMP Groundwater Management Permit

GMZ Groundwater Management Zone

GP2 Gravel Pack Number 2 Drinking Water Supply Well

GPS Global Positioning System

H&A Haley & Aldrich

HRG Hager

- Richter Geoscience

HRS Hazard Ranking System HWQ Hazardous Waste Quantity

ID Identification

Jul. July

Kimball Chase Kimball Chase Company, Inc.

MA Massachusetts

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone mg/Kg m illigrams Per Kilogram mg/L m illigrams Per LiterCollins & Aikman Plant (Former) 5 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 ACRONYM/ABBREVIA TION LIST (CONCLUDED)

MIBK Methyl Isobutyl Ketone μg/L micrograms Per Liter μg/Kg micrograms Per Kilogram

MOM3a Management of Migration component

N No

NA Not Available

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NH New Hampshire

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

NHWSPCC New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission

No. Number

Nov. November

NPL National Priorities List

NS Not scored

NYR Not Yet Regulated

p. page

pp. pages Pace Pace Incorporated

PCE Tetrachlor o ethene or Tetrachloroethylene or Perchloroethylene

ppm parts per million

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

RAI Resource Analysts, Inc.

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RI Remedial Investigation

SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix Sept. September

SGP Sarah Greenfield Property

SHA Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc.

START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III

TCE Trichloroethene or Trichloroethylene

TDL Target Distance Limit

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

trans -1,2- DCE trans -1,2-Dichloroethene or trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VC Vinyl Chloride

VLF Very Low Frequency

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WESTON Weston Solutions, Inc.

Y Yes yd 3 cubic yard

### & %

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Property Boundary 1 Mile Radius

from site sources

Pokamoonshine Brook

Cocheco River GP2 Well

Source No. 1 Route 11 Route 153

Source No. 3

Source No. 2 Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Site 

# I

0 1 0.5

Miles

0 1 0.5

Kilometers

HRS Figure 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill Road

to the SE Farmington, New Hampshire Location Map

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

NHN000105928 12-04-0009

B. Mace

26 September 2012 EPA Region I Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) III

Contract No. EP-W-05-042

TDD Number:

Created by:

Created on:

Modified by:

Modified on: Topos: MicroPath/USGS Quadrangle Name(s): Farmington, Baxtor Lake, NH All other data: 11; 37, p. 11; 121, p. 41; 129, p. 8; 210 Data Sources:

C. Imbres

25 March 2013

HRS Documentation Record May 2013MW105SW19AW18W17W16W15W14B704W19B702W13W12W11W10W9W8W7P102P101W6W5W3W2W1W22W21W20W24W25W23VIIWarehouseMain Site Building Former Sarah Greenfield PropertyMW403MW404MW402MW401MW605MW405B101B103MW1001MW406SW205AMW601DRMW601SRMW701SRMW701MW703SW202ASW502MW801SW501MW906MW903MW904SW201MW604MW602MW603MW902SMW902DMW303RMW303MW302MW302RMW1002MW304MW304RMW305Commercial CompostFacilityTown Of Farmington Property

Groundwater Treatment Plant Inside Warehouse Route 11SW503SW101IIVIVIVVIIIX-CX-BX-AStorage BuildingMW105RI-B, CI-AIII-BIII-ASH-1RSH-2RSH-3RSH-4RSH-5RSH-6RSH-7RSH-8RSH-1SH-2SH-3 X

X

X

X X XOutfall 1aOutfall 2Outfall 3Outfall 4Bedrock Supply WellA'AMW701DRIXB-1B-2VZ-1VZ-2B-3B-4VZ-3S-1S-2S-3SS-2SS-1SS-3B-5B-7B-6Approximate Limit ofTest Pit ExcavationW4MW905MW302RW1P100SW503SH-1RFile:V:\2799.00\dwg\Bedrock Well figures\ELP-Bedrock-Contours.dwg Plot Date: 4-1-09c 2009 SANBORN, HEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampled January2009Bedrock Monitoring Well Installed 2008, SampledJanuary 2009Monitoring WellGroundwater Recovery/Containment WellPiezometerBedrock Supply Well Sampled January 2009Former Infiltration Basin Soil Sample (CompositeLocations Approximate)Stormwater Outfall Soil Sample (CompositeLocations Indicated by a Single SymbolLocations Approximate)Soil Boring or Vadose Zone Well (Vadose ZoneWell Denoted by "VZ"Label)Cross Section Line (See Figure 4)LegendSite Features andExploration Location PlanNH Department of Environmental ServicesFormer Collins & Aikman Plant SiteFarmington, New HampshireFigure NarrativeFigure 150'100'0100'200'FeetDate:Reviewed By:Designed By:Drawn By:T. WhiteE. WrightApril 2009P. RydelI Former Solvent Storage TanksII Blockhouse/Former Paint Spill AreaIII Former PCE Degreasing PitsIV Former Waste Oil UstV Former No. 6 Fuel Oil USTsVI Former "Dowtherm" USTVII Northwest Septic System Leachfields (Active)VIII Northeast Septic System Leachfield (Inactive)IX Former Infiltration BasinsX Former Waste Storage/Drum Holding Areas1. This plan was modified from a Haley & Aldrich planentitled "Site Plan, Figure 2", dated October2006.2. The Haley & Aldrich plan was modified from figure 2 ofGEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) 1999 Annual Report. Dated March2000, and from aerial photography. Existing monitoring welllocations were surveyed by CLD Consulting Engineers,August 2003. Approximate locations and elevations ofmonitoring wells installed during 2006 were located by Haley& Aldrich by taping from features shown on the site plan and alevel survey using existing monitoring wells.3. Locations of potential contaminant source areas I-A,B,II, IV, V, VI, and X were obtained from Figure 2, Entitled"Location Map," included in GEI's Pre-design Program Report(figure dated December 1993, report issued January 10,1994), original scale: 1" =200'.4. Location of potential contaminant source area III-A,Bwas obtained from Figure 3, entitled "Soil Sample LocationPlan (Beneath Plant)," included in GEI's SourceCharacterization Study dated May 29, 1990, original scale: 1"= 60'.5. Locations of potential contaminant source areas VIIIand IX were obtained from a plan entitled "ApproximateLocation of Potential Sources," included in C.T. Main'sRemedial Investigation Report, dated September 1986.Original scale: 1" =200'.6. Location of potential contaminant source area VII wasobtained from the above-referenced Haley & Aldrich October2006 site plan.7. The location of potential source area I-C was obtainedfrom a site plan entitled "Ex-cell-o Corporation" (July 9, 1987revision).8. The location of the former infiltration basins and theWarehouse were adjusted to be consistent with the site planprepared by Textron entitled “Figure 2 - Storm Water PollutionPrevention,” obtained from NHDES and dated July 17,1995.Potential Contaminant Source AreasBedrock Supply WellA'AB-6VZ-3S-1SS-1	

			 
!"#
 
$
%		
&May
'HRS Source No. 2Percolating LagoonSystem(approximatelocation of lagoonsportion)HRS Source No. 3Northwest Septic SystemTank (approximate location)HRS Source No. 1PCE Tank(approximate location)HRS Figure 2 - Extracted Figure 1 from Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. 2009. Summary Report, Additional Investigationsand Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Former Collins & AikmanPlant Site, Farmington, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No.198705014. April. Figure narrative legend pertains to originalSanborn, Head and Associates, Inc. Figure 1, not HRS Figure 2.(HRS Reference 121, p. 41)	


			 !"#$%!!&
'		
(May 20HRS Figure 3 - Extracted Figure 2 from Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007.2006 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Collins &Aikman Farmington Plant, Farmington, New Hampshire, NHDESSite No. 198705014. 30 January.(HRS Reference 133, p. 46)NOTES: Information pertains to original Haley and Aldrich, Inc.Figure 2, not HRS Figure 3.

### & % & %

@ A

@ A @ A

@ A

@ A @ A

@ A @ A

@ A HRS Figure 4

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road

to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill

Road to the SE Farmington, New Hampshire Approximate Monitoring Well and Public Supply Well Location Map 

### GP3 (Town Well 3)

Cocheco River

SW201 SW104 MW305

Warehouse

HRS Source No. 3 Northwest Septic System Tank

MW605 SW205 SW501

Manufacturing Building

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Property HRS Source No. 1

PCE Tank MW302

SH-8R MW303 Pokamoonshine Brook

GP2 Route 153

Cardinal Landfill

Route 11 Farmington Landfill HRS Source No. 2 Percolating Lagoon System 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 125

Feet 

# I LEGEND

Imagery: Bing Maps Aerials All other data: 116; 121; 133 12-04-0009

G. Hornok

16 October 2012

C. Imbres

25 March 2013

Data Sources: EPA Region I Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) III

Contract No. EP-W-05-042

TDD Number:

Created by:

Created on:

Modified by:

Modified on:



### @ A Monitoring Wells 

### & % Public Supply Wells

Approximate Source Areas

Property Boundary

Note: The location of ground water monitoring and public supply wells is approximate based on maps presented

in file references.

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

NHN000105928 HRS Documentation Record May 2013HRS Figure 5

12-04-0009

G. Hornok

13 February 2013 Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road

to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill

Road to the SE Farmington, New Hampshire 4 Mile Target Distance Limit EPA Region I Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) III

Contract No. EP-W-05-042

TDD Number:

Created by:

Created on:

Modified by:

Modified on: Topos: 2011 National Geographic Society All other data: 11; 121, p. 41; 210 Data Sources: 

# I

0123 0.5

Miles

0123 0.5

Kilometers

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

NHN000105928 HRS Documentation Record May 2013 Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Site Sources Cocheco River 4 Mile Target Distance Limit

from Site Sources

C. Imbres

25 March 2013REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 11 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May2013 [1] U.S. EP A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Hazard Ranking System; Final

Rule , 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A. The complete Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule is

available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS%20 Rule . 14 December. Excerpt, 140 pages.

[2] U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/ tools/scdm.htm. 31 March. Excerpt, 77 pages.

[3] Reference Number Reserved.

[4] Kueper, B.H. and Davies, K.L. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Assessment

and Delineation of DNAPL Source Zones at Hazardous Waste Sites. Available from http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm? dirEntryId=214252 . 20 pages.

[5] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III) . 2013. P roject Note, Re.: Summary of previous ground water investigations. 31 January. 9 pages.

[6] New Hampshire Custodial Trust. Davidson Drive #56, Deed Book 3585/ Page 525. Printed on 30 September 2009. 6 pages.

[7] John E. O’Donnell & Associates. 1978. Town of Farmington, New Hampshire, Property Map R –31. Obtained by START personnel on 30 September 2009. 2 pages.

[8] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1987 provisional edition. Baxter Lake Quadrangle, New Hampshire-Strafford Co., (7.5Minuute Series Topographic). 1 page.

[9] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1987 pr ovisional edition. Farmington, New Hampshire Quadrangle (7.5 Minute Series Topographic). 1 page.

[10] Mace, B. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2 012. Project Note, Re.: Latitude/Longitude Calculations. 26 September . 1 page.

[11] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Search Superfund Site Information, Collins & Aikman Plant (Former). Available from http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm . Internet accessed on 15 October 2012. 2 pages.

[12] Imbres, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Local Bedrock Geologic Data. 23 October. 63 pages.

[13] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Background Ground Water Sample Summary. 11 October.

244 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 12 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [14] Bitz as, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Ground water Sample Summary Tables. 10 O ctober. 14

pages.

[15] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Geologic Cross Section Interpretation. 19 October. 44 pages.

[16] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technic al Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Contaminant Plume Flow Direction Review/Interpretation. 12

October. 76 pages.

[17] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Ground Water Flow Direction Interpretation. 12 October. 54

pages.

[18-19] Reference Number Reserved.

[20] Cochrane, J. B. 1974. Waste Water Treatment Study, Davidson Rubber Company. 15 May. 78 pages.

[21] Reference Number Reserved

.

[22] McCormack, J. (Davidson Rubber Company, Inc.). New Hampshire Industrial Waste Survey, Davidson Rubber Company, Inc. 3 pages.

[23] Sliwinski, F. J. 1980. U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Permit Application, EPA ID # FNHD045011616. 19 November. 8 pages.

[24] Reference Number Reserved.

[25] Davidson Rubber Division Industrial Park Plant. 1985 (revised). EPA Hazardous Waste Compliance Program. 16 January. 100 pages.

[26] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). RCRA Inspection Checklist, Da vidson Rubber Division/ Ex- Cell

- O Corporation. 8 October 1981. 10 pages.

[27] New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare Division of Public Health Services. 1981. Letter addressed to Davidson Rubber Division, Ex

- Cell

- O Corporation, regarding Regulato ry Order Under New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Management Act. 9 December. 3 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 13 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [28] Referen ce Number Reserved.

[29] Unknown Author. 1982. Trip Report, Davidson Rubber Company, Inc. 16 August. 3 pages.

[30-32] Reference Number s Reserved.

[33] New Hampshire Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management of Public Health Services. 1983.

Inter -Department Communication, Davidson Rubber, Farmington. 27 May. 2 pages.

[34] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Subject:

Davidson Rubber Farmington, Organics/Priority Pollutants Analysis. 26 September. 6

pages.

[35] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1983. R e: Water and Soil Sampling Results, Farmington, N.H. 17 October. 7 pages.

[36] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Inter

- Department Communication, Davidson Rubber Company, Farmington

– Site Visit and Sample Collection on September 26, 1983. 1 December. 4 pages.

[37] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. L etter addressed to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, regarding sample results collected from Farmington on April 20, 1984. 25 May. 15 pages.

[38] Reference Number Reserved.

[39] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. Letter addressed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Waste Management Division, Re: Davidson Rubber Company

– Farmington Plant Information Request Pursuant to Section 3007 of RCRA and Section 104 of CERCLA. 15 August. 22

pages.

[40-41] Reference Number s Reserved.

[42] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter Addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Preliminary Remedial Recommendations, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron Plant Site and Sarah Greenfield Property. 25 June. 10 pages.

[43] Davidson Rubber Company. 1984. C losure P lan Proposal for Surface Impoundment System. 18 December. 68 pages.

[44] Geo technical Engineers Inc. 1985. L etter addressed to Orr and Reno, P.A., Subject: Volatile Organic Analyses, Lagoon Soil Samples, Davidson Rubber Company. 17 January. 17 pages.

[45] Orr and Reno P.A. 1985. Letter addressed to the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, Re: Davidson Rubber, Amended Surface Impoundment Closure Plan. 30 May. 12 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 14 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [46] Referen ce Number Reserved.

[47] Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1973. Letter addressed to Davidson Rubber Company, Inc., Re: Industrial Wastes. 16 July. 10 pages.

[48] Reference Number Reserved.

[49] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1974. L etter addressed to EPA Enforcement

Divisio n, Subject: Monitoring Results, Permit #NH 0000036, out fall serial # 001. 27 September. 4 pages.

[50] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1975. L etter addressed to EPA Enforcement Division, Subject: Monitoring Results, Permit #NH 0000036, outfall serial # 001. 5 June. 2

pages.

[51] Reference Number Reserved.

[52] D. L. Maher Co. 1989. Groundwater Exploration Study, Cemetery Site, Farmington Water Department. April. 55 pages.

[53] Reference Number Reserved.

[54] Davidson Rubber Division. 1986. L etter addressed to the Office of Waste Management, Division of Public Health Services, Re: Davidson Rubber Company

– Surface Impoundment Closure. 6 May. 3 pages.

[55] Reference Number Reserved.

[56] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1986. Letter addressed to Waste Management of the Division of Public Health Services, regarding the lagoon closure activity. 22 July. 17

pages.

[57] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1986. R emedial Investigation of the Davidson Rubber Co., Farmington Plant. 8 August. 65 pages.

[58] Davidson Instrument Panel, Textron. 1988. Interoffice correspondence, Subject: GP2 Lawsuit Defense. 11 November. 2 pages.

[59] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. S oil Gas Study

- Davidson Instrument Panel Plant. 6 November. 46 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 15 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [60] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Deliverable No. 2, Source Control Alternative Evaluation, Focused Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron Plant. 12 September. 16 pages.

[61] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. L etter addressed to New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Subject: Presence of Petroleum Products in Soil and Ground Water, Davidson Interiors/TEXTRON Site. 17 August. 15 pages.

[62] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. Site Investigation Report, No. 6 Fuel Oil Release. 30 July. 96

pages.

[63] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2012. Record of Interview with Gary Rollins, Former Plant Site Empl oyee. 21 August. 4 pages.

[64] Mace, Bonnie (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re: Surface Water Pathway Calculations for the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Property. 2 October. 15 pages.

[65-66] Reference Number s Reserved.

[67] Benton, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2010. Letter addressed to Smith, N. (EPA), Subject: Trip Report, Collins & Aikman Plant (Former), TDD No. 09 -07-0008. 30 April. 29 pages.

[68] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1984. Letter addressed to Brooks, K., Subject: Well Water Samples – October 16, 1984. 5 November. 1 Page.

[69] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed to Moody, J. and Scruton, D., Subject: Well Water Quality Analyses

– December 19, 1984. 24 January. 3 pages.

[70] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Letter addressed to Williams, H. (Davidson R ubber Division), Subject: Analyses Resul ts from Residential Well Supplies Phase III Hydrogeologic Investigation, Cardinal Landfill. 28 February. 17 pages.

[71] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed to Brooks, K., Subject: Well Water Quality Collected July 7, 1985. 28 August. 2 pages.

[72] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed to Cardinal, E., Subject: Well Water Quality Sample Collected July 9, 1985. 28 August. 2

pages.

[73] New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare. 1985. Letter addressed to Brooks, K., regarding review of drinking water supply results. 25 September. 2 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 16 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [74] Kimba ll Chase Company, Inc. 1985. Letter addressed to New Hampshire Water Supply &

Poll ution Control Commission, Re: Route 153 Watermain Extension, Farmington, NH. 2 May. 1 Page.

[75] Sprague, D. (Farmington Sewer Dept.) 1985. Letter addressed to Carlson, W. (New Hampshire Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission), Re: Contaminated Well at K. Cardinals. 27 June. 1 page.

[76] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). Textron’s Cardinal Landfill, Watson Corner Road, Farmington, New Hampshire, DES Site # 198401083. Site Chronology and Info Sheet. 26 pages.

[77] Envirogen, Inc. 1999. A s

- Built Report Air Sparge and Soil Vapor Extraction System at Textron Automotive Company, Farmington, New Hampshire. 29 November. 64 pages.

[78] Reference Number Reserved.

[79] START (Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical A ssessment and Response Team III). 2010. Final Site Inspection Report and Revised Site Inspection Worksheets for Collins & Aikman Plant (Former), TDD No. 09-07- 0008. 8 July. 54 pages.

[80] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. W ork Plan for Remedial Action Plan Revisions, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 27 January. 32 pages.

[81] Davidson Rubber Division (Ex

- Cell

- O Corporation). 1984. Letter addressed to Young, S. A. B. (Orr and Reno, P.A.), Subject: Test Results

– Waste Water Drums. 1 November. 10

pages.

[8 2] Reference Number Reserved.

[83] Imbres, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re: Summary of 2012 Site Reconnaissance ; and Lagoon, Septic Tank, and Other Laboratory Analytical Results Documentation Compiled from Facility File Review. 10 October. 56 pages.

[84] Scesny, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Various Laboratory Analytical Results Documentation Compiled from Facility File Review. 11 October. 1,027 pages. O riginal quality poor

- best reproduction available.

[85] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. Letter addressed to Lucey, B. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply Engineering Services), Subject: Contamination from Davidson/Textron’s Gravel Pack, and proposed actions. 17 May. 2 pages.

[86] S.A . Alsup. 1987. Seismic Refraction Investigations, Sara Greenfield Property. 19 October. 12 Pages. O riginal quality poor - best reproduction available.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 17 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [87] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1993 S ampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 21 October. 33 pages.

[88] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling and Surface Water, June 1992 Through March 1993 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 9 June. 47 pages.

[89] GEI Consultant, Inc. 1992. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatel li & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling and Surface Water Sampling, June 1992 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 28 A ugust. 43

pages.

[90] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1992. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young , Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1991 Through February 1992 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 28 July. 69 pages.

[91] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Deliverable No. 1, F ocused Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron Plant. 8 July. 19 pages.

[92] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli &

O yer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, May 1990 Through February 1991 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 24 August. 50 pages.

[93] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron), Subject: Quarterly Sampling and Annual Summary Report, October 1988 to October 1989, Davidson Instrument Panel/ Textron Plant Site. 16 January. 27 pages.

[94] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. Data Report, Hydrogeologic Study, Sarah Greenfield Property. 26 May. 48 pages.

[95] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. S ummary Report, Environmental Investigations. November. 150 pages. O riginal quality poor - best reproduction available.

[96] Chas. T. Main, Inc. 1986. Groundwater Treatment Pilot Feasibility Study. 14 February. 72

pages.

[97] BCI Geonetics, Inc. 1985. S ummary Report of Findings

– Farmington, NH, Davidson Rubber Company and Cardinal Landfill, Hazardous Waste Files. 21 March. 26 pages.

[98] Hager

- Richter Geoscience, Inc. 2000. S eismic Refraction Survey, Textron Automotive Company Inc. June. 24 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 18 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [99] Referen ce Number Reserved.

[100] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Letter addressed

to T eaque, K., Subject: Farmington Water Works – Davidson Rubber. 24 August. 7 pages.

[101] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Letter addressed to Williams, H. (Davidson Rubber Division), regarding water samples collected on A ugust 24, and Notice of Violation. 13 October. 3 pages.

[102] Davidson Rubber Division. 1983. Memo addressed to Veale, E. and Ferrari, Subject: Farmington Brook Contamination. 25 October. 1 Page.

[103] Farmington Water/Waste Department. 1983. L etter addressed to Davidson Rubber Division, regarding the contamination at well #2. 9 November. 2 pages.

[104] Davidson Rubber Division. 1984. M emo addressed to Littlefield, R. S., Subject: Potable Water Supply Appropriation Request. 25 January. 4 pages.

[105] GeoTechnical Engineers Inc. 1984. Letter addressed Williams, H. (Davidson Rubber Company), Subject: Proposed Drinking Water Supply Well. 9 February. 3 pages.

[106] Davidson Rubber Division. Memo addressed to Sliwins k i, F. J. and Williams, H., Subject: Farmington Water Issue. 23 February. 2 pages.

[107] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1984. Request for Quote Worksheet, to provide and install a complete water system. 9 May. 3 pages.

[108] Davidson Rubber Division. 1984. Memo addressed to Littlefield, R., Subject: Water Well Installation, Project #3258. 10 May. 2 pages.

[109] Water Industries, Inc. 1984. Letter addressed to Greenlaw, H. (Davidson Rubber Company), regarding well water pumping system proposal. 6 June. 3 pages.

[110] Davidson Rubber. 1984. Well Completion Reports, Davidson Rubber Farmington Plant. 6 July. 2 pages.

[111] Ex

- Cell

- O Corporation. 1985. Letter addressed to Carlton, R. (Water Industries, Inc.), regarding review of the water well s ystem. 16 October. 4 pages.

[112] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Record of Telephone Conversation between Stark, E. M. and Sprague, D., regarding Farmington Former C&A/Davidson/Textron, Ground Water Wells. 9 February. 1 Page.

[113] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Email to Benton, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III), Subject: Farmington Plant Information, documents attached: DE S Well installation database, Hynes Memo & Newsclipping, and Dale Sprage DES Telecom.4 March. 4 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 19 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [114] Bento n, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2010. Phone Conversation Record with Sprague, D. (Farmington Water Department), Subject: Historical use of Gravel Pack Well 2 (Farmington Water System). TDD No. 09

- 07-0008. 8 March. 1 Page.

[115] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Transmittal to the Site File, number of employees that worked at the Davidson Plant in 1983. 17 March. 1 Page.

[116] Environmental Engineers, Inc. Report Submitted to Town of Farmington Board of Selectmen, Re: Study and Report on Water Supply Distribution System and Storage Facilities. 112 pages. Original quality poor- best re production available.

[117] Kimball Chase Company, Inc. 1985. Davidson Rubber, Farmington Division: Wastewater Evaluation and Disposal Plan. October. 29 pages.

[118] Reference Number Reserved.

[119] Town of Farmington Board of Selectmen. 1990. Agreement Regarding Final Settlemen t of Claims Regarding the Sarah Greenfield Property. 31 December. 7 pages.

[120] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2008. S ummary Report

– Site Review and Proposed Additional Investigations, Collins & Aikman/Former Textron Plant Site. January. 33 pages.

[121] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2009. Summary Report

– Additional Investigations and Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Former Collins and Aikman Plant Site. 1 A pril. 292

pages.

[122] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1992. Focused Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron Plant, Volume I. 24 June. 100 pages.

[123] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1992. Geohydrology and Water Quality of Stratified

- Drift Aquifers in the Bellamy, Cocheco, and Salmon Falls River Basins, Southeastern New Hampshire. 114 pa ges.

[124] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. R eport on P hase I Investigations in Support of Revised Remedial Action Plan, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 6 October. 134 pages.

[125] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Report on Investigation of Bedrock Topography , Textron Farmington Plant. December. 94 pages.

[126] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. Report on Year 2000 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Textron Manufacturing Facility. February. 135 pages.

[127] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1984. Interim Rep ort Summary of Field and Laboratory Data for Hydrogeologic Study

– Davidson Rubber Company Farmington Plant. 10 December. 124 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 20 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [128] Davi dson Interiors. 1994. Application for Groundwater Management Permit. 6 June. 266

pages.

[129] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. Report on Pump Test Gravel Pack 2 Well. September. 85

pages.

[130] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. Hydrogeologic Study, Sarah Greenfield Property. 19 October. 95 pages.

[131] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Source Characterization S tudy - Davidson Instrument Panel Plant. 29 May. 62 pages.

[132] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Report, Pre

- Design Program, Davidson Plant. 10 January. 605

pages. Original quality poor

- best reproduction possible.

[133] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007. 2006 Ground water Management Permit Annual Report, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 30 January. 212 pages.

[134] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter Addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: 1993

– 1994 Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1993 through July 1994 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sara Greenfield Property. 17 November. 104 pages.

[135] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2011. Monitoring Well Inventory and Groundwater Sampling, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. December. 177 pages.

[136] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2008. Interim Report of Findings, Soil

- Gas and Groundwater Sampling, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. May. 301 pages.

[137] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2010. S ummary Letter Report, SH

- 8R Additional Investigations, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. March. 66 pages.

[138] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply & Pollution Control Division), Subject: Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells for Ground Water Management Zone Monitoring, Davidson Plant. 13 December. 3 pages.

[139] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. G round Water Monitoring Results, April 1995 Sampling, Davidson Plant Site. July. 42 pages.

[140] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1995 Annual Report. 22 March. 121 pages.

[141] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. Letter addressed to Donahue, M. P. (New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission) regarding results received from the town well testing completed on February 16. 2 April. 5 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 21 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [142] Refer ence Number Reserved.

[143] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1997. Toxico logical Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. September. Excerpt, 318

pages.

[144] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive Company), Subject: Operation and Maintenance Activities Status Summary, Textron Plant Ground Water Remediation. 27 November. 25 pages.

[145] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1998. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1997 Annual Report, Textron Automotive Company. 26 February. 135 pages.

[146] Rath, Young, and Pignatelli P.A. 1998. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), RE: Textron Automotive Company, July 1998 Thirdly Groundwater Monitoring Results. 9 October. 60 pages.

[147] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reg istry. 1997. T oxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. September. Excerpt, 335

pages.

[148] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. 2004 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 31 January. 173 pages.

[149] Bitzas, S. (West on Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Groundwater Analytical Data Packages. 11 O ctober. 222

pages.

[150] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Davidson Instrument

Panel/Tex tron), Subject: Analytical Results for October 1989 S ampling Round, Sarah Greenfield Property. 11 January. 37 pages.

[151] Rath, Young, Pignatelli and Oyer, P.A. 1991. Letter addressed to Carlson, W. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), Re : Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1991 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 26 September. 32 pages.

[152] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, October 1991 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 18 December. 48 pages.

[153] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A. ), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, November 1992 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 13 January. 32 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 22 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [154] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, March 1994 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 19 May. 62 pages.

[155] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, November 1994 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 7 February. 72 pages.

[156] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. Ground Water Monitoring Results, November 1995 Sampling, Textron Plant Site. March. 73 pages.

[157] GEI Co nsultants, Inc. 1997. Ground Water Management Zone Permit 1996 Annual Report, Textron Automotive Company. 30 April. 253 pages.

[158] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water Management Permit No. GWP -870514-F- 001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield Property. 19 June. 55 pages.

[159] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oy er P.A.), Subject: July 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water Management Permit No. GWP -870514-F- 001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield Property. 6 October. 50 pages.

[160] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: November 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water Management Permit No. GWP -870514-F- 001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield Property. 22 December. 49 pages.

[161] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1998. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 1998 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water Management Permit No. GWP -870514-F- 001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield Property. 21 May. 61 pag es.

[162] Rath, Young, and Pignatelli P.A. 1999. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), RE: Textron Plant Site/Sara Greenfield Property. 19 August. 64 pages.

[163] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive Company), Subject: April 2000 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP

870514-F-001. 13 July. 81 pages.

[164] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive Company), Subject: July 2001 Groundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP -870514- F-001. 30 August. 60 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 23 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [165] Hal ey & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. R eport on 2001 G roundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Textron Automotive Trim, Collins & Aikman Corporation. January. 154 pages.

[166] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. L etter addressed to Groundwater Management Permits Coordinator (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division), Subject: July 2002 Groundwater Sampling, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant

Sit e, NHDES Permit No. GWP -870514-F-001. 9 September. 70 pages.

[167] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. 2002 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc. January. 143 pages.

[168] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. R eport on July 2004 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 7 September. 90 pages.

[169] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. R eport on July 2005 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 30 September. 96 pages.

[170] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. 2005 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 27 January. 198 pages.

[171] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. Report on A pril 2006 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 8 June. 88 pages.

[172] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive Company), Subject: April 2002 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP

870514-F-001. 28 June. 47 pages.

[173] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. G round Water Monitoring Results, July 1995 S ampling, Davidson Plant Site. 20 September. 44 pages.

[174] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1999. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1998 Annual Report, Textron Automotive Company. 26 February. 160 pages.

[175] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1999. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: July 1999 Thirdly Groundwater Monitoring Results, Groundwater Management Permit No. GWP -870514-F- 001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield Property. 28 October. 125 pa ges.

[176] GEI Consultants, Inc. 2000. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1999 Annual Report, Textron Automotive Company. 7 M arch. 207 pages. Original quality poor

- best reproduction possible.

[177] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Groundwater Management Permit Renewal, Textron Automotive Company. April. 75 pages.

[178] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Five Year Review, Textron Farmington Site. May. 13 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 24 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [179] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive Company), Subject: April 2001 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP

870514-F-001. 30 August. 59 pages.

[180] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Air Stripper Pilot Test Workplan, Ground water Treatment System, Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors. March. 22 pages.

[181] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 2003 G roundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No.

G WP -198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 20 June. 62 pages.

[182] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. R eport on A ir Stripper Pilot Test, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. September. 97 pages.

[183] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors), Subject: Results of W19A Pumping Tests and Recommendations for System Modification, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plan Groundwater Containment System. 29 September. 12 pages.

[184] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: July 2003 Groundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No. GWP

198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 20 November. 71 pages.

[185] Haley & Aldrich , Inc. 2004. R emedial Action Plan Addendum, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. January. 157 pages.

[186] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. 2003 Annual Report, Groundwater Management Permit, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. January. 143 pages.

[187] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 2004 G roundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No.

GWP -198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 21 May. 74 pages.

[188] Haley & A ldrich, Inc. 2006. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc.), Subject: July 2006 G roundwater Monitoring Report. 11 September. 79

pages.

[189] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotiv e Company), Subject: July 2000 Groundwater Sampling, Farmington Plant Site, NHDES

Permit No. GWP -870514-F-001. 20 September. 57 pages.

[190] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. Report on A pril 2005 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 28 July. 114 pages.

[191] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1995. Letter to Thomas, J. (Davidson Interiors), Re: Farmington

– Davidson Interiors Groundwater Management Permit (DES# 870514). 5 May. 8 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 25 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [192] Bit zas, S. (W eston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Influent and Effluent Data for Ground water remediation system. 11 October. 48 pages.

[193] START (Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2010. Site Logbook, Collins & Aikman Plant (Former), TDD No. 01 -09-07- 0008. 28 January. 6 pages.

[194] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1984. Letter to Rath, T. D. (Orr and Reno P.A.), Subject: Samples from Farmington, New Hampshire, Split with Geotechnical Engineers. 28 March. 4 pages.

[195] Carlson, W. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1984. Communication to File, Subject: Farmington and Davidson Rubber Groundwater Samples. 11 April. 4 pages.

[196] Parsons Corporation. 2004. Principles and Practices of Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. August. 457 pages.

[197] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Site Characterization Technologies

for DNAP L Investigations. September. Excerpt, 165 pages.

[198] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1997. Tetrachloroethylene, CAS # 127-18-4. September. 2 pages.

[199] U.S. Department of Health and Huma n Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. Trichloroethylene, CAS # 79-01-6. July. 2 pages.

[200] Washoe County Department of Water Resources Water Service. Central Truckee Meadows

Remediation District: What is PCE? Available fromwww.co.washoe.nv.us/water/ctmrdpce.htm. Internet accessed 4 April 2011. 4 pages.

[201] United Kingdom Environment Agency. 2003. An illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface. June. 67 pages.

[202] Reference Number Reserved.

[203] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1995. 1,1-Dichloroethene, CAS # 75-35-4. September. 2 pages.

[204] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1997. 1,2

- Dichloroethene, CAS # 540 -59- 0, 156 -59- 2, 156 -60- 5. September. 2

pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 26 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [205] US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) CLU

- IN (Contaminated Site Cleanup Information): C ontaminants: Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAP LS): Policy and Guidance: 1,2

- Dichloroethene. Available from http://clu

in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Dense_Nonaqueous_Phase_Liquids_(DNAPLs)/ cat/Chemistry_and_Behavior/p/3/n/3. I nternet accessed 12 October 2012. Excerpt, 5

page s.

[206] US E PA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) CLU

- IN (Contaminated Site Cleanup Information): Contaminants: Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs): Chemistry and

Behavior: 1,2

- Dichloroethene. Available from http://clu -in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Dense_Nonaqueous_Phase_Liquids_( DNAPLs)/cat/Chemistry_and_Behavior/p/3/n/3 . I nternet accessed 12 October 2012. Excerpt, 2 page s.

[207] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1,1

- Dichloroethene. Available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=130. Internet accessed 12 October 2012. Excerpt, 2 pages.

[208] Reference Number Reserved.

[209] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2006. Public Health Statement: Vinyl Chloride, CAS#:75 -01- 4. Available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp20- c1

- b.pdf. July. Excerpt, 7 pages.

[210] Scesny, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: determination of the distance between GP

- 2 and the four

source areas located on the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site. 11 November. 2 pages.

[211] GeoInsight, Inc. 2006. 2 005 Annual Water Quality Report, Town of Farmington, Farmington Municipal Landfill. 10 February. 37 pages.

[212] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2007. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2006 Annual Water Quality Report. March. 80 pages.

[213] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2007. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2007 Annual Water Quality Report. December. 66 pages.

[214] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2009. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2008 Annual Water Quality Report. January. 69 pages.

[215] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2010. L etter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, RE: Farmington Municipal Landfill Water Quality Results

– April 2010, GWP 198401085-F-002. 4 May. 26 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 27 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [216] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2011. L etter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, RE: Farmington Municipal Landfill, Groundwater Permit No. 198401085 -F-002, Groundwater Management Permit Renewal and 2010 Annual Wa ter Quality Summary. 19 January. 78 pages.

[217] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2012. . Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2011 Annual Water Quality Report. January. 65 pages.

[218] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Superfund Site Information Syst em. Farmington, New Hampshire Search Results. Available from http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1&CFID=11069167&CFTOK EN=60314027&jsessionid=e03078a3aa561ba958ee34745546455e5d6a . Internet accessed on 26 September 2012. 1 page.

[219] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), RCRAInfo (Resource Conservation Act Information Sy stem). Farmington, New Hampshire search results. Available from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/index.html . Internet accessed on 26 S eptember 2012. 23 pages.

[220] U.S. Departmen t of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment, Cardinal Landfill. Available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1172&pg=1 . Internet accessed on 15 October 2012. 18 pages.

[221] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007. 2006 Annual GMP Report, Cardinal Landfill Site. 31 January. 288 pages.

[222] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman, Inc. ), 2005 Annual GMP Report, Cardinal Landfill Site. 24 January. 261 pages

. Original quality poor

best reproduction possible.

[223] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. S ummary Report, Phase II Hydrogeologic Study, Cardinal Landfill, Volume 1 of 2. 15 February. 100 pages.

[224] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Appendices, Summary Report, Phase II Hydrogeologic Study, Cardinal Landfill, Volume 2 of 2. 15 February. 299 pages.

[225] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Phase III Hydrogeologic Study, Cardinal Landfill. 8 May. 52 pages.

[226] New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services and New Hampshire Water Supply and

Control Commission . Preliminary Assessment of the Cardinal Land fill Site. 5 pages.

[227] Dupree, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re: RCRA, CERLIS, and NHDES OneStop Sites in Farmington NH (Attribution). 22 October. 92 pages.REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 28 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 [228] Hor n ok , G. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Summary of Potential Groundwater Population within 4 Radial Miles of Collins & Aikman Plant (Former). 21 October. 15 pages.

[229] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2012. Email to Hornok, G. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III), Subject: Davidson-Records of Lagoon Closure. 22 October. 1 page.

[230] Goldsmith, R., 1993. S urficial Geologi c Map of the Baxter Lake Quadrangle, Strafford County, New Hampshire. 3 pages.

[231] Goldsmith, R 1993. Surficial Geologic Map of the Farmington Quadrangle, Strafford and Carroll Counties, New Hampshire. 3 pages.

[232] Envirogen, Inc. 2001. S emi -Annual Status Report No. 3

, September 26, 20 00 Through February 20, 2001, Project No. 92079. 29 March. 13 pages.

[233] Envirogen, Inc. 2002. S emi

- Annual Status Report No. 5

, August 15, 2001 Through February 15, 2 002, Project No. 92079. 15 March. 18 pages. Origi nal quality poor

- best reproduction possible.

[234] Willoughby, S. A. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division). 2002. Letter to Mr. James Thomas, Textron Automotive Company, RE : Farmington

– Textron Automotive Compan y: 2001 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report dated January 2002; Analytical Results from Groundwater Treatment System Monitoring dated February 26, 2 002; April 2001 GMP Monitoring Report dated August 31, 2001 ; July 2001 GMP Monitoring Report dated August 31, 2001; and Five Year Review dated May 2000 ; by Haley & A ldrich (DES #198705014). 9 August. 4 pages.

[235] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division). 2007. L etter to James Thomas, Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc., RE: Farmington

– Textron Automotive Company Site, 56 Davidson Drive (Route 11) DES Site #198705014, Project #211, R eport on P hase I Investigations in Support of Revised Remedial Action Plan, prepared by Haley & Aldrich , dated October 6, 2006. 7 March. 4

pages.

[236] Envirogen, Inc. 2000. S emi

- Annual Status Report No. 2, F ebruary 4, 2000 Through September 5, 2000 , Project No. 92079. 29 September. 3 pages.Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 29 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 SITE S UMMARY

– Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

The Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site consists of three sources and the documented release of five hazardous substances to the overburden/bedrock aquifer and a Town of Farmington, New Hampshire (NH) former public drinking water supply well [Gravel Pack Number 2 (GP2) Well] downgradient from the facility (see HRS Figure 1) . The three site sources which have released hazardous substances to the underlying aquifer consist of the following: leaks and spills fro m a former tetrachloroethene (PCE) solvent aboveground storage tank (AST) and piping, located south of the (now demolished) manufacturing building; a former percolating lagoon system, which includes three lagoons located east of the former manufacturing building, along NH Route 11; and a septic system tank, formerly located northwest of the manufacturing building (see HRS Figure 2) [see the Source Characterization sections of this HRS documentation record]. These sources have been documented to contain the following eight hazardous substances: PCE; trichloroethene (TCE); trans -1,2- dichloroethene (trans -1,2- DCE); vinyl chloride (VC); methylene chloride; methyl ethyl ketone (MEK); toluene; and xylene [see Source

Char acterization sections]. A release of PCE, TCE, VC, cis -1,2- dichloroethene (cis -1,2- DCE ) , and trans

1,2- DCE from sources to ground water and the downgradient drinking water supply well has been documented [see the Ground Water Migration Pathway section of this HRS documentation record]. This release includes contamination exceeding the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in a drinking water supply well formerly serving an average of 750 employees [see the Ground Water Migration Pathway section].

The Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property (the property) is an approximately 123- acre parcel located at 56 Davidson Drive along NH Route 11 in Farmington, Strafford County, NH (see HRS Figure 1) [6, p.1; 11, p. 1]. The parcel is identified by the Town of Farmington Property Map Numbers (Nos.) R -31

and R

- 36, as Lot Nos. 34 and 2, r espectively [7, p. 1; 62, p. 25 ]. The geographic coordinates of the property, as measured from the former location of the PCE solvent AST, are 43o 22' 19.2" north latitude

and 71o 03' 31.5 " west longitude (see Figure 1) [9, p. 1; 10, p. 1; 121, p. 41]. The property is bordered to the north by NH Route 11; to the east by agricultural land and Meeting House Road; to the south by agricultural and undeveloped land; and to the west by Paulson Road and Pound Road [67, p. 8].

Ownership of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property prior to 1964 is unknown based on available file documentation. In 1964, D avidson Rubber Company (DRC), which was owned by McCord Corporation of Michigan, purchased the property [62, p. 9]. Between 1964 and 1987, ownership of DRC was transferred on two separate occasions from the original owners ( with ownership by McCord Corporation from 1964 to 1980, Ex

- Cell

- O Corporation from 1980 to 1986, and Textron, Inc. from 1986 to 1987) [62, p. 9]. However, the DRC name was kept until 1987, when under ownership by Textron,
Inc., it changed to Davidson Textron, Inc. [62, p. 9]. In 1994, Davidson Textron, Inc. changed its name to Textron Automotive Interiors, Inc., but remained under the same ownership (Textron, Inc.) [62, p. 9]. In 2001, Textron Automotive Interiors, Inc. was purchased by Collins & Aikman Interiors, Inc.; and in 2002, the company name was changed to Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc. (Collins & Aikman) [6 2, p. 9]. In 2007, ownership of the property was transferred to the New Hampshire Custodial Trust [6 , p. 1 ].

As of January 2010, the majority of the 123

- acre Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property consisted of undeveloped wooded areas [67, p. 6]. According to previous reports, the former actively used area of the property [the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility (the facility)] occupied approximately 33 acres and included a 232,000

- square foot (ft 2 ) manufacturing building, a 60,000

- ft 2 warehou se, and paved areas which covered most of the remaining facility area [57, p. 8 ; 124, p. 8 ; 193, p. 4]. The manufacturing building was demolished in 2010 [83, p. 1; 193, p. 4 ].

According to available documentation, operations conducted at the facility inc luded the manufacturing of instrumentation panel pads for automobiles and trucks [127, p. 10]. The instrumentation panel padsCollins & Aikman Plant (Former) 30 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 consist ed of polyurethane foam in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) shell [127, p. 10]. Manufacturing processes conducted at the facility included polyurethane foam molding, construction of PVC shells, and the assembly of the finished panels [127, p. 10]. Paint operations were also conducted at the facility; however, the paint line was removed in 1983 [127, p. 10]. The manufacturing processes involved the use of solvents, some of which had been inadvertently released to ground water, soil, and surface water at the facility since the facility began operation in 1966 [57, pp. 2, 9

- 10]. Solvents used at the facility included isopropyl alcohol, PCE, TCE, methylene chloride, acetone, xylene, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and MEK [57, p. 10; 63, p. 1 ]. Wastes produced by the manufacturing processes were derived primarily from the cleaning of metal and epoxy molds; cleaning of air compress ors and paint guns; and reclamation of materials, including PVC, from defective panels [127, p. 10]. In an undated NH Industrial Waste Survey, DRC indicated that an average of 28,000 gallons of wastewater was discharged to the percolation lagoons daily, an d methylene chloride and PCE were recycled or recovered from operation wastes [22, pp. 1-3].

Organic solvents, including PCE, MEK, xylene, and methylene chloride, were stored in ASTs which were located 250 feet west of the manufacturing building, and which were connected to the building via underground piping [124, p. 8]. In 1977, a documented spill of PCE solvent occurred during refilling of an AST [63, p. 1]. Additional solvent releases from leaking underground piping also occurred [57, p. 16; 63, p.1]. The ASTs and associated underground piping were removed in 1985 [124, p. 8].

A former septic and leachfield area existed northwest of the former manufacturing building, between the manufacturing building and the warehouse [120, pp. 3, 23, 27]. According to previous reports, from 1966 to 1983, floor washings and inadvertent chemical spills may have been discharged to the septic and leachfield system [57, p. 15]. Based on the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) in ground water in thi s area, Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. ( SHA ) concluded that histor ical discharge of aqueous- phase CVOCs to the leachfields had occurred [120, p. 3].

Investigations of environmental conditions at the property began in 1984 after low concentrations of

vo latile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the GP2 municipal drinking water supply well [124, p. 8]. The GP2 supply well is located downgradient of the facility within the sand and gravel aquifer of the Sarah Greenfield Property (also referred to in some file documentation as Sara Greenfield Property) (SGP) (see HRS Figures 3 and 4) [130, pp. 8

- 10, 17, 39

- 42]. A Groundwater Management Permit (GMP) was first issued for the facility in 1995 for an effective period of 5 years, and was renewed in August

2 002 [124, p. 9]. The GMP established the Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ), which included the active facility portion of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) pr operty and the downgradient SGP, and implemented a ground water monitoring program which included sampling to be performed on a thirdly basis (April, July, and November of each year) [124, p. 9]. The conditions of the GMP were implemented by contractors for DRC and subsequently Collins & Aikman from July 1995 until November 1999 [Geotechnical Enginee rs, Inc. (GEI)] and from April 2000 t o January 2007 [Haley & Aldrich (H&A)] [133, pp. 1

- 34; 139, pp. 2

- 4; 163, pp. 1

- 2; 176, pp. 6

- 28; 177, pp. 1

- 42]. In 2005, it was determined that

Collins & Aikman had failed to meet the deadline to achieve NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards (AGQS) in the SGP [120, p. 3]. In 2007, Collins & Aikman declared bankruptcy [120, p. 4].

Analytical data files retrieved from the facility indicate that extensive sampling was conducted at the facility between 1981 and 2002 f or various purposes [84, p. 1]. Furthermore, numerous investigations have been performed concerning the following : to determine the extent of VOC contamination within ground water at the facility an d the adjacent SGP; to determine the hydrogeologic setting of the

overburden/ bedrock aquifer at both the facility and the downgradient SGP; to document the ground water contamination over time and maintain compliance with the S tate

- issued GMPs ; t o determi ne feasible remediation options to address the do cumented VOC

- contaminated ground water plume; and toCollins & Aikman Plant (Former) 31 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 document the effectiveness of the implemented ground water remediation activities [5, pp. 1

- 9; 42, pp. 3

- 10; 57, pp. 2

- 4; 60, pp. 1 -12; 79, pp. 28-32; 80 , pp. 1

- 18; 86, pp. 2, 5; 87, pp. 1

- 2; 88, pp. 1

- 7; 89, pp. 1

- 3; 90, pp. 1

- 6; 91, pp. 1

- 3; 92, pp. 1

- 7; 93, pp. 1

- 5; 94, pp. 1

- 48; 96, p. 3; 97, pp. 2

- 3; 98, pp. 1

- 2; 100, pp.

1- 7; 101, pp. 1

- 3; 120, pp. 1

- 19; 121, pp. 1

- 29; 124, pp. 1 -21; 1 25, pp. 1 -9; 126, pp. 2

- 24; 127, pp. 6

- 9; 128, pp. 32

- 93; 129, pp. 40

- 42; 130, p. 2; 131, p. 2; 132, pp. 1

- 30; 133, pp. 1

- 34; 134, pp. 1

- 6; 135, pp. 1

- 4; 136, pp. 1

- 8; 137, pp. 1

- 9; 138, p. 1; 139, pp. 2

- 4; 140, pp. 8

- 23; 144, pp. 1

- 10; 145, pp. 8

- 37; 146, pp.

2- 6; 148, pp. 1

- 30; 151, pp. 2

- 4; 152, pp. 1

- 3; 153, pp. 1

- 2; 154, pp. 1

- 2; 155, pp. 1

- 2; 156, pp. 2

- 4; 157, pp. 2

- 29; 158, pp. 1

- 4; 160, pp. 1

- 4; 161, pp. 1

- 3; 162, pp. 2

- 6; 163, pp. 1

- 2; 164, pp. 1

- 2; 165, pp. 2

- 25; 166, pp. 1

- 2; 167, pp. 2

- 25; 168, pp. 1

- 6; 1 69, pp. 1

- 7; 170, pp. 1

- 25; 171, pp. 1

- 6; 172, pp. 1

- 2; 173, pp.

2- 4; 174, pp. 8

- 35; 175, pp. 1

- 6; 176, pp. 6

- 28; 177, pp. 1

- 42; 178, pp. 1

- 9; 179, pp. 1

- 2; 180, pp. 1 -5; 181, pp. 1

- 3; 182, pp. 1

- 5; 183, pp. 1

- 5; 184, pp. 1

- 4; 185, pp. 1

- 5; 186, pp. 2 -28 ; 187, pp. 1

- 4; 188, pp. 1

- 5; 189, pp. 1-2; 190, pp. 1-6; 191, pp. 1-8].Source Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 32 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.2 SOURCE CHARACT ERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source : PCE Tank

Number of Source: Source No. 1

Source Type : Other

– Leaks and Spills

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site):

According to a 1986 Remedial Investigation (RI) report prepared by Chas T. Main, who was retained by DRC, three 2,000

- gallon solvent storage tanks were installed at the facility in 1966 for bu lk storage of PCE, MEK, and xylene solvents [57, pp. 2, 15]. Operations began at the facility in 1966, and included the use of PCE for degreasing and cleaning of molds until 1978 [57, pp. 8 -10; 63, p. 1]. Based on an August 2012 interview of a former emplo yee at the facility, conducted by a NHDES Waste Management Division representative, the PCE solvent stored in the AST and used at the facility was referred to by the trade name “Philsol” [63, p. 1]. The three solvent storage tanks were originally installed on an exterior concrete pad, near what became the southern corner of the manufacturing building following the expansion of the building in 1977 [57, pp. 15, 62

- 63]. The solvents were conveyed from the tanks to the manufacturing building via 2

- inch steel u nderground piping [57, p. 15; 63, p. 1]. In 1977, the solvent storage tanks and underground pipelines were relocated approximately 300 f eet to the west of the original location, immediately west of the southern corner of the newly expanded manufacturing bu ilding (see HRS Figure 2) [57, pp. 15

- 16, 62

- 63]. The pipeline connecting this new PCE solvent AST area is depicted as extending approximately 150 f eet northeast from the tank area to the southern portion of the building [131, p. 26]. In 1978, the use of PCE was discontinued, and the storage of methylene chloride was initiated in lieu of PCE [57, pp. 10, 16]. In 1985, the three solvent storage tanks and associated pipelines were removed [57, p. 16; 62, p. 10 ].

Previous reports and an interview with a former employee at the facility indicate that an overfill spill of PCE solvent associated with an AST occurred in 1977, and that there were additional releases due to leakage/rupturing of the pipelines [42, p. 3; 63, p. 1; 122, p. 2]. Source No. 1 (Other

– Lea ks and Spills) comprises an unknown quantity of spilled PCE released from the overfill spill and leaking pipelines. Analytical results of soil samples collected from the area of the PCE solvent AST and associated piping provide additional supporting eviden ce of a release from Source No. 1, as described below.

Documentation of the August 2012 NHDES interview with a former employee indicated that a release of “several hundred gallons of solvent” occurred in late 1977 during filling of a decommissioned tank v ia a tanker [63, p. 1]. According to NHDES’s documentation of the interview, the “solvent was not recovered, and may have soaked into the ground around the pad and then flowed into the small nearby stream” [63, p. 1]. The former employee further stated that in 1978, he recognized a discrepancy between the amount of PCE solvent delivered to the facility and the amount used according to kept stock room records, and that several weeks later he noted a “PCE smell” outside the manufacturing building [63, p. 1]. Subsequent excavation was conducted in this area, and “the underground line leading to the Plant was found to have been ruptured by frost” [63, p. 1]. According to a facility diagram provided in the NHDES interview, the PCE solvent AST held 3,700 gallons [63, p. 3]. According to an undated NH Industrial Waste Survey, 9,400 gallons of PCE were recycled or recovered by DRC; however, it is unclear if this quantity refers to use on a weekly, annual, or other basis [22, pp. 1

- 2]. No further documentation regarding the quantity of PCE used at the facility or released during the overfill spill or from leaking pipes was found in available

file documentation.Source Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 33 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 In 1989, GEI conducted a soil gas study, authorized by Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron, to identify
potent ial subsurface source areas of VOCs beneath and outside of the manufacturing building [59, p. 2]. The highest VOC concentrations in soil gas samples [ including concentrations of PCE, TCE, dichloroethylene (DCE), and VC] were detected at sampling locations between the former solvent storage tank area and the southern corner of the manufacturing building , indicating that VOCs from the tanks and associated piping may have been released to the soils between the former tanks and the building [59, pp. 2, 11]. Based on the results of the soil gas study, GEI concluded that VOCs may have been released from the tanks and associated piping to the soils between the tanks and the manufacturing building, and GEI

identified this area as a potential source area [59, pp. 11-12; 131, p. 17].

As described below, laboratory analytical results of soil samples collected during additional investigations, including the 1990 G EI Source Characterization Study, 1994 G EI Pre

- Design Program,

and 200 9 SHA Additional Investigations and Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, have identified an area of contaminated soil associated with the PCE solvent storage tank and piping [ 121, pp. 9, 41, 74, 79, 189; 131, pp. 20, 23, 26, 29, 3 2, 34, 55

- 56; 132, pp. 56, 102, 132, 161 ]. Analytical results of soil samples collected during these investigations support that a release of PCE occurred [ 121, pp. 185, 189; 131, pp. 29, 32, 34, 55

- 56, 58

- 59; 132, pp. 132, 161]. Background soil samples collected during these investig ations indicate that the hazardous substances detected in the contaminated soil samples were above local background levels, and that these hazardous substances are not ubiquitous throughout the

local area [ 121, pp. 176, 178, 182, 185, 189; 131, pp. 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55

- 57, 58

- 59; 132, pp. 132, 140, 161-162].

Laboratory analytical results of four soil samples (MW

- 105S:S2, B

- 2:S1, B

- 4:S1, and B

- 4:S3) collected as part of the 1990 GEI Source Characterization Study from borings located in the vicinity of the former PCE solvent storage tank documented the presence of the following hazardous substances at levels above laboratory reporting limits: PCE; TCE; 1,1

- dichlorethylene (1,1

- DCE); cis -1,2- DCE; 1,1 -dichloroethane (1,1- DCA); and methylene chloride [131, pp. 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55

- 56, 58

- 89]. The concentration s of these hazardous substances in soil samples were significantly above non- detect background levels, based on comparison to three background soil samples (B -8:S- 2, B -10:S- 1, and B

- 103:S5A) collected from nearby locations that were outside the area influenced by a release from the PCE solvent tank area [131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55

- 57]. The analytical results of the four soil samples were compared to the contaminant concentrations detected in the background soil sample(s) which displayed the most similar matrix compositions [131, pp. 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43].

The background and contaminated soil samples were collected from similar depth intervals [between 3 and 10 f eet below ground surface (bgs)], during the same time period, and using the s ame collection methods; and all samples were submitted to Eastern Analytical Inc. (EAI) laboratory for analysis via EPA Method 8010, 8015, and/or 8020 [131, pp. 7

- 8, 10, 12, 23, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55

- 59]. The maximum

concentrations of hazardous substa nces detected among the four contaminated soil samples were detected in sample B

- 4:S1, as follows: PCE [11,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)]; TCE (440 mg/Kg); 1,1

- DCE (1.7 mg/Kg); cis -1,2- DCE (500 mg/Kg); 1,1

- DCA (1.8 mg/Kg); and methylene chloride (3. 0 mg/Kg) [131, pp. 23, 29, 32, 34, 55-56].

Laboratory analytical results of one soil sample (SC5

- SS1) collected as part of the 1994 GEI Pre

- Design Program from a boring located in the vicinity of the former PCE solvent storage tank documented the

presence of PCE at a concentration of 4.1 mg/Kg, above the laboratory reporting limit [132, pp. 56, 102, 132, 161]. The concentration of this hazardous substance in this soil sample was significantly above background levels based on comparison to background soil s ample SC8

- SS1, which contained a similar matrix composition and was collected from a nearby location presumably outside the area influenced by a release from the PCE solvent tank area [132, pp. 43, 56, 102, 105 , 132, 140 ]. Note that in differentSource Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 34 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 sections o f the GEI Pre

- Design Program report, these samples are also referred to as SC5

- S1 and SC8

- S1; however, these samples are referred to as SC5

- SS1 and SC8

- SS1 on t he chain -of- custody (COC) and laboratory reports [132, pp. 43, 1 02, 105, 132, 140, 161

- 162]. The background and contaminated soil samples were collected from the same depth interval (0 to 2 feet bgs), during the same time period, and using the same collection methods; and both samples were submitted to Pace Incorporated (Pace) laboratory for analysis via EPA SW 846, 3 rd Edition, Method 8240 [132, pp. 20, 43, 72, 102, 105, 132, 140, 161-162].

Laboratory analytical results of two soil samples [SH

- 3 (S

- 1) and B

- 5 (S

- 2)] collected from borings located in the vicinity of the former PCE solvent storage tank in 2008 as part of the 2009 SHA Evaluation documented the presence of PCE at levels above laboratory detection limits [note that SH

- 3 (S

- 1) is reported as “SH

- 3” on the laboratory report and COC] [121, pp. 9, 41, 74, 79, 185, 189]. The laboratory

dete ction limit for PCE was determined based on the evaluation of a trip blank sample that was submitted for analysis as part of the same sample delivery group [121, pp. 183, 185]. The concentrations of PCE in

contaminated soil samples were significantly above background levels based on c omparison to one background soil sample [B

- 2 (S

- 2)], which contained a similar matrix composition and was collected from a nearby location outside the area influenced by a release from the PCE solvent tank area [121, pp. 31, 41, 71, 74, 79, 176, 178, 182, 185, 189 ].

The background and contaminated soil samples were collected from similar depth intervals (between 0.7 and 4 feet bgs), during the same time period, and using the same collection methods; and all samples were

submit ted to EAI laboratory for analysis via EPA Method 8260B [121, pp. 31, 71, 74, 79, 176, 178, 182

- 183, 185, 189]. The maximum concentration of PCE detected among the two contaminated soil samples was 30 mg/Kg in SH-3 (S-1) [121, pp. 31, 74, 79, 185, 189].

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

PCE

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Evidence of hazardous substance migration from Source No. 1 i s based on information provided by a former employee, who indicated that the PCE solvent spilled in 1977 was never recovered; therefore, PCE would have presumably continued to migrate through the environment following the spill [63, p. 1]. Hazardous substance migration from Source No. 1 has also been documented by analytical results of soil samples collected from around the area of the PCE solvent AST and associated piping [121, pp. 74, 79, 185, 189; 131, pp. 23, 29, 32, 34, 55

- 56; 132, pp. 102, 132, 161]. Therefore, Source No. 1 does not have full containment, and the source yields a containment value of 10 for the Ground Water Migration Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3- 2)].

Table 1 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water : Based on a documented spill of PCE and leaking underground pipes , a Containment Factor Value of 10 has been assigned for release to ground water for Source No. 1. 10 1, p. 51597 (Table 3

- 2); 63, p. 1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34,

55

- 56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161Source Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 35 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The Hazardous Waste Quantity (HWQ) for Source No. 1 was assigned a value of unknown but greater than 0, based on the documented presence of the source, and the lack of information regarding the quantity of the source due to source remediation activities conducted between 1999 and 2002 [63, p. 1; 77, p. 3; 233, p. 1]. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Values were not evaluated for Source No. 1 because insufficient information was available, as described in the sections below [1, pp. 51590- 51591 (Sections 2 .4.2.1.1 and 2.4.2.1.2, Table 2-5)].

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifests, potentially responsible party (PR P) records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately

calculate the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient informat ion to calculate the Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for the source and releases from the sour ce is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Ha zardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1

with reasonable confidence. Sum of Wastestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2- 5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value : NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

An August 2012 NHDES interview with a former employee indicated that in 1977, a release of “several hundred gallons of solvent”, which were not recovered, occurred during filling of a decommissioned tank [63, p. 1]. No documentation is available regarding the exact quantity of PCE solvent spilled in 1977, or regarding the quantity documented to have been released from the ruptured pipeline [63, p. 1].Source Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 36 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 An air sparge and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system was installed in May 1999 and began operating

in September 1999 to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and pipelines southwest of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. The system was designed to operate concurrently with six ground water extraction wells (W

- 20 through W

- 25) ins talled in the source area, and included in

- situ soil vapor extraction of the unconsolidated overburden to recover VOCs from source soils located above and below the natural ground water table [176, pp. 8 -9 ; 236, p. 2 ]. The AS/SVE system included nine shallow SVE wells and 10 deep SVE wells installed in the vadose zone, and 10 air sparge wells installed

below the dewatered ground water table [236, pp. 1 -2]. The AS/SVE system was operated only intermittently between 2000 and 2002 due to various issues [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2].

These issues includ ed dewatering and system electrical problems; high ground water conditions, which

blocked the SVE well screens which was caused by irregular operation of the source area ground water

extraction wells ; operations and maintenance activities; and the ground water table being too low to provide effective sparging conditions [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. In a 2000 Five Year Annual Review Report, H&A stated that the on

- site remediation systems did not appear to be reducing

the extent of the VOC

- contaminated ground water plume rapidly enough to meet the existing 10

- year remedial goal [178, p. 6 ]. In 2002, N HDES expressed concern that the AS/SVE wells may not be optimally designed and may not actively remediate the source of PCE, and noted that the concentration of PCE in ground water in the area had recently increased to 700 micrograms per liter (μg/L), the highest concentration since July 1998 [234, p. 3]. NHDES further stated that the system design may be affecting only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting nearby contaminated source areas [234, p. 4]. As of 15 March 2002, the AS/SVE system was shut down [233, p. 1]. In a March 2007 letter, NHDES stated that the on

- site remedial systems had failed to treat, remove, or contain all sources [235, p. 1].

As presented above in Section 2.2.1, analytical results of soil samples collected in 2008, several years

after t he initiation and shut

- down of the AS/SVE system, indicated that PCE contamination remained around Source No. 1 [121, pp. 31, 74, 79, 185, 189 ]. Therefore, the Volume Assigned Value for Source No. 1 is known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown.

Table 2 – Volume

Source Type Description (# drums or dimensions) Units (yd 3 ) References

Other

- Leaks

and Spills Overfill spill and leaks of an unknown quantity of PCE solvent >0 1, p. 51591 (Table 2

- 5); 42, p. 3; 63, p. 1; 122, p. 2

Sum (yd 3 ): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): >0 yd 3 ÷ 2.5 = >0

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should

not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3].

Area Assigned Value: 0Source Characterization

Source No. 1

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 37 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 1 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0, based on the documented presence of a source, but a lack of current information to sufficiently quantify the source [1, p. 51591,

Table 2 -5].

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Tabl e 2 -5: >0Source Characterization

Source No. 2

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 38 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.2 SOURCE CH ARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source : Percolating Lagoon System

Number of Source: Source No. 2

Source Type : Other

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site) :

In 1975, a lagoon system was constructed at the facility to receive industrial wastewater [56, p. 2; 57, p. 12]. The Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2

- Other) comprises the pipelines, influent tanks, and three perco lation lagoons which made up this lagoon system [29, p. 3; 43, pp. 3, 5, 28; 57, pp. 12 -13]. Tanks associated with the lagoon system included two settling tanks, an aeration tank, and a dose (or dosing) tank [56, p. 1]. The buried settling and dose tanks a nd the three adjacent percolation lagoons were located east of the manufacturing building, adjacent to Route 11 (see HRS Figure 2) [43, p. 28; 57, pp.

62- 63]. Based on documentation prepared by DRC, wastewater was discharged into a drain line, pumped

throu gh a distribution box, and subsequently pumped to the two settling tanks (each with a 6,500

- gallon capacity) into which the solid waste would settle out [43, pp. 3, 5]. Wastewater was then transferred from the settling tanks to the 600

- gallon aeration tank, and subsequently to the 3,200

- gallon dosing tank [43, pp. 5]. When the dosing tank reached its capacity, an automatic siphon drained the tank’s contents through aboveground pipes into the three percolation lagoons [43, pp. 3, 5]. Each lagoon encompassed an area of approximately 10,000 ft 2 and was approximately 4 feet deep [43, p. 5].

From 1975 until 1982, the lagoon system received industrial wastewater from the facility, including wastewater from the paint booth water curtains and floor drains [56, p. 2; 57, p. 12]. According to the 1986 Chas T. Main RI, solvents used by DRC as part of painting operations included acetone, xylene, toluene, MIBK, and MEK [57, p. 10]. An undated NH Industrial Waste Survey indicated that an average of 28,000 gallons of wast ewater from the parts washing process were discharged daily to the percolation lagoons, and associated wastes included “fatty metallic soap and oil base material emulsified with fatty acids and amines” [22, pp. 1

- 3]. Based on 1983 correspondence between DR C and NH Bureau of Waste Management, 7,000 gallons of “waste solvents” were generated per year from the paint line [33, p. 1]. In 1983, DRC reportedly disassembled and removed its paint line operation from the facility [33, p. 1; 45, p. 5]. According to a December 1984 Closure Plan Proposal for Surface Impoundment System, prepared by

DRC , a daily average of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of wastewater from various processes were discharged through the lagoon system [43, pp. 1, 4, 6-8].

In October 1 981, NH Bureau of Solid Waste Management representatives conducted a R esource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) inspection of the facility [26, p. 1; 27, p. 1]. The NHDES RCRA Inspection Checklist documented that the on

- site lagoons had no l iners, and t hat liners for surface impoundments were not yet regulated (NYR) at the time of the inspection [26, p. 7]. Based on the results of the RCRA inspection, NH Bureau of Solid Waste Management required that testing be conducted to

characterize the outflow of th e paint line operations and to determine whether hazardous wastes were entering the lagoons [27, p. 2]. NH representatives requested that organic solvents and extraction procedure (EP) toxicity testing be conducted for the wastewater upon entry into the la goons; for the sludge accumulated in the holding tanks; and for the soils within the lagoons at depths of 6 inches, 2 feet, and 4 feet [27, p. 2].

On 20 September 1984, GEI conducted sampling of the lagoon system under authorization by DRC [43,Source Characterization

Source No. 2

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 39 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 pp. 21

- 22]. As part of the investigation, GEI collected one sludge sample from the settling tank and one water sample from the dose tank [43, pp. 21

- 22]. Using a hand auger, GEI also collected one surface soil sample from each of the three percolation lago ons [43, pp. 23, 28]. On 30 October 1984, GEI excavated test pits in each of the three lagoons [43, pp. 23, 28]. Each test pit was excavated to the bedrock surface, which was encountered at 5 t o 8 feet deep below the bottom of the lagoons [43, pp. 23, 30 -3 5]. GEI collected soil sample aliquots from each of the three test pits (TP -1, TP-3, and TP-5), at depths of 3 feet, 5 feet, and 6 to 7 feet , for a total of nine sample aliquots [43, p p . 23

- 24, 27, 28 ]. The three soil sample aliquots collected at similar depths from each of the lagoons were composited by laboratory personnel into one sample for each depth, for a total of three composite samples [43, p p . 24 , 27 -28 ]. The sludge, aqueous, and soil samples were submitted to Resource Analysts, Inc. ( RAI) for VOC and base

- neutral extractable chemicals; and the sludge samples and one of the composite soil samples were also analyzed for EP toxicity metals [43, pp. 22

- 24]. Analytical results of soil samples collected from the hand auger and test pit locat ions within the three lagoons indicated non

- detect to trace levels of TCE, toluene, and ethyl benzene, and non- detect to quantifiable levels of methylene chloride and di -n- butylphthalate [43, pp. 27, 42

- 53]. Based on analytical results of the sludge and do se water samples, GEI determined that these materials were classified as hazardous wastes according to NH Hazardous Waste Rules HE -P-1905 [43, p. 21]. As presented below, one sludge sample collected from the settling tank by GEI in 1984 has been

utilized t o characterize the Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2).

Laboratory analytical documentation found during a review of files at the facility indicated that additional samples designated as “lagoon dose tank” and “lagoon” samples, assumed to be collecte d by DRC in 1984, contained elevated levels of methylene chloride, trans -1,2- DCE, 1,2

- dichloroethane (1,2

- DCA), MEK, toluene, acetone, ethylbenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane [83, pp. 1, 23, 41]. However, limited information was available in files or repo rts regarding documentation of the sampling.

In 1985, Chas T. Main and DRC performed testing of a pipeline component of the lagoon system and determined that the line was leaking [56, p. 2]. On 12 and 13 May 1986, Cardinal and Sons was retained by DRC to repair the lines [56, p. 2]. As part of the investigation of the leaking pipelines, two test pits (A and B) were excavated at different portions of the pipelines extending from the manufacturing building to the percolation lagoons, where wastewater leakag e was suspected of occurring [56, pp. 2, 4 ]. Following identification and repair of the leak, which was found at an iron/PVC pipe connection, the assembly was replaced [56, p. 1 ]. Two liquid samples collected from the test pits during the lagoon pipeline

i nvestigation activities have been utilized to characterize Source No. 2 (see below).

As of May 1986, DRC had completed several actions related to closure of the lagoon system [54, p. 1; 56, p. 1]. These actions included removing the contents of the lagoon dose tank, aeration tank, and settling tanks, and steam

- cleaning the tanks [56, p. 1]. Additional proposed closure activities included removing contaminated sediment/soil from each of the lagoons, and asphalt capping of the lagoons [43, p. 68; 57, p. 13] . In a July 1986 letter to NH Office of Waste Management, which described the clean

- out of the tanks, DRC stated that no f urther work at the “site” (presumed to be referring to the facility) would be performed until a final closure plan was approved [56, p. 1 ]. According to information provided by NHDES, no records are on file regarding final closure of the lagoon system [229, p. 1]. In addition, the three lagoons were observed during a 2012 reconnaissance, and were observed to lack asphalt cover [83, p. 1] . Based on a review of available file documentation, no additional sampling has been conducted for the percolating lagoon system after 1986.

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

In September 1984, GEI collected one solid sludge sample (S

- 1) within the settling tank and submitted the sample to RAI for VOC analysis via EPA Method 624 [43, pp. 22

- 24, 38]. In May 1986, two liquid samples (“Manhole LLB” and “Test Pit LLA”) were collected from the test pits (A and B) excavated bySource Characterization

Source No. 2

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 40 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Cardi nal and Sons along the underground pipelines extending from the manufacturing building to the percolation lagoons [56, pp. 2, 4

- 6]. The two liquid samples were submitted to RAI for VOC analysis via

EPA Meth od 624 [56, pp. 5-6].

Based on chemical analysis of source sample S

- 1 and source samples “Manhole LLB” and “Test Pit

LLA” , the Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2) has been documented to contain the following six

hazardous substances : PCE, TCE, trans -1,2- DCE, VC, methylene chloride, and MEK [1, p. 51586; 43, pp. 21, 26, 3 8; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6]. Therefore, these six hazardous substances are considered to be associated with Source No. 2 (see Table 3) [1, p. 51588, Section 2.2.2].

Table 3 – Sample Descriptions and Hazardous Substances Associated with Source No. 2

Sample

ID/

Lab No. Sample Type Sample

Date Sample Description Hazardous

Substance Hazardous

Substance

Concentration Detection

Limit Reference

1984 GEI Settling Tank sample

S- 1/

3801 -1 Source 20 Sept.

1984 Sludge sample

collected from settling tank. Methylene Chloride 700 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg 43, pp. 21

- 22, 26, 38; 44, p. 7 TCE 3 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg

PCE 4 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg

1986 DRC Lagoon System Piping Test Pit samples

Manhole

LLB/

6844 -2 Source 12

- 13 May

1986 Liquid sample

collected from test pit excavated at

PVC/iron

connection of lagoon system piping. VC 79 μg/L 20 μg/L

56, pp. 2, 5 trans

- 1,2

- DCE 570 μg/L 10 μg/L

TCE 71 μg/L 10 μg/L

PCE 48 μg/L 10 μg/L

MEK 56 μg/L 50 μg/L

Test Pit

LLA/

6844 -3 Source 12

- 13 May

1986 Liquid sample

collected from test pit excavated at lagoon system piping. trans

- 1,2

- DCE 43 μg/L 5 μg/L 56, pp. 2, 6

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

Methylene Chloride

PCE

TCE

trans -1,2- DCE

VC

MEKSource Characterization

Source No. 2

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 41 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.2.3 HAZARDO US SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Available documentation indicates that no portion of Source No. 2 h as a liner [26, p. 7; 83, p. 1]. Therefore, Source No. 2 does not have full containment, and the source yields a containment value of 10 for the Ground Water Migration Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3- 2)].

Table 4 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water : Based on the lack of a liner, a Containment Factor Value of 10 has been assigned for release to ground water for

Source No. 2

. 10 1, p. 51597 (Table 3

- 2); 26,

p. 7 ; 

### 83, p. 1

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The HWQ for Source No. 2 w as assigned a value of unknown but greater than 0, ba sed on t he documented presence of the source, and the lack of recent analytical data regarding the current extent of the source [43, pp. 21, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6]. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous Wastestream Quantity were not evaluated for Source No. 2 because insufficient information was available, as described in the sections below [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Table 2

- 5, Sections 2.4.2.1.1, 2.4.2.1.2 and 2.4.2.1.3)].

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 2 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate the Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 2 with

reasonable confidence. Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 2 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient histo rical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 2

with reasonable confidence.Source Characterization

Source No. 2

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 42 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Sum of W astestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2- 5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value : NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

It is unknown if the AS/SVE system which operated at the site between 1999 and 2002 had any impacts on Source No. 2, a lthough available documentation indicates that this system may not have been effectively remediating the source of PCE [73, p. 3; 126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 234, p. 3]. The AS/SVE system was designed only to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and pipelines southwest of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. According to NHDES, the AS/SVE system design ma y have affected only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting nearby contaminated source areas [234, p. 4]. Due to the lack of information to adequately estimate the volume of the percolating lagoons or the total waste volu me historically discharged to the lagoons, and due to the unknown impacts of the AS/SVE system, the Volume Assigned Value for Source No. 2 is known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown.

Table 5 – Volume

Source Type Description (# drums or dimensions) Units (yd 3 ) References

Other Unknown quantity of waste material >0 43, pp. 21

- 22, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 2, 5, 6

Sum (yd 3 ): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): >0 yd 3 ÷ 2.5 = >0

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3].

Area Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 2 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0 based on the documented presence of a source, but a lack of recent sampling data to sufficiently characterize the current extent of the source [1, p. 51591, Table 2 -5].

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0Source Characterization

Source No. 3

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 43 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.2 SOURCE CH ARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source : Northwest Septic System Tank

Number of Source: Source No. 3

Source Type: Tank

Description and Location of Source :

According to the 1986 RI report prepared by Chas T. Main, who was retained by DRC, a septic/leachfield system (the Northwest Septic System) was installed at the facility between 1966 and 1977 in a n area northwest of the manufacturing building [57, pp. 2, 15, 63]. The Northwest Septic System Tank (Source

No. 3

- Tank) comprises the septic tank formerly located northwest of the manufacturing building (see HRS Figure 2) [37, p. 11; 57, p. 63]. Figures provided in reference documentation depict the approximate location of Source No. 3 [ 37, p. 11; 57, p. 63 ]. Materials which historically entered this system were released to the soils surrounding the leachfield discharge area [57, p. 15].

The Northwest Septic System reportedly received cafeteria and sanitary wastewater from the facility from 1966 until at least 2008 [120, pp. 23]. In addition, between 1966 and 1983, the Northwest Septic System reportedly received industrial wastewaters from several conne cted floor drains within the manufacturing building, prior to the floor drains being cemented closed in 1983 [57, pp. 15, 63]. According to the 1986 RI report, floor washings and chemical spills may have been drained to the septic system during the time

pe riod it was connected to the floor drains [57, p. 15]. Laboratory analytical documentation found during a review of files at the facility indicated that “floor wash” samples collected by DRC in 1984 contained elevated levels of acetone, MEK, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene [81, p. 9; 83, pp. 1, 41 ]. However, limited supporting documentation regarding these samples was available.

As of August 1986, cooling tower blowdown water was also documented as being discharged to the Northwest Septic System, although the time period that this discharge occurred was not reported in file documentation [57, p. 15] . An October 1985 W astewater Evaluation and Disposal Plan, prepared by Kimball Chase Company, Inc. (Kimball Chase) for DRC, presented analytical results of coo ling tower blowdown water samples which indicated elevated concentrations of several VOCs, including methylene chloride, MEK, acetone, and MIBK [117, pp. 5, 12]. Based on laboratory analytical documentation found in facility files, additional samples colle cted from the cooling towers by DRC in 1983 contained elevated levels of PCE, TCE, trans -1,2-DCE, and toluene [83, pp. 1, 27, 30, 32].

The 1985 Kimball Chase report presented a summary of analytical results of composite samples collected from the pipe influent to the septic tank, which indicated elevated concentrations of PCE, methylene chloride, toluene, xylene, acetone, and ethylbenzene [117, p. 11]. Laboratory analytical documentation maintained in facility files included results of aqueous septic tank samples collected by DRC in November 1983 and August 1984, which indicated elevated concentrations of PCE, trans -1,2- DCE, TCE, 1,1,1- tri chloroethane (1,1,1

- TCA), methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, toluene, acetone, MEK, MIBK, and xylenes [83, pp. 1, 7, 56]. September 1984 laboratory analytical results of aqueous samples collected by DRC from the pumping chamber of the septic tank, “just pri or to discharge”, indicated elevated levels of methylene chloride, acetone, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and MEK [81, pp. 4, 6].

Sludge and aqueous samples collected during the 1984 GEI Hydrogeologic Study have been used to

characterize the Northwest S eptic System Tank (Source No. 3), as presented below. In addition, analyticalSource Characterization

Source No. 3

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 44 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 resu lts of soil samples collected in 2000 during the H&A Investigation of Bedrock Topography documented elevated levels of PCE in soils in the former Northwest Septic System leac hfield areas

, and provide support ing evidence for a lack of containment features associated with Source No. 3 (see Other possible sources not scored section below).

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

Between December 1983 and September 1984, GEI conducted a hydrogeologic study on behalf of DRC [127, pp. 6

- 7]. In April 1984, as part of Phase II of the hydrogeologic study, GEI collected one sludge sample and one aqueous effluent sample from the septic tank located north of the manufacturi ng building [127, pp. 7, 27]. The septic tank samples were submitted to ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc. laboratory and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 624 [127, pp. 119

- 120]. Based on chemical analysis of the septic tank source samples, the Northwest Septic System Tank ( Source No. 3) has been documented to contain

the hazardous substance PCE(see Table 6) [1, p. 51586; 127, pp. 7, 120

- 121]. Therefore, this hazardous

substance is considered to be associated with Source No. 3 [1, p. 51588 (Section 2.2.2)].

Table 6 – Sample Descriptions and Hazardous Substances Associated with Source No. 3

Sample

ID/

Lab No. Sample Type Date Sample Description Hazardous

Substance Hazardous

Substance

Concentration Reporting

Limit Reference

Tank Sludge/

3318 Source 1 April

1984 Sludge collected from septic tank. PCE 460 μg/Kg 200 μg/Kg 127, pp. 7,

120

- 121

Tank Effluent/

3316 Source 1 April

1984 Effluent water

collected from septic tank. PCE 5μg/L 1μg/L 127, pp. 7,

120

- 121

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

PCE

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Materials entering the Northwest Septic System were released to the soils surrounding the leachfield discharge area [57, p. 15]. Hazardous substance migration from the Northwest Septic System Tank (Source No. 3) has been documented by analytical results of soil samples collected from borings within and around the former leachfield area (borings B701 through B704) [120, pp. 23, 27; 125, pp. 13, 16 -17, 66, 71, 74, 79]

. Therefore, Source No. 3 doe s not have full containment, and the source yields a containment value of 10 for the Ground Water Migration Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3- 2)].

Table 7 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water : Based on evidence that this

source was designed to discharge via leachate fields to the ground water , a Containment Factor Value of 10 has been assigned for release to ground water for Source No. 3

. 10 1, p. 51597 (Table 3

- 2); 125, pp. 13, 16

- 17, 66, 71, 74, 79Source Characterization

Source No. 3

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 45 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 2.4.2 HAZARDO US WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The HWQ for Source No. 3 w as assigned a value of unknown but greater than 0, ba sed on t he documented presence of the source but the lack of sufficient information regarding the total amount of waste that entered the septic tank. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous Wastestream Quantity were not evaluated for Source No. 3 because insufficient information was available, as described in the sections below [1, pp. 51590-51591 (Table 2-5, Sections 2.4.2.1.1, 2.4.2.1.2 and 2.4.2.1.3)].

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and

releases from the sou rce is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are available to adequat ely calculate the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate the Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 3 w ith

reasonable confide nce.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mas s of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data ( manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for the source and the associated rele ases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 3

with reasonable confidence. Sum of Wastestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value : NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

There is insufficient information in available file documentation to adequately estimate the total volume of the Northwest Septic System Tank (Source No. 3). Therefore, the Volume Assigned Value for Source No. 3 is known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown.Source Characterization

Source No. 3

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 46 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Table 8 – Volume

Source Type Description (# drums or dimensions) Units (yd 3 ) References

Tank One septic tank of unknown dimensions >0 127, pp. 120

- 121

Sum (yd 3 ): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): > 0 yd 3 ÷ 2.5 = >0

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3].

Area Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 3 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0 based on the documented presence of a source, and the lack of information to adequately estimate the amount of waste discharged to the source [1, p. 51591, Table 2-5].

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0Source Characterization Summary of Source Descriptions/Other Possible Sources

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 47 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Table 9 – Summary of Source Descriptions

Source

No. Source HWQ

Value Source

Hazardous

Constituent

Quantity Complete? (Y/N) Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground

Water (GW) (Ref. 1,

Table 3 -2) Surface Water (SW) Air

Overland/

flood (Ref. 1,

Table 4 -2) GW to

SW (Ref. 1,

Table 3 -2) Gas (Ref. 1,

Table 6

- 3) Particulate (Ref. 1,

Table 6 -9)

1 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

2 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

3 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

Total Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

Other possible sources not scored:

The following three possible source areas have been documented: the PCE Degreaser Pits , Contaminated Soil Associated with the Former No. 6 F uel Oil Tanks, and the Northwest Septic System Leachfields

. These sources were not scored due to the lack of information to sufficiently characterize the sources, and

because inclusion of these sources into the HRS e valuation would not impact the overall site score.

PCE Degreaser Pits

Based on previous reports and an interview with a former employee at the facility, the PCE Degreaser Pits represent an additional potential source of PCE contamination at the facility. Reportedly, a 10

- foot by 10

- foot by 6-foot deep concrete pit was installed in the floor of the manufacturing building, near the center of the building, and a PCE vapor degreaser unit was installed and operated in the pit [57, pp. 14

- 15; 63, p. 1]. Allegedly, PCE solvent was heated in the pit, and molds were dipped into the pit to clean them [63, p. 1]. Degreasing operations were conducted within the pit between 1966 and 1978; and during this time period, the concrete wall of the pit fractured slightly and may have allowed for the release of PCE into the soils underlying the building [57, pp. 14-15].

According to the 1989 G EI Soil Gas Study, soil gas samples collected from beneath the center of manufacturing building in the area of the former PCE Degrease r Pit indicated elevated concentrations of PCE above background levels [59, p. 13; 131, p. 17]. As higher levels of VOCs were detected in soil gas samples collected hydraulically downgradient of the PCE Degreaser Pit, GEI concluded that shallow ground water may be transporting VOCs from the pit area [59, p. 13]. According to the 1990 GEI Source Characterization Study, there may have been a second PCE Degreaser Pit located southeast of the original central pit location [131, p. 17]. The central PCE Degreaser Pit could not be accessed with the drill rig used for soil sampling during the 1990 GEI study; however, the second pit was accessible, and subsurface soil samples were collected from the area for headspace screening [131, p. 17]. Headspace screening of

so il samples collected in the vicinity of the second PCE Degreaser Pit did not indicate significant concentrations of VOCs [131, p. 17].

This source was not scored as quantitative analytical sampling data ha ve not been obtained from the two PCE Degreaser Pit areas, and the nature and extent of hazardous substances potentially associated with this source have not been fully characterized.Source Characterization Summary of Source Descriptions/Other Possible Sources

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 48 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Contaminated Soil Associated with the Former No. 6 Fuel Oil Tanks

Two 10,000

- gallon No. 6 fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were reportedly located near the northeastern portion of the manufacturing building [62, pp. 10, 27] . In a 17 August 1994 l etter, GEI informed NHDES that petroleum

- stained soils were encount ered while drilling wells for the construction of a hydraulic containment system at the facility [61, p. 1]. Analytical results of soil samples collected from borings at two impacted wells, W

- 4 and W

- 18, indicated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocar bons (TPH) at 230 parts per million (ppm) and 13,600 ppm, respectively [61, pp. 2, 5, 7 ]. In addition, PCE was detected at the quantitation limit of 40 micrograms per kilogram (μg/Kg) in the soil sample collected at W -4 [61, pp. 2, 6].

In July 2004, H& A completed a Site Investigation Report for the No. 6 Fuel Oil Release to determine the location and extent of No. 6 fuel oil impacts to soil and ground water [62, p. 7]. Analytical results of soil samples collected during the site investigation indicated elevated levels of benzene, toluene, fluorene, pyrene, and TPH [62, pp. 12

- 13, 22, 27, 56

- 57]. H&A concluded that impacts of No. 6 fuel oil appeared

to be localized near containment wells W

- 2 through W

- 5 [62, pp. 14

- 15, 17]. The No. 6 fuel oil

- impacted

soi l appeared to occur at depths of approximately 30 feet bgs; and there was approximately 8 to 10 feet of fill, as well as pavement, located over the contaminated area [62, pp. 15, 17]. The major contaminant (No. 6 fuel oil) is a crude oil, which is excluded from the HRS definition of a hazardous substance [1, p. 51586].

Northwest Septic System Leachfields

In July 2000, as presented in a December 2000 Report on Investigation of Bedrock Topography, H&A collected soil samples from four borings (B

- 701 through B- 704) advanced in an area northwest of the manufacturing building which was suspected of exhibiting a bedrock depression [125, pp. 2-3, 13, 16-17]. Based on a figure included in a 2008 report by SHA, borings B

- 701 and B

- 703 (developed as monitoring

wells MW

- 701 and MW

- 703, respectively) were advanced within the area identified as the easternmost leachfield of the Northwest Septic System, and borings B

- 702 and B

- 704 were advanced immediately south and southeast of this leachfield [120, pp. 23, 27; 125, pp. 16, 58, 59]. The soil/source samples were submitted to EAI laboratory and analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260B [125, pp. 63 -79]. Laboratory analytical results of seven soil/source samples collected from borings located within and

around the Northwest S eptic System leachfield area indicated PCE concentrations ranging from 200 to 720 μg/Kg [125, pp. 13, 46, 49, 52, 55, 66, 74]. This source was not scored as it is unknown what impacts ongoing remediation activities have had on this source, and no sampling data are available to document the current extent of the source area [120, p. 23].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 49 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 3.0 GROUND W ATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migrat ion Pathway Description

The Town of Farmington and the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility (the facility) are situated in the Cocheco River Valley (see HRS Figures 1 and 4) [8

- 9; 123, p. 104; 130, p. 8]. The Cocheco River generally flows from northwest to southeast and passes to the northeast of the facility (see HRS Figures 1 and 4) [8 -9]. The Collins & Aikma n facility is located on the southwestern flank of the Cocheco River Valley [120, p. 4]. Surface topography in the vicinity of the facility generally slopes northeast toward the center of the valley, which contains a major sand and gravel stratified

- drift aquifer which may yield

moderate- to

- large quantities of ground water to several water supply wells [120, p. 4; 130, p . 8]. The impacted and currently inactive Town of Farmington Gravel Pack

- 2 (GP2) well, along with other active municipal wells located upgr adient of GP2, are completed in the Cocheco River Valley aquifer north and east of the facility [120, p. 4]. Ground water from the facility generally flows to the northeast and east toward the Cocheco River, passing beneath Route 11 and the SGP [17, pp. 1

- 3; 130 p. 9]. In

- situ bedrock ground water elevation measurements conducted during overburden pumping, have confirmed the hydraulic connection between the two aquifers [ 121 , pp. 20 -21]. The aquifer described in this documentation record consists of a hydraulically interconnected overburden and fractured bedrock aquifer, as described below, which has been impacted by C VOCs from documented sources at the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site [120, p. 5; 121, pp. 20-21].

Regional and Site Geology:

Bedrock Geology:

The facility is located within an area generally underlain by bedrock comprised of the Silurian

- aged Rangeley Formation bedrock which is described as a rusty

- weathering p e litic schist, quartz

- rich schist, and metasandstone, with minor coticule [1 2, pp. 1

- 2, 34; 120, p. 5; 121, p. 14]. Located to the north and

south of the Silurian

- aged Perry Mountain Formation is the Rangeley Formation, which is a generally

similar ‘meta

- pelite’ rock type, which also contains quartzitic intervals and more common c oticule layers [12, pp. 1, 3, 32; 121, p. 14]. Areas beneath the SGP, located northeast of the facility, are underlain by interbedded metamorphic schists and gneisses comprising the Pittsfield member of the Littleton

Formation [130, p. 8] . Subsurface inves tigations at the facility have also encountered pegmatite, interlayered schist/pegmatite, and granite/gneiss which may be related to the Devonian

- aged Concord Granite (mapped to the west of the facility) which intrudes into the older Rangeley and Perry Mou ntain

Formations [121, p. 15]. No major faults have been mapped in the area of the Collins & Aikman facility [121, p. 14].

Bedrock types encountered during the 2009 S HA investigation activities indicated the presence of pegmatite and schist in borings ben eath the facility [121, p. 18]. The pegmatite bedrock was generally observed as light green

- to -gray or tan, medium- to coarse- grained muscovite- and quartz-rich equiangular chips, while the schistose bedrock was observed as gray to dark gray/black, fine -grained, biotite- rich platy chips, with a minor quartz component [121, pp. 18, 46]. SHA noted that the distribution of these two bedrock types appears complex across the area and within the borings completed [121, pp. 18, 46] . During the 2000 H&A investigat ions, slightly to highly weathered schists were encountered during boring activities and well installation [95, pp. 121

- 128; 121, pp. 68

- 117; 125, p. 6; 127, pp. 69

- 92; 128, pp. 108

- 262; 130, pp. 48

- 67; 132, pp. 75

- 108]. In addition, investigations on the “site” (presumed to be referring to the facility) have indicated the presence of a more complex geology containing not only schist, but also pegmatite and granite/gneiss [120, p. 5; 121, pp. 18, 46].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 50 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Surf icial Geology:

The regional surficial geology in the vicinity of the facility is characterized by a major sand and gravel

stratified

- drift aquifer, known as the Cocheco River Valley aquifer [120, p. 4; 121, p. 13; 122, p. 13; 230; 231]. Numerous studies indicate that the overburden materials are glaciola custrine and glaciofluvial in origin [123, pp. 20

- 22; 125, p. 6; 128, p. 9 ]. A conceptual hydrogeologic model presented by SHA concluded that overburden materials closer to the “site” (presumed to be referring to the facility) are generally indicative of i ce

- contact deposits, containing predominantly poorly

- sorted fine

- grained materials (silty

- sands) with varying amount of gravel [120, p. 1 4]. Closer to the main portion of the Cocheco River Valley (northeast across Route 11) these poorly sorted materials tr ansition to predominantly coarse

- grained soils containing sand and gravel with minor silt fractions, which are indicative of deposition in a fluvial or glacio-fluvial environment [120, pp. 14-15]. The overburden ranges

in thickness from approximately 20-12 0 feet beneath the site [130, p. 41; 148, p .11]

.

Subsurface investigations conducted on the facility have indicated that overburden materials are generally fill and natural overburden materials consisting of poorly

- sorted sand with gravel and boulders/cob bles (glaciofluvial or glaciolacustrine deposits) [95, pp. 121 -128; 120, pp. 14 -15; 121, pp. 15, 68

- 117; 125, pp. 17, 44

- 57; 127, pp. 69

- 92; 128, pp. 108

- 262; 130, pp. 48

- 67; 132, pp. 75

- 108]. During bedrock boring installation activities summarized by SHA in 2009, ov erburden materials were documented to be composed of poorly

- sorted sand with gravel, and included intervals of boulders and/or cobbles [121, p. 15]. SHA concluded that these conditions are generally consistent with surficial geologic materials that may be ‘transitional’ between the till

- dominant, topographically

- higher areas south of the “main site building” (assumed to be the manufacturing building), and the stratified

- drift dominant areas associated with the Cocheco River Valley to the north [ 120, p. 4; 121, p. 15]. .

Aquifer Interconnection:

The aquifer being scored as part of this HRS Evaluation is the documented hydraulically interconnected glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine overburden and the weathered and fractured bedrock aquifer which extends from the facility north

- northeast toward the SGP and Cocheco River Valley [121, pp. 20 -21 ; 130, pp. 48

- 67; 132, pp. 75 -108 ]. There are no major discontinuities within the 4

- mile target distance limit (see HRS Figure 5 and description below).

SHA noted that downward hydraulic gradients from overburden to bedrock are dominant in the facility area; and also suggested, based on overburden pumping (via the ground water containment system), that the bedrock may have some degree of hydraulic interconnection with the overburden materials [121, pp. 18, 20]. SHA noted that based on the site hydrogeology, dissolved CVOC constituents in overburden ground water originating from sources in the vicinity of the main building have migrated downward into the bedrock [120, p. 1 5]. Borings completed on the facility and SGP have not indicated layers of significantly lower hydraulic conductivity [95, pp. 121

- 128; 127, pp. 69

- 92; 128, pp. 108

- 262; 130, pp.

48- 67; 132, pp. 75

- 108, 401

- 408]. The aquifer interconnection is also demonstrated by a migration of hazardous substances (PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and VC) detected in sources into the on

- site overburden and bedrock ground water, and the downgradient overburden and bedrock ground water beneath the SGP (see Observed Releas e Section) [14]. In addition, the saturated overburden material within the SGP supplied water to the public drinking water supply well, GP2, located approximately 0.7 m iles east

northeast of the sources areas (see Observed Release Data Tables

– Tables 14, 15, 17, and 18). Therefore, an aquifer interconnection occurs within 2 m iles of sources which constitutes the combined aquifer (Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer) being evaluated for scoring the site [1, p. 51595 (Section 3.0.1.2.1)].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 51 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Bedr ock investigations at the facility and the SGP have indicated that the bedrock is highly fractured and weathered, and does not closely resemble surface topography [98, pp. 7, 15

- 20; 121, p. 17; 130, pp. 12

- 13, 41, 48

- 67; 137, pp. 2 5, 32

- 35, 45

- 53]. As part of the Phase I Invest igation to support a Revised Remedial Action Plan, H&A conducted a bedrock fracture trace analysis and Very Low Frequency (VLF) geophysical survey to investigate general fracture patterns in the area of the facility and provide evidence of potentially transmissive fracture zones in bedrock [124, p. 7]. H&A concluded that potential confining units that could inhibit the movement of ground water between overburden and bedrock had not been

observed and that interaction between the overburden and bedrock flow s ystems is likely complex due to the heterogeneity of fractured crystalline rock [124, p. 17] . A subsequent study by S HA involving overburden ground water pumping, documented a ground water elevation response in bedrock monitoring wells suggesting a h ydraul ic connection between shallow/deep bedrock and overburden ground water [121, pp. 20

- 21]. Borehole geophysics conducted by Hager

- Richter Geoscience (HRG) in 2009

documented multiple several significant fracture zones within one bedrock monitoring well as w e ll as potential for ground water flow to occur within the investigated well [137, pp. 4

- 5]. The HRG survey also indicated that in the vicinity of this well, the bedrock fractures predominantly dipped between 30 and 80 degrees [137, pp. 6

- 7]. SHA further noted that based on the 1 percent EPA ‘solubility criterion’ that PCE may be present as DNAPL in bedrock in the vicinity of the bedrock well on the facility [4, p. 11; 137, p. 7].

Aquifer Discontinuity

No major faults or other bedrock discontinuities have been mapped in the area of the facility and within

the 4

- mile target distance limit (see HRS Figure 5) [121, p. 14; 130, p. 8]. The Cocheco River Valley is generally a n orthwest

- to

- southeast trending va lley (see HRS Figures 1, 4 a nd 5) [8

- 9]. Regional topography generally slopes from both the east and west toward the center of the Cocheco River Valley (see HRS Figure 1) [8

- 9]. Topography from the facility across Route 11 generally slopes east, toward the Cocheco River [130, pp. 8, 41]. Regional ground water flow is generally in the unconfined aquifer in the area and flows toward the center of the Cocheco River Valley from both sides of the valley [130, p. 9]. The Cocheco River does intercept shallow groun d water flow of the overburden/bedrock aquifer but it does not entirely transect the geologic units which define the aquifer [129, pp. 10-12].

Numerous ground water and subsurface investigations noted that the overburden ground water flow

across the faci lity is generally north

- northeast [17, pp. 1

- 3; 121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25

- 26, 60]. Depth to ground water within the overburden in 2009 ranged from 260.65 to 320.5 feet referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [121, p. 36]. An overall steepening of the horizontal hydraulic gradient with ground water flow across the facility has been documented [121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25

- 26, 57 -59]. The hydraulic gradient in the area of the “main site building” (assumed to be the manufactur ing building) is approximately 0.04 feet per foot (ft/ft), while underneath the northeastern portion of the facility the gradient is steeper at approximately 0.12 ft/ft [121, p. 16]. According to a 2009 SHA report, the saturated thickness of the aquifer in the area of the facility is inferred by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) to be 20 feet or less, while a saturated thickness of greater than 40 feet occurs northeast of the property on the northwestern portion of the SGP [121, p. 14].

Table 10 - Summary of Aquifers Being Evaluated

Aquifer

No. Aquifer Name Is Aquifer Interconnected with Upper Aquifer within 2 miles? (Y/N/NA) Is Aquifer

Continuous within

4- mile TDL? (Y/N) Is Aquifer

Karst? (Y/N)

1 Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer N/A Y NGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 52 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 3.1 LIKELI HOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Chemical Analysis – Ground Water

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

As described above, the hydrogeology beneath the facility is characterized by the ‘transition’ between the

till

- dominant, topographi cally

- higher areas south of the main facility location, and the predominantly

coarse

- grained, sand and gravel stratified

- drift dominant areas of the Cocheco River Valley [120, p. 4; 121, p. 15]. In addition, the glacial overburden is hydraulically connecte d to the weathered and fractured bedrock [121, pp. 18, 46]. On

- site ground water monitoring wells on the facility and the SGP, including GP2 on the SGP, have been documented to contain CVOCs [14; 141, pp. 1

- 3]. An aquifer interconnection occurs within 2 miles of sources, resulting in a combined aquifer that is being evaluated for scoring the site [1, p. 51595 (Section 3.0.1.2.1)]. A steep hydraulic gradient exists from the facility toward the northeast and east, onto the SGP [121, pp. 16, 42; 130, p. 39; 13 2, pp. 25

- 26, 57

- 59]. An interconnection between the overburden aquifer beneath the facility, the weathered and fractured bedrock aquifer beneath the facility, and the downgradient overburden and bedrock aquifer is supported by the migration of

CVOCs from on- site sources, across NH Route 11, to the SGP and to the former GP2 supply well (see below). This documentation record presents data from background ground water monitoring wells, from selected overburden and bedrock monitoring wells at the facility, and from downgradient SGP overburden monitoring wells, to document an observed release (by chemical analyses) to the ground water aquifer during the time period when GP2 was closed, and after the initiation of a remedial system (see below).

Background Concentrations [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility and SGP Monitoring Wells]:

This documentation record presents data from three background wells (SW201, MW305, and MW605) installed by consultants for DRC and DRC successors, which represent background conditions at locations beyond the extent of influence from site

- specific contaminants and generally along the boundaries of the VOC plumes originating from sources (see HRS Figures 2 through 4).

On 30 July 1984, as part of the Hydrogeologic Study conducted by GEI, ground water monitoring well SW201 was installed on the southeast side of the warehouse building, on t he northern portion of the facility (see HRS Figures 2 and 4) [127, pp. 7, 31, 40, 61, 86] . This monito ring well was installed to determine the extent of migration of VOCs in ground water in the direction of the property water supply wells [121, p. 41; 127, pp. 14, 40]. The slotted screen section of the background monitoring well was

installed to straddle s ections in both the widely graded sand overburden and the granitic

- gneiss bedrock beneath the facility [127, pp. 21, 61, 86].

On 3 M ay 1989, a s part of the Hydrogeologic Study of the SGP conducted by GEI, ground water monitoring well MW305 was installed on the western portion of the SGP, north of the facility (see HRS Figures 3 and 4) [130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 64

- 65; 133, p. 4 6]. This location is approximately 700 feet downgradient from a reported gasoline release near the intersection of Route 11 and Paulsen Road [130, p. 13]. The screened section of ground water monitoring well MW305 was installed in the widely graded sand and gravel overburden aquifer [130, pp. 29, 64-65].

File references indicate that this background monitoring well was installed between December 1994 and January 1995, with the explicit purpose of providing an upgradient background monitoring well location [80, p. 24; 138, p. 1; 140, pp. 16, 37]. Ground water flow interpretations indicate that the monitoring well is located upgradient of s ources (see HRS Figures 2 through 4) [17, pp. 1

- 3]. A cross section, presentedGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 53 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 by H &A (Figure 9, October 2006), indicates that the area where MW605 is installed consists of sand with gravel and shallow overburden material [15, p. 16; 124, pp. 17-18, 49].

As indicated earlier, the overburden materials within the area of observed release contain predominantly poorly- sorted fine

- grained materials with varying amounts of gravel as well as coarse

- grained materials, containing sand and gravel with minor silt fractions [120, pp. 14

- 15]. In addition, a high degree of overburden and bedrock connection exists due to the fractured nature of the bedrock [98, pp. 7, 15 -20; 121, pp. 17

- 18, 20

- 21; 137, pp. 25, 32

- 35, 45

- 53]. The background ground water monitoring wells a re screened within various portions of the overburden and bedrock aquifers , and overburden/bedrock interface from which observed release samples were collected [15, p. 6; 127, pp. 30-31, 43, 54, 61, 78, 86; 130, pp. 29, 32, 64

- 65]. In addition, plume maps produced by various environmental consultants for DRC

and DRC successors indicate that in general, the VOC plume is contained within the area bounded by the background monitoring wells [16; 95, pp. 24

- 25, 148

- 150; 122, pp. 2, 11, 15, 38, 93

- 95; 124, pp. 11, 15,

44- 47; 126, pp. 10

- 12, 20

- 21, 33

- 35; 128, pp. 8

- 11; 132, pp. 17, 20, 22, 24

- 26, 28, 31

- 33, 56

- 65, 365, 367, 395

- 396; 133, pp. 14

- 17, 23

- 24, 46

- 49; 140, pp. 6

- 11, 17, 19, 37

- 38; 145, pp. 14

- 16, 27, 29

- 31, 36, 56, 63; 157, pp. 12, 22

- 25, 28, 48, 55; 165, pp. 8

- 12, 14

- 15, 20

- 21, 23, 33

- 36; 167, pp. 9

- 10, 15

- 17, 22,

35- 37; 174, pp. 14

- 16, 28

- 30, 33, 76

- 77, 84; 176, pp. 8

- 10, 12

- 15, 24, 26, 70

- 72; 186, pp. 10

- 12, 15 -16, 18-19, 39-41].

Table 11 - Background Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring

Well ID Location Installation

Date Sampling Frequency Screened Interval (feet) Screened

Interval Geology Reference

SW201 South of the Warehouse Building 7/30/84 12 times from Sept

- 84 to

Jul

- 94 310.2 to 290.2 1 Across the gravelly sand and silty sand overburden, and granit ic

- gneiss

bedrock 127, pp. 31,

34

- 35, 40, 43, 61, 86; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43,

48

MW305 North of Route 11, on the western portion of

the Sarah Greenfield Property 5/3/89 36 times from May

- 89 to

Nov

- 06 253.5 to 219.5 2 Gravelly sand

overburden 128, pp. 35, 40, 45, 50; 130, pp. 29, 32, 36, 39,

64

- 65; 133,

pp . 46, 88

MW605* S outh of the Manufacturing Building and the Solvent Storage Tank

Area Between

December 1994

and January

1995 20 times from Apr

- 95 to

Nov

- 06 NA * NA * 80, p. 23; 133, p. 100; 138; 139; 140, p. 16

1 Elevation is referenced to mean sea level [127, pp. 30

- 31, 43].

2 Elevation is based on ground elevation referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 and well construction specifications [130, pp. 29, 32, 64

- 65]. * Complete well construction information was not available in site file documentation.

Background ground water monitoring wells were sampled between September 1984 and November 2006 as part of numerous investigations of the facility and SGP [13, pp. 1

- 8]. Beginning in February 1984, background and release ground water samples were collected from the facility and the SGP within similar geologic settings (overburden and bedrock) (see Tables 11, 13, and 16).Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 54 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 The background samples were submitted for VOC analysis via EPA Methods 624, 8010, 8010A, 8260, 8260A, 8260B, and/or 8021B [13, pp. 1 -7]. In addition, background ground water samples were collected during similar time periods as ground water samples which document an observed release (see Tables 11, 13, and 16). In most cases, at least one background sample was submitted with each round of r elease samples throughout the investigations of the facility and the SGP [13, pp. 1-8; 14, pp. 4-5].

Ground water flow at the property is generally in a northerly direction beneath the facility from the uplands behind (south of) the plant towards the SGP [148, p. 1 1]. Ground water samples from wells installed upgradient of the documented source areas have not indicated detectable concentrations of CVOCs [13, pp. 1

- 8]. Background ground water sample results during historical sampling at wells SW201, MW305, and MW605 were consistently non

- detect at either the reporting limit, detection limit, or quantitation limit [13, pp. 1

- 8]. During historical sampling, the various reported laboratory limits (e.g., detection limits, reporting limits, quantitation limits) for these background samples ranged from 0.5 μg/L to 5.0 μg/L for PCE, TCE, and cis -1,2- DCE, and from 0.5 μg/L to 10.0 μg/L for VC [13, pp. 1

- 8]. For the purposes of this HRS Documentation Record, the highest non

- detect detection limit is utilized to compa re against release samples presented in Tables 14, 15, 17, and 18. Therefore, PCE, TCE and cis -1,2- DCE concentrations greater than 5 μg/L and VC concentrations greater than 10 μg/L are used to document an

observed release to the interconnected overburden/ bedrock aquifer for all samples presented [1, pp. 51588 (Section 2.2.3), 51589 (Table 2-3); 13].

Table 12 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Background Ground Water Samples

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Maximum Detection

Limit* (μg/L) References

SW201 PCE ND 5 .0

13, pp. 1

- 8; 127, pp. 34

- 35; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48 TCE ND 5 .0

VC ND 10 .0

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE ND 5 .0

MW305 PCE ND 5.0

13, pp. 1

- 8; 128, pp. 35, 40, 45, 50; 130, pp. 34, 75; 133 p. 88 TCE ND 5.0

VC ND 10.0

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE ND 5.0

MW605 PCE ND 2.0

13, pp. 1

- 8; 133, p. 100 TCE ND 2.0

VC ND 2.0

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE ND 2.0

* Values represented within this column indicate the maximum detection limits encountered during laboratory analysis of background samples

. These were based on laboratory reporting requirements upon submission of samples for analysis [13, pp. 1

- 8].

Contaminated Samples [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility Monitoring Wells]:

Beginning in late 1983, ground water monitoring wells have been installed on the Collins & Aikman facility to better characterize the impacts of the release of CVOCs to the underlying overburden/bedrock aquifer [127, pp. 6

- 9]. Table 13, presented below, is a summary of ground water monitoring wells whichGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 55 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 are used to characterize the impact of CVOCs to the underlying overburden/bedrock aquifer at the facility.

Table 13 - Contaminated Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring

Well ID Location Installa tion

Date Sampling Frequency Screened

Interval Screened Interval Geology Reference

SW104 North west of the manufacturing building 1/24/84 18 times from

Feb

- 84 to

Jul

- 94 308.8 to 268.8 1 Across the gravelly

sand overburden and

weathered bedrock

interface 127, pp. 31, 40, 42, 57,

81 ; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48; 134, p.

12

SW205 Northeast of and adjacent to the manufacturing building 7/31/84 36 times from Sep

- 84 to

Apr

- 00 305.9 to 285.9 1 Across the silty gravelly sand

overburden and

fractured bedrock

interface 127, pp. 31, 40, 43, 67,

92 ; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48; 133, p.

116

SW501 Directly north of the manufacturing building 10/1/93 42 times from

Oct

- 93 to

Apr

- 08 301 to 271 2 Sand, sand and gravel, and silty sand and gravel overburden 132, pp. 7, 41, 84

- 85 ; 133, p. 117; 135, p. 7

SH

- 8R Northeast of the main facility building adjacent to

Route 11 11/12/08 Three times

Jan

- 09 to

Jan

- 10 269.9 to 195.1 3 Schistose bedrock 121, pp. 41, 46, 60, 113

- 117 ; 135, p.

9

1 Elevation is referenced to mean sea level [127, pp. 30

- 31, 43].

2 Elevation is referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 [128, p. 28; 132, pp. 41, 58, 75

- 80,

84

- 85, 88

- 89].

3 Monitoring well is finished as an open hole in bedrock. Elevation is based on ground surface elevation and monitoring well construction logs [121, pp. 113

- 117].

As noted above, the on

- site ground water samples collected and presented for this evaluation were collected from within the same aquifer, similar geologic zone (overburden, overburden/bedrock interface, or bedrock), and during the same time period as the background samples. In addition, the on

- site ground water samples were submitted to the same laboratories for the same VOC analysis method as background ground water samples collected during the same sampling event. For the purposes of this HRS documentation record, PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and VC analytical results from four ground water samples (S W104, SW205, SW501, and SH

- 8R) are used to document an observed release to the ground water aquifer on the facility during the time period when GP2 was closed, as well as after the initiation of remedial activities in July 1995 (see Tables 14 and 15).

G round water samples SW104 and SW205, presented in Table 14, were collected by GEI in April and November 1984, r espectively, and represent ground water conditions at the facility during the time periods when GP2 was in use as a public drinking water supply well (SW104) and shortly after its closure (SW205) [101; 103; 108]. Samples collected from these wells indicated an observed release of PCE, TCE,

trans -1,2- DCE, and VC based on chemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations (see

Tables 12 an d 14) [1, p. 51589].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 56 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Tabl e 14 – Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples collected from the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility in 1984

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Sample

Date Reporting Limit* (μg/L) Referenc es

SW104 PCE 450 4/18/84 10 1

37, pp. 3

- 4; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43,

48 TCE 100 4/18/84 10 1

Trans

- 1,2

- DCE 980 4/18/84 10 1

VC 430 4/18/84 10 1

SW205 PCE 6,200 11/13/84 10 2

128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48; 133, p. 116; 149, pp. 29

- 30 TCE 1,800 11/13/84 10 2

Trans

- 1,2

- DCE 710 11/13/84 10 2

VC 110 11/13/84 10 2

* Values in this column represent reporting limits or the minimum reporting limit based on an adjustment resulting from the dilution factor (see below).

1 Analytical result indicates a reporting limit for the sample of 10 μg/L [37, pp. 3

- 4].

2 Ground water sample SW205 was analyzed with a dilution factor of 5

, and a minimum reporting limit of 2 μg/L

, for the analysis by EPA Method 624 [149, pp. 29

- 30]. The dilution factor multiplied by the minimum reporting limit provides the minimum reporting limit for the sample (10 μg/L) [149, pp. 29

- 30].

Remedial actions were considered in the evaluation and sampling of the Collins and Aikman site. Sampling showed tha t contamination remained after removal activities had taken place. Remedial activities on the facility have focused on two methods: source control methods within identified source areas to reduce VOCs; and management of migration methods to reduce the conc entration of VOCs in ground water on the facility and the downgradient SGP to levels below state and federal standards [122, pp. 18-20].

A remedial system referred to as a management of migration component (MOM3a) was developed and implemented at the fac ility during July 1995 to reduce the concentration of VOCs in ground water and to minimize migration of these contaminants toward the SGP [122, pp. 18

- 51; 140, pp. 6

- 7, 11

- 12]. The MOM3a addressed the goals of the MOM2 system, which involved the dewatering of the aquifer in the area of the former solvent tank and piping, while also creating hydraulic containment in the area of the leachfield [122, pp. 18

- 51; 140, p. 7]. Six extraction wells (W

- 20 through W

- 25) were installed in the former solvent storage ta nk and piping area, while 19 containment wells (W

- 1 through W

- 19) were arranged in two rows along the northern and northeastern portion of the facility in the area of the leach field [140, pp. 10, 37; 157, p. 13] . Each well was installed through the overburden and five feet into bedrock to provide a sump for the well [140, p. 10]. The purpose of the containment wells (W

- 1 through

W- 19) was to capture contaminated ground water and minimize contaminant migration across the future compliance boundary, while th e extraction wells (W

- 20 through W

- 25) were installed to dewater the former solvent storage tank and piping area to facilitate an AS/SVE system [157, p. 13]. The extracted water was treated for VOCs, and the treated ground water was then discharged back to the ground water aquifer through an infiltration trench [140, pp. 7, 11]. During 2002, the extraction wells were taken offline due to ineffectiveness and only the containment system was continued [167, pp. 17-18].

An air sparge and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system was installed in May 1999 and began operating in September 1999 to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and pipelinesGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 57 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 southw est of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. The system was designed to operate concurren tly with six ground water extraction wells (W

- 20 through W

- 25) installed in the source area, and included in

- situ soil vapor extraction of the unconsolidated overburden to recover VOCs from source soils located above and below the natural ground water table [176, pp. 8

- 9; 236, p. 2] . The AS/SVE system included nine shallow SVE wells and 10 deep SVE wells installed in the vadose zone, and 10 air sparge wells installed below the dewatered ground water table [236, pp. 1

- 2]. The AS/SVE system was operated only intermittently between 2000 and 2002 due to various issues [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. These issues included dewatering and system electrical problems; high ground water conditions, which

blocked the SVE well screens which was caused by irregular operation of the source area ground water extraction wells; operations and maintenance activities; and the ground water table being too low to provide effective sparging conditions [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. In a 2000 Five Year Annual Review Report, H&A stated that the on

- site remediation systems did not appear to be reducing

the extent of the VOC

- contaminated ground water plume rapidly enough to meet the existing 10

- year remedial goal [178, p. 6 ]. In 2002, N HDES expressed concern that the AS/SVE wells may not be optimally designed and may not actively remediate the source of PCE, and noted that the concentration of PCE in ground water in the area had recently increased to 700 micrograms per liter (μg/L), the highest

con centration since July 1998 [234, p. 3]. NHDES further stated that the system design may be affecting only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting nearby contaminated source areas [234, p. 4]. As of 15 March 2002, the AS/SVE system was shut down [233, p. 1]. In a March 2007 letter, NHDES stated that the on

- site remedial systems had failed to treat, remove, or contain all sources [235, p. 1].

Ground water samples collected at the facility, after the implementation of the MOM 3a, have indicated an observed release of PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and VC based on c hemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations (see Tables 12 and 15) [1, p. 51589; 14, pp. 1-5, 8-10].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 58 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Tabl e 15 – Hazardous Substances Associated with Grou nd Water Samples collected from the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility after July 1995

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Sample

Date Quantitation or Reporting Limit* (μg/L) References

SW205 PCE 930 12/04/96 20 1

133, p. 116; 156, pp. 65

- 66; 157, p. 224; 160, p. 24 TCE 550 12/04/96 20 1

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 1,300 12/04/96 20 1

VC 270 11/12/97 20 1

SW501 PCE 8,700 4/28/98 100 1

133, p. 117; 159, p. 44; 160, p. 28; 161, p. 29 TCE 210 † 4/28/98 100 1

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 530 11/12/97 100 1

VC 20 7/25/97 4 1

SH

- 8R PCE 17,000 11/18/09 200 2

137, pp. 56

- 60 TCE 2,600 11/18/09 200 2

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 1,200 11/18/09 200 2

* Values in this column represent quantitation limits or the reporting limit based on a dilution factor (see below).

† A higher concentration of 350 μg/L for TCE in sample SW501 was reported [133, p. 117]. The detection limit for

TCE could not be confirm ed for the sample from available documentation; therefore, the next highest concentration

i s presented [156, p. 68; 161, p. 29].

1 The quantitation limit for the sample is reported [157, p. 224; 160, pp. 24, 28; 161, p. 29].

2 A trip blank submitted with ground water sample SH

- 8R was analyzed using the same method with a dilution factor of 1 [137, pp. 56

- 60]. The reporting limit for the non

- detect analytes is reported for the Trip Blank sample. Ground water sample SH

- 8R was ana lyzed using a d ilution factor of 100, and a reporting limit was determined based on the trip blank reporting limit multiplied by 100.

In summary, the samples presented above document an observed release to the ground water pathway during early 1984 (Table 14) and continued release to ground water after the implementation of MOM3a (Table 15). In 2002, N H DES stated that PCE concentrations in ground water continued to remain elevated [234, p. 3] . In addition, influent data collected as part of the operation of the MOM3a has indicated the continued release of chlorinated VOCs to the ground water as evident in the continued elevated concentrations entering the system [126, p. 28; 133, p. 44; 136, pp. 299

- 300; 140, pp. 32 -33; 145, pp. 72

- 75; 148, p. 39; 157, pp. 64

- 67; 165, p. 31; 167, p. 33; 170, p. 36; 174, p. 69; 176, p. 67; 186, p. 37; 192, pp. 1

- 2]. This documented release to ground water beneath the facility has extended toward the SGP and GP2 (see below).

Contaminated Samples (Sarah Greenfield Overburde n Monitoring Wells):

The SGP occupies approximately 180 acres on the northeast side of Route 11, down gradient from the Collins & Aikman facility [124, p. 9]. This area was historically used as a source of sand and gravel; and currently contains undeveloped land owned by the Town, and a privately operated commercial composting facility on t he portion of the property nearest the Collins & Aikman facility [124, p. 9 ]. Collins & Aikman began investigating ground water impacts on the SGP in 1989 with the insta llation of six overburden and two bedrock monitoring wells (MW300

- series) (see HRS Figures 3 and 4) [124, p. 9;Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 59 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 130, pp. 2, 11-13, 32, 41- 42].

A steep hydraulic gradient and sloping bedrock surface directs ground water from the facility toward the SGP [15 , pp. 1

- 2; 17, pp. 1

- 3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20

- 21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14

- 18, 21, 40-41; 132, pp. 25-26, 32-33, 59-60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62-64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16-17; 145, pp. 29- 30, 36, 63; 148, pp. 26

- 27, 54

- 60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20

- 21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21

- 22, 38

- 39; 170, pp. 22

- 23, 52

- 53; 174, pp. 28

- 30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23

- 24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18

- 19, 24, 27, 42] . Numerous ground water flow interpretations indicate that ground water flow from the facility within the interconnected overburden/bedrock aquifer is directed north

- northeast, toward the SGP (see HRS Figure 3) [17, pp. 1

- 3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20

- 21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14

- 18, 21, 40

- 41; 132, pp.

25- 26, 32

- 33, 59

- 60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62

- 64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16

- 17; 145, pp. 29

- 30, 36, 63; 148, pp. 26

- 27, 54

- 60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20

- 21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21

- 22, 38

- 39; 170, pp. 22

- 23, 52

- 53; 174, pp. 28

- 30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23

- 24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18

- 19, 24, 27, 42 ]. M onitoring wells have been installed in both the overburden and bedrock to characterize the impacts of CVOCs migrating from the facility to the SGP [130, pp. 2, 12

- 13, 17, 19

- 21, 25]. Ground water monitoring wells and samples which characterize the impact o f the release of CVOCs to the aquifer from the facility to the downgradient SGP are presented below (Tables 16 through 18).

Table 16 - Contaminated Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring

Well ID Location Installation

Date Sampling Frequency Screened

Interval Screened

Interval Geology Reference

MW302 North of Route 11

on the western portion of the Sarah Greenfield property,

east

- northeast of the facility 3/27/89 55 times from May

- 89 to

Nov

- 09 262 to

236.7 1 Gravelly sand 130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 41, 51

- 52; 133, p. 46

MW303 North of Route 11

on the Eva

Christensen property, northeast of the facility 4/11/89 56 times from May

- 89 to

Aug

- 11 262.4 to

237.1 1 Gravelly sand 130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 53; 133, p. 46

1 Elevation is based on ground elevation referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 and well construction specifications [130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 41, 48

- 59, 66

- 67].

As noted above, the background ground water samples were collected from within the same aquifer, similar geologic zone (overburden), and during the same time period as the samples collected from the

SGP.

Ground water samples MW302 and MW303, presented in Table 17, were collected from May 1989 to October 1991, and represent ground water conditions on the SGP prior to the July 1995 implementation of the MOM3a remediation system [14, pp. 1, 11

- 13; 140, pp. 6

- 7, 11

- 12]. Ground water samples

collected from the se wells indicated an observed release of PCE, TCE, trans -1,2- DCE, and VC based on chemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations (see Tables 12 and 17) [1, p. 51589].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 60 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Tabl e 17 – Maximum Concentration of Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples collected from the Sarah Greenfield Property May 1989 to July 1995

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Date Detection Limit (μg/L) References

MW302 PCE 450 7/11/91 8

128, p. 50; 133, p. 82; 149, pp.

1- 2, 169

, 207 TCE 140 7/11/91 8

1,2

- DCE 270 7/11/91 8

VC 73 10/5/89 10

MW303 PCE 220 10/5/89 5

130, p. 71; 149, pp. 1

- 2, 153, 170; 152, pp. 19, 30 TCE 180 5/15/89 5

1,2

- DCE 250 10/10/91 5

As noted above, a MOM3a remedial system with extraction and containment wells was implemented at the facility in July 1995. Analytical results of the treatment system effluent has indicated elevated concentrations of CVOCs [136, p. 300]. Ground water sampl es MW302 and MW303, presented in Table 18, were collected on the SGP subsequent to the MOM3a implementation, and analytical results have indicated continued elevated concentration of CVOCs [14, pp. 1, 11

- 12, 14; 140, pp. 6

- 7, 11 -12]. Concentrations of PCE, TCE, and cis -1,2- DCE in ground water samples meet observed release criteria by chemical analysis (see Tables 12 and 18) [1, p. 51589]. VC concentrations in sample MW302 and TCE concentrations in sample MW303 did not meet observed release criteria based on sampling performed in April 2008 and November 2009; however, these concentrations did exceed their respective MCL values [137, pp. 55

- 60]. Results of earlier rounds of sampling documented an observed release of these two

hazardous substances at these loca tions [13, pp. 1-4; 14, pp. 1, 11-13].

Table 18 – Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples collected from the Sarah Greenfield Property After July 1995

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Date Detection or Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References

MW302 PCE 280 11/19/09 2 1

137, pp. 55

- 60 TCE 63 11/19/09 2 1

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 110 11/19/09 2 1

MW303 PCE 200 4/16/08 2 2

136, pp. 232

- 235, 240

- 241 Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 41 4/16/08 2 2

* Values in this column represent detection limits or reporting limits (see below)

.

1 A trip blank submitted in 2009 with ground water sample MW30 2 was analyzed using the same method with the same dilution factor of 1 [137, pp. 55

- 60]. The reporting limit for the non

- detect analytes is reported for the Tri p Blank sample. Based on the same method and same dilution factor, ground water sample MW302 ha s the same reporting limit as the trip blank for the analytes of concern.

2 Trip blank samples submitted in 2008 with ground water sample MW303 were analyzed us ing the same method with the same dilution factor of 1 [ 136, pp. 232

- 265, 240

- 241 ]. The detection limit for the non

- detect analytes is reported for the Trip Blank sample. Based on the same method and same dilution factor, ground water sample

MW303 ha s the same detection limit as the trip blank for the analytes of concern.Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 61 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Chemical Analysis

– Drinking Water Samples

Gravel Pack Well No. 2 (GP2), installed in 1944, is located adjacent to (west side of) Route 153, approximately 400 feet south of Pokamoonshine Brook on the SGP [116, p. 23; 129, pp. 4, 8; 130, pp. 9, 38]. The SGP is underlain by extensive, highly permeable sand and gravel deposits which thicken eastward toward GP2 [130, p. 9]. The bedrock surface slopes steeply from Route 11 and the facility, on to the SGP, and toward GP2 [130, pp. 9, 41]. Ground water also exhibits this trend flowing eastward from Route 11 toward the Cocheco River and GP2 [130, pp. 9, 40

- 41]. Well installation logs for GP2 indicate that the area underlying the well consists of coarse sand and gravel to at least 58 feet bgs, which is consistent with borings from other portions of the SGP and the Cocheco River Valley [123, pp. 20 -22; 130, pp. 9, 48-67].

Ground water samples have indicated an observed release of site

- related hazardous substances, at concentrations significantly above background, to the aquifer (see previous section). Background ground water samples have been collected within the same aquifer as GP2, and samples collected from GP2 have

indicated an observed release of site

- related hazardous substances to the drinking water supply well (see below).

- Background Concentrations:

As indicated earlier, beginning in September 1984, ground water samples have been collected from three background ground water monitoring wel ls. These three sample locations represent various geologic strata within the interconnected aquifer, and the sample analytical results have consistently documented

non- detect concentrations for site

- related hazardous substances (PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC) [13 , pp. 1

- 8]. The background ground water monitoring wells are located on the outer edges of the CVOC plume originating at the facility, and ground water flow interpretations indicate consistent flow northeast and east [17, pp. 1

- 3]. One background ground wa ter monitoring well (MW305) is installed upgradient of GP2 on the SGP and within the sand overburden [130, pp. 9, 41, 64-65].

During one sampling event conducted for GP2, an additional town well (Town Well 3) was sampled within the Cocheco River Valley a quifer [129, p. 8; 130, p. 8; 141, pp. 1-5]. Town Well 3 (also referred to as GP3) is located approximately 4,500 f eet north of GP2, on t he opposite (east) side of the Cocheco River [129, p. 8]. References indicate that this well is drilled to 51 feet bgs, with 10 feet of screen installed at the bottom [116, p. 25].

Table 19 - Background Drinking Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring

Well ID Location Installation

Date Screened

Interval (feet bgs) Screened Interval Geology Reference

Town Well 3 (GP3) Off Elm Street next to a pond 1974 41 to 51* Overburden 116, p. 25; 129, p. 8

*File information indicates that the well is screened between 41 and 51 feet below the ground surface [116, p. 25].

bgs = Below ground surface.

Town Well 3 was sampled on 16 February 1984 during a sampling investigation of GP2 (also referred to as Town Well 2) [141, pp. 1

- 3]. Background drinking water sample Town Well 3 w as submitted to ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc., for VOC analysis by EPA Method 624 [ 141, pp. 2

- 3]. Analytical results of the background drinking water sample collected from Town Well 3 indicated that all listedGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 62 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 analy tes were non -detect at the reporting limit of 1 μg/L [141, pp. 2-3].

Table 20 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Background Drinking Water Samples

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit (μg/L) References

Town Well

3 (GP3) PCE ND 1 141, pp. 1 -3

Trans

- 1,2

- DCE ND 1 141, pp. 1 -3

Based on the analysis of background public drinking water supply sample Town Well 3, an observed release is documented when at minimum the analyte concentration is equal to or greater than 1 μg/L.

- Contaminated Samples:

Initial sampling of GP2 was conducted on 24 A ugust 1983, a nd analytical results indic ated detectable levels of CVOCs in the public supply well [100, pp. 1

- 3, 5

- 7; 101]. Subsequent sampling of the well indicated varying concentrations of the same CVOCs through June 1986 [57, p. 58; 129, pp. 44, 51]. The sampling events were conducted by bot h a state of NH agency and contractors for DRC [57, pp. 2, 58].

Sampling of GP2 (also referred to as Town Well 2) on 16 February 1984 was conducted by personnel from the State of New Hampshire Groundwater Permit Division while one employee from GEI (DRC consultant) was present [194, p. 1]. The sample from GP2 was collected from a faucet in the discharge line, and a split sample was provided to GEI [194, p. 1; 195, p. 1].

Table 21 – Public Drinking Water Well Details

Monitoring

Well ID Location Installation

Date Screened

Interval (feet bgs) Screened Interval Geology Reference

Gravel Pack

Well 2 (GP2) Adjacent to (west side of) Route 153, approximately 400 feet south

of Pokamoonshine Brook 1944 45.5 to 55.5* Sandy overburden 116, p. 23; 129, pp. 4, 8

* File information indicates that the well is screened between 45.5 and 55.5 feet below the ground surface [116, p. 23; 129, pp. 4, 8].

bgs = Below ground surface.

On 16 F ebruary 1984, the Town Well 2 s ample (also referred to as GP2) was submitted by GEI (contractor for DRC) to ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc., for VOC analysis by EPA Method 624 [141, pp. 1

- 3]. Analytical results indicated the presence of PCE and trans -1,2- DCE above laboratory reporting limits [141, pp. 1- 3]. Therefore, an observed release of PCE and trans -1,2- DCE has been documented in a drinking water sample from Town Well 2 (also known as GP2) based on chemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations [1, p. 51589; 141, pp. 1-3].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 63 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Table 22 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Drinking Water Samples

Sample

ID Hazardous

Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit (μg/L) References

Town

Well 2 (GP2) PCE 8.6 1

141, pp. 1 -3 Trans

- 1,2

- DCE 3 1

Based on the sampling results presented above, as well as results of additional samples collected at the facility, the SGP, and the GP2 supply well, an observed release of CVOCs to the aquifer has been documented (see above).

Attribution:

The hazardous substances used to establish an observed release (PCE, TCE, trans -1,2- DCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and VC) are associated with the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site or are transformation products of hazardous substances associated with the site, and the site has contributed at least in part to the significant increase of the hazardous substance concentrations, as described in the paragraphs below. Other possible sources of the observed release hazardous substances were investigated throu gh review of file information and observations made during field activities (see Other Possible Sources section below).

Based on file documentation and an interview with a former employee, PCE solvent was historically used and stored at the facility and a spill/leakage of PCE solvent occurred which was associated with a PCE solvent tank and pipelines (see Source No. 1) [57, pp. 8

- 10; 63, p. 1] . According to previous reports prepared for DRC and EPA Hazardous Waste Compliance Program documentation, TCE was also used at the facility, reportedly for maintenance [25, pp. 1, 14; 57, pp. 1, 10]. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a polymer which contains VC, was used at the facility and generated as a solid waste [ 39, p. 4; 57, pp. 8 -10; 209, pp. 1-2]. Based on analytical sampling data, PCE, TCE, and VC, as well as trans -1,2- DCE, have been documented in sources at concentrations greater than background (see Sources Nos. 1, 2, and 3) [43, pp.

21- 22, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 2, 5

- 6; 63, p. 1; 127, pp. 7, 120 -121 ]. These sources exhibit containment factor values greater than zero (see Source Nos. 1, 2, and 3) [23, p. 7; 63, p. 1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 125, pp. 13, 16-17, 66, 71, 74, 79; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55-56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161 ].

PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC are manufactured chemicals that are non-naturally occurring in the environment [143, p. 19; 147, p. 203; 198, p. 1; 199, p. 1, 200, p. 1; 203, p. 1; 204, p. 1; 207, p. 1; 209, p. 1]. PCE is a parent substance that is associated with Source No. 1 based on documentation that the chemical was used and stored at the facility and based on supporting soil sample analytical results, and is associated with Source Nos. 2 and 3 based on analytical sample results [ 43, pp. 21, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6; 57, pp. 15; 63, p. 1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 127, pp. 7, 120

- 121; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55

- 56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161; 196, pp. 2 6 -27 ]. Under reducing conditions in soil and/or ground water, naturally occurring microorganisms can deg rade PCE (through a process known as anaerobic reductive dechlorination) to transformation products such as TCE [196, pp. 26

- 27; 200, pp. 1

- 3]. Degradation of TCE continues to DCE [which may exist as 1,1

- DCE or 1,2

- DCE isomers ( cis

- DCE or trans

- DCE)], whic h then can be degraded to VC [196, pp. 26

- 27]. SHA has concluded that ground water beneath the facility and the SGP has exhibited the formation of degradation products over time [120, pp. 11-17].

The presence of hazardous substances associated with Source Nos. 1 through 3, and the documentation via chemical analysis of a significant increase of these substances to ground water, support at least partial attribution of the hazardous substances to releases from the site [1, p. 51588, Section 2.2.2].

TCE, PC E, DCE, and VC can exist as dense non

- aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) [201, p. 8; 205, p. 1;Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 64 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 206, p. 1]. D NAPLs are denser than water and are relatively immiscible in water, allowing them to remain

in a non

- aqueous phase [197, pp. 149 -156]. These features c an make DNAPLs difficult to detect in the environment, and can also allow DNAPLs to act as a source over time for dissolved contamination in ground water [200, pp. 1 -3]. The migration of DNAPLs is determined by complex interactions between

the DNAPL chemic als and the hydrogeological formations through which the DNAPLs move [197, pp. 149-156]. Provided there is sufficient mass to drive movement, the DNAPL will continue to move downward through preferential pathways (i.e., coarser grained materials that provi de less capillary resistance) until it meets a zone of low permeability, where it will tend to pool or, if the zone has a slope

, will move across the surface to lower areas [197, pp. 149

- 156]. DNAPLs will tend to move vertically

downward and collect in low spots or along impermeable barriers [200, pp. 1

- 3]. NH DES affirms that there likely is DNAPL present on the facility based on the examination of PCE concentrations within ground water wells, and that this DNAPL is possible in the deeper bedrock [235, pp. 1-2].

Subsurface investigations at the Collins & Aikman facility have indicated that the overburden materials underlying the facility are generally fill and natural overburden materials consisting of poorly

- sorted sand with gravel and boulders/cobbles [121, p. 15]. During bedrock boring installation activities in 2009, SHA concluded that sand and gravel are generally consistent with surficial geologic materials that may be

‘transitional’ between the till

- dominant, topographically

- higher areas south of th e “main site building” (assumed to be the manufacturing building), and the stratified

- drift dominant areas associated with the Cocheco River Valley to the north (assumed to be the SGP) [120, p. 4; 121, p. 15]. In addition, bedrock investigations at the fac ility have indicated that the bedrock is highly fractured and weathered, and does not closely mimic surface topography [98, pp. 7, 15-20; 121, p. 17; 137, pp. 25, 32-35, 45-53]. A study by SHA involving overburden ground water pumping, documented a ground water elevation response in bedrock monitoring wells suggesting a hydraulic connection between shallow/deep bedrock and overburden ground water [121, pp. 20-21].

Numerous ground water flow interpretations conducted within the interconnected aquifer indica te that ground water flow from the facility is directed north-northeast from the bedrock uplands behind (south of) the plant toward the SGP [17, pp. 1 -3; 121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25

- 26, 60; 148, p. 11]. A steep hydraulic gradient and sloping bedrock surfa ce directs ground water from the facility toward the SGP [ 15, pp. 1 -2; 17, pp. 1

- 3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20

- 21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14

- 18, 21, 40

- 41; 132, pp. 25

- 26, 32

- 33, 59

- 60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62

- 64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16 -17; 145, pp. 29

- 30, 36, 63; 148, pp. 26

- 27, 54

- 60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20

- 21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21

- 22, 38

- 39; 170, pp. 22

- 23, 52

- 53; 174, pp. 2 8

- 30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23

- 24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18

- 19, 24, 27, 42] . Ground water samples

from wells installe d upgradient of the documented source areas have not indicated detectable concentrations of CVOCs (see Background Concentrations) [13, pp. 1

- 8]. In addition, plume studies have indicated a source of CVOCs at the facility and their migration across Route 11 and onto the SGP [16, pp. 1-4].

Sampling of numerous ground water monitoring wells on the facility and the SGP have indicated elevated concentrations of CVOCs [14, pp. 1

- 14]. In addition, ground water monitoring wells installed downgradient of the facility on the SGP (MW300 series) and close to GP2 (MW301) have continued to show elevated concentrations of CVOCs [148, pp. 18, 112

- 114, 117

- 119, 143

- 152; 170, pp. 16, 134 -137, 147, 170].

Other Possible S it es:

A review of the EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) databases identified two CERCLIS and 59 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites in Farmington, NH, including the Collins & Aikman (Former) site [218; 219]. The two sites identified in the CERCLISGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 65 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 data base search are the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) and the Cardinal Landfill site [218, p. 1]. A

search of the RCRA da tabase and NH DES One Stop was performed for the Town of Farmington to identify sites with similar operational activities, or with manifests for substances similar to or the same as the contaminants of concern at Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) [227, pp. 1 -2]. The search indicated five locations within Farmington where these chlorinated solvents have been used [227, pp. 1-2].

Cardinal Landfill Farmington Landfill

Both the Cardinal Landfill and the adjacent Farmington Landfill are located near the facility and within the downgradient aquifer in which the former Town of Farmington drinking water supply well (GP2) is located [95, pp. 102; 122, p. 93]. Historical environment investigation reports indicate that both properties have been documented to contain CVOCs [97, pp. 8, 9; 211, pp. 31

- 37; 212, pp. 37

- 45; 213, pp. 36 -43; 214 pp. 40

- 47; 216, pp. 46

- 55; 217, pp. 42

- 50; 220, p. 4; 221, pp. 3, 8; 222, pp. 3, 8; 223, p. 59; 225, p. 13]. Below is a summary of the Cardinal and Farmington Landfills as well as a pump test investigation conducted to determine CVOC contributions to GP2 in relation to the Collins & Aikman facility and the two landfills. In addition, the other po ssible source search results described above are explained.

The Cardinal Landfill (EPA CERCLIS ID number NHD980913321) is located on Watson Corner Road in Farmington, NH, approximately 1 mile east of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility and

appro ximately 0.35 miles east

- southeast of the former Town of Farmington Supply Well GP2 [95, p. 102; 220, p. 1; 218, p. 1 ; 122, p. 93] . The landfill covers approximately 30 a cres and is bordered on the southwest by the Farmington Municipal Landfill [220, p. 4 ]. Beginning in the late 1960s, Textron Automotive Company or its predecessors in interest began disposing of hazardous wastes in the Cardinal Landfill [220, p. 1]. Based on historical reports, the wastes included PVC trimming scraps, paint wastes,

drums o f waste solvents, and other wastes, which reportedly contained various chemicals (primarily VOCs), including degreasing or cleaning solvents (methylene chloride, PCE, TCE) and paint solvents (acetone, MEK, MIBK, xylenes, and toluene) [220, pp. 4,5; 223, pp. 12-13; 226, pp. 2-3]. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) noted that the primary forms of contamination at the Cardinal Landfill are waste solvents and other VOCs in ground water [220, p. 1]. These contaminants were disposed of i n the northeastern portion of the landfill ("the primary landfill") between the late 1960s and 1981 [220, p. 1]. Following an inspection of the Textron facility [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility] in 1981, the State prohibited disposal of hazardous materials in the landfill; however, for the next 10 years (until 1991), Textron continued to use the landfill for non

- hazardous waste disposal [220, pp. 1, 5]. Contaminants of concern at the Cardinal Landfill include hazardous substances used to document a n observed release at the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site, including PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC [97, pp. 8-9; 220, p. 5; 221, pp. 3, 8; 222, pp. 3, 8; 223, p. 59; 225, p. 13].

Shallow ground water flow carries the contaminants mostly west and then southwest toward the Cocheco River, which is located between the Cardinal Landfill and GP2 [97, pp. 10, 13, 24; 220, p. 1; 224, p. 268; 225, p 24; 226, p. 4]. Several homes along Watson Corner Road were forced to abandon their private

wells in the mid

- 1980s due to chemical contamination from the landfill [220, pp. 1

- 2]. The ground water contamination in the shallow overburden has decreased considerably over time, yet concentrations of some VOCs still remain very high or unchanged on the landfill [220, p.1].

Th e Farmington Landfill is located along Dump Road in Farmington, NH, approximately 0.9 mile east of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility and approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the former Town of Farmington Supply Well GP2 [216, p. 6; 95, p. 102; 220, p. 4; 218, p. 1]. The landfill consists of approximately 31.5 acres of land, of which approximately 12.5 acres make up the footprint of the active landfill [212, p 4 ; 216, p. 6]. Landfill operations began in the late 1940s and prior to this time, the property was a sand and gravel barrow pit [216, p. 6]. Wastes deposited in the landfill consisted primarilyGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 66 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 of

residential refuse; however, the landfill had also accepted commercial wastes from local businesses [216, p. 6]. Since the 1970s, residential septic sludge and sludge from the Farmington Wastewater Treatment Plant were disposed of in the lagoons located on the southern end of the property [216, p. 6]. Disposal of septic wastes within the lagoons ended in 2005 [216, p. 6].

A series of environmental investigations have been conducted at the Farmington Landfill beginning in 1984 [211, pp. 1

- 37; 212, pp. 1

- 80; 213, pp. 1

- 66; 214, pp. 1

- 69; 215, pp. 1

- 37; 216, pp. 6, 14 -58].

Contaminants of concern documented in an observed release at the Collins & Aikm an site have also been documented at the Farmington Landfill [211, pp. 31

- 37; 212, pp. 37

- 45; 213, pp. 36

- 46; 214 pp. 40 -49; 216, pp. 46

- 58; 217, pp. 42

- 53]. Historical reports indicate that ground water flow has been predominantly to the southwest from the main landfill area toward the Cocheco River [211, pp. 5, 11 -13; 213, p. 38; 214 p. 8; 216, p.12; 217, p. 9 ]. The ground water on the Farmington Landfill is reportedly impacted by the Cardinal Landfill, which abuts the property to the northeast and is hyd raulically upgradient; however, VOC contamination continues to decrease over time [216, p. 8].

GP2 Pump Test:

A pump test of supply well GP2 was conducted by ChemCycle Corporation in August 1988 for Davidson/Textron to determine the possible sources of VOCs detected in the well [129, p. 4]. A network of newly installed observation wells and existing ground water monitoring wells located between the three possible sources (Collins & Aikman facility, Cardinal Landfill, and Farmington Landfill) and the

GP2 supply well, were used to track the ground water elevation changes during pumping and provide sample locations for VOC analysis [129, pp. 6, 8

- 15]. Based on results of the pumping test study, ChemCycle concluded ground water does not appear to cross under the Cocheco River and that the river provides sufficient recharge to the aquifer to act as a ground water barrier [95, pp. 10, 97, 101,102; 129, pp. 40

- 41]. Pumping test observations indicated that after 900 minutes of pumping GP2, the first signs of

rech arge to the aquifer from the Cocheco River were noted to the south [95, p. 10, 97; 129, p. 77]. The observation well located in the Cardinal Landfill showed no effect from the pumping test [129, p. 41]. The pumping test further revealed that drawdown induc ed GP2’s cone of depression into a VOC contamination plume to the west of GP2 and directly downgradient of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility, beyond the Test Well TW- 1 [95, pp. 10, 101,102; 129 , pp. 11, 41]. Furthermore, ground water quality results for samples collected as part of the pumping test indicated that low levels of VOCs were detected in GP2 and the test wells to the west (MW -1, MW-2, TW- 1); while no VOCs were detected

in the wells MW

- 3 and MW

- 4, located to the east between GP2 and the Cocheco River, toward the Cardinal and Farmington Landfills [95, pp. 10, 1 01,102; 129, pp. 40

- 42, 45

- 52]. ChemCycle further concluded that recharge from the Cocheco River prevents GP2 from drawing any contaminants from east of the river, such as those tha t have been identified at the Cardinal Landfill [95, pp. 12]. This pump test

indicates that contamination from the Cardinal Landfill and the Farmington Landfill did not significantly

contribute to the contamination in GP2.

Review of Additional Possible Si te s:

A search of NH DES One Stop was performed on Gozzie’s Garage, Perreault Auto Body, Schaefer Rolls, Vioth Paper, and Energy Resources Group and yielded information which indicated that no releases had been reported at the facilities [227]. A review of online documentation obtained from the NH DES One Stop Hazardous Waste Generator Reports indicated that wastes generated and transported off site for the five locations began as early as 1988 [227]. CVOC contamination was first discovered in GP2 in early 1984 [129, p. 44 ]. Gozzie’s Garage is located northwest of Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) and is hydraulically upgradient. Background monitoring well MW305 is located northwest of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) and downgradient of Gozzie’s Garage, an d has not indicated the presence of CVOCs [227]. In addition, Perreault Auto Body Schaefer Rolls, Vioth Paper, and Energy ResourcesGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 67 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 Gr oup are located hydraulically downgradient of GP2 [227].

Hazardous Substances Released

Tetrachloroethene/Tetrachloroeth ylene/Perchloroethylene (PCE) Trichloroethene/Trichloroethylene (TCE) Vinyl Chloride (VC)

cis -1,2-dichloroethene (DCE)

trans -1,2- DCE

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The Toxicity Factor Value and the Mobility Factor Value are assigned to the hazardous substances associated with the sources and releases at the site, and are based on the values presented in the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) [2].

Table 23 - Toxi city and Mobility Factor Values Associated with Observed Release Hazardous Substances

Hazardous

Substance Source No. (and/or

Observed Release) Toxicity

Factor

Value Mobility

Factor

Value* Does Hazardous

Substance Meet Observed Release by

Chemical Analysis? (Y/N) Toxicity/ Mobility (Ref. 1,

Table 3 -9) References

PCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2 , A

- 336

TCE 1,2,3,4 1,000 1 Y 1,000 2 , A -2

1,2

- DCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2 , A

- 132

Trans

- 1,2

- DCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2 , A

- 136

Cis

- 1,2

- DCE 1,2,3,4 1,000 1 Y 1,000 2 , A

- 134

VC 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 Y 10,000 2 , A

- 395

*Per the HRS, any hazardous substance that meets the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis to one or more aquifers underlying the sources at the site, regardless of the aquifer being evaluated, is assigned a mobility

factor value of 1 [1, p p. 51601

- 51602 (Section 3.2.1.2) ].

The observed release substance, VC, is assigned a Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Mobility Factor Value of 1.0 [1, pp. 51601

- 51602 (Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2); 2, p. A

- 395]. From HRS Table 3

- 9, a Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Mobility Factor Value of 1.0 for VC results in a Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value of 10,000 [1, p. 51602 (Table 3-9)].

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value [1, p. 51602 (Table 3- 9)]: 10,000Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 68 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 3.2.2 H AZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

Table 24 - Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Sourc e Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Other

– Leaks and Spills > 0

2 Other > 0

3 Tank > 0

> = Greater than.



### Sum of Values: > 0

Based on HRS Section 2.4.2.2, if the Hazardous Constituent Quantity is not adequately determined for one or more sources, and if any target for the ground water pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, a factor value is assigned from Table 2- 6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for that pathway [1, pp. 51 591 (Table 2

- 6), 51592 ( Section 2.4.2.2)].

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.2)]: 100

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The Toxicity Factor Value (10,000) and the Mobility Factor Value (1.0) for VC are multiplied in order to determine the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) [1, p. 51602 ( Section 3.2.1.3 (Table 3 -9)) ]. The Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value for the aquifer (10,000) is multiplied by the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the aquifer (100) in order to determine the Waste Characteristics Product, subject to a

maximum value of 1 × 10 8 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 (Section 3.2.3)]. 10,000 × 100 = 1 ×

10 6

.

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (100): 1 × 10 6

From HRS Table 2

- 7, the Waste Characteristics Product (1 × 10 6 ) is assigned a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 32 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 (Section 3.2.3)].

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value [1, p. 51592 (Table 2- 7)]: 32

3.3 TARGET S

Previous investigations have documented a release of hazardous substances to ground water downgradient of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility that are at least partially attributable to source areas. In 1985, based on the results of drinking wa ter supply samples collected from nearby residences, impacted residences were connected to the Town of Farmington, NH municipal water supply through construction of a water line extension completed by the facility owner [68, p. 1; 69, pp. 1

- 3; 70, pp. 4 -17 ; 71, p. 1; 72, pp. 1-2; 73, pp. 1-2; 74, p. 1; 75, p. 1; 76, pp. 5, 7]. The addition of these residential drinking water supply wells as targets, and the resulting pathway score, would not impact the overall site score (the groundGround Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 69 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 wa ter pathway is maximiz ed by the scoring presented); therefore, these targets have not been included in the HRS documentation record. However, a threat may be present for additional residential drinking water targets not yet identified. Below is a discussion of targets scored ba sed on the documented observed

release.

Level I Concentrations

In the public drinking water sample presented, PCE was detected at a concentration above the MCL in drinking water [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3 -10); 2 , p. A- 336, 141, pp. 1-3].

Based on P CE and trans -1,2- DCE analytical results of samples collected from GP2, a r elease to the drinking water supply well has been documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 5159 3 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3 -10); 2 , p. A

- 336, 141, pp. 1 -3 ]. Chlorinated solvents were detected in samples collected from GP2 beginning in late August 1983 [100, pp. 3, 5; 101]. In addition, samples collected on 16 February 1984 indicate detectable levels of PCE and DCE in the drinking water supply well sample [141, pp. 1-3].

Drinking water from GP2 was used exclusively by the DRC facility after the discovery of chlorinated solvents; however, the well supplemented the Town of Farmington drinking water supply on oc casi on [102, p. 1; 103; 112; 114; 116, pp. 29

- 30]. In early 1984, DRC begin investigating the installation of new alternative drinking water supply wells to be located at the facility, which would serve all potable water needs [104; 105; 106, p. 1; 107

- 110]. R ecords indicate that the wells became an active supply of drinking water to the facility between March and June 1984 [111, p. 2; 113, pp. 2

- 4]. Records also indicate that the system failed in August 1985; and file information does not indicate what was used as the supply of drinking water to the DCR facility during this period [111]. Based on t his information, documented contaminated drinking water from GP2 was being consumed from at least August 1983 to March 1984.

Table 25 - Benchmark Comparison for Level I Drinking Water Samples

Sample ID Hazardous

Substance Hazardous

Substance

Concentration (μg/L) Benchmark

Concentration (μg/L) Benchmark References for

Benchmark

Town Well No. 2 (GP2) PCE 8.6 5.0 MCL 2 , p. A

- 336, 141, pp. 1 -3

Level II Concentrations

No Level II concentrations were evaluated as part of this documentation record.

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

Based on PCE analytical results of the drinking water sample from GP2, a release to the drinking water supply well has been documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3 -10); 2 , p. A

- 336, 141, pp. 1 -3 ]. As a drinking water supply well is subject to Level I concentrations, a Nearest Well Factor Value of 50 is assigned [1, pp. 51602 -5160 3 (Section 3.3.1)]. The closest drinking water supply well containing Level I concentrations of the target compounds is the GP2 well, located between 0.5 and 0.7 miles northeast of the sources presented in this HRS Documentation Record [210].Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 70 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 We ll ID: GP 2 (Town Well 2) Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): I If potential contamination, distance from source in miles:

Nearest Well Factor Value [1, p. 51603 (Table 3- 11)]: 50

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concent rations

Level I Population Targets

A remedial investigation and interview with a former employee indicated that between January 1983 and August 1986, the DRC employed between 600 and 1,400 people [57, p. 8; 115; 117, p. 9]. A Wastewater Evaluation conducted by Kimball Chase, completed between January and October 1984 and during the period of documented consumption of contaminated drinking water indicated that the average employment for the DCR facility was 750 employees [117, p. 9]. This date range genera lly corresponds to the time during which the on

- site drinking water supply wells came on

- line and the use of GP2 was

discontinued due to VOC contamination and is therefore considered the most accurate estimation of the drinking water target population [52, p. 2; 58, pp. 1-2; 85, p. 1; 111, p. 2; 113, pp. 2-4; 119, pp. 1-2].

File information indicates that a total of 750 employees were served by drinking water supply well GP2 during documented chlorinated solvent contamination (16 February 1984) and that a total of 750 Level I Actual Contamination Targets have been documented [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 2, p. A-336, 141, pp. 1-3].

Table 26 - Level I Wells

Level I Well Aquifer No. Population References

GP2 1 750 111, p. 3 ; 115; 117, p. 9

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 750 Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells x 10: 7,500

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 7,500 [1, p. 51603 (Section 3.3.2.2)]

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

Level II Population Targets

No Level II Population Targets have been identified as part of the investigation of the facility

.

Sum of Population Served by Level II Wells: None

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0 [1, p. 51603 (Section 3.3.2.3)]Ground Water Migration Pathway Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 71 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 3.3.2.4 P otential Contamination

Potential Population Targets

The potential population relying on ground water supply sources within 4 radial miles of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility was evaluated but not scored as part of this HRS Documentation Reco rd [228, p. 1].

Calculations:

Sum of Distance

- Weighted Population Values:

Sum of Distance

- Weighted Population Values/10:

Potential Contamination Factor Value: Not Scored (1, p. 51603-51604 (Section 3.3.2.4)]

3.3.3 RESOURCES

No Resources were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record.

Resources Factor Value: Not Scored

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

No Wellhead Protection Areas were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record.

Wellhead Protection Area F actor Value: Not Scored