EPA/540/4-90/033
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
North Carolina
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites ....vii
How To:
Using the State Volume ..xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
^ " close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly
known as the Superfund —
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
m
-------
••x
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
groundwater — must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make — as a
Nation — in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
s^v>
""t. he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
" waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
' establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP 1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
>
D
-
n
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vu
-------
l^out potential
s^^^s -^w&s^
n Jogs EPA1 ^
what, If
;S'-
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site/ so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
U.
-i".
••W-:
, •.'-% ,v<
'^^. /t ,
•••s
f
=9&£
X, '
^Z-
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment — such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
f. JVj4_ A--.
{.s&e imfcefetloitf" ^ ^ 4
IX
-------
^^^ x
-™'1 \\ C •.*>•> •• s^
>^s*.^sS's^^ SssxX^ '
X
j^«\';^S<.XsS'H*X- Sssxxyfr s $. "• % i p*ff
SS^ltV^p^l^rvr""-;-- « ,
s»»sv ^ » •••><«. A^ ^ ^. s f s,v,% s %
\s •. ^ X i *•
f^do people find1 s --••
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 3.2,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
ic
site is
£ what
to
'CVv
v •*••• *<.
-. >-. V,
&•*.<<
•-,?"
5^-5
S< „ vv x_
; rr "-5 ^ %
'«V.
v^i.v«
XI
-------
Dgesjlie p«blk ham
iH the fittal ""
^lamjtp^decisiom?^
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
•>
*• %}
f /'- ~ ff^' ' SS. a" f
--&'"f", ' -• «»**££ *- ' v.t, ^
-
-------
fFCT^q^
it take to '
t^A^^^aVX
dean tip
W-^« ™*
^lhe cleaxwap ^ *'
S
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination. ,
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup — called the
remedial action — are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them — an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And ifs not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
¥• ^
A . •;
patties ;
contamination pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination " Responsible for tfoe *
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
v.v.
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
"summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
ROD|\
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site — or part
of the site — are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
ZE
-Threats and Contaminants -
•',;,,« f «• -' -'" - - -' "
Cleanup Approach •
Response Action Status
Site Facts:
Environmental Progress
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XVlll
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that ,,
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites
State of N
North Carolina is located on the Eastern Seaboard and bordered by Virginia to the north,
Tennessee to,the west, and South Carolina and Georgia to the south. North Carolina
covers 52,669 square miles and consists of Atlantic coastal plains and tidewater,
piedmont plateau, rugged hills, and the Appalachian Mountains. The State experienced
a 10.3 percent increase in population during the 1980s and has approximately
6,489,000 residents, ranking 10th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries are
manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism. North Carolina manufactures textiles, food
products, electronic and electrical equipment, chemicals, furniture, and machinery.
How Many North Carolina Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
2
20
1
23
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01, 04, 05, 09 1 site
Cong. District 10, 11 2 sites
Cong. District 07, 02 3 sites
Cong. District 03 4 sites
Cong. District 08 5 sites
20
| 15+
'55
*S 10 +
*
5 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and petrochemicals.
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
M m
Soil GW SW Seds Air Solid
Waste
(Sludge)
Contamination Area
Air: Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), heavy metals (inorganics),
and pesticides.
"Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
__ Remedy
"Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 11 sites as interim cleanup measures
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in North Carolina, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
North Carolina Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(919)733-2178
(404) 347-2234
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow {•>-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
•^ An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
•*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
«*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
•+• A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
JtTOJ
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
Ejress lowara Cleanup so- j
She Name
ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC.
BY-PASS 601 GROUNDWATER
CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RESERVATN
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
CELANESE CORPORATION
CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM
CHEMTRONICS, INC.
FCX.INC. (STATESVILLE)
FCX, INC. (WASHINGTON)
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
HEVI DUTY COMPANY
JADCO-HUGHES
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
KOPPERS CO, INC. (MORRISVILLE PLNT)
MARTIN MARIETTASODYECO
.NJTJL/ OlLCtJ i
County
ONSLOW
MOORE
HAYWOOD
CABARRUS
ONSLOW
CUMBERLAND
CUMBERLAND
CLEVELAND
RICHMOND
BUNCOMBE
IREDELL
BEAUFORT
MOORE
WAYNE
GASTON
GRANVILLE
WAKE
MECKLENBURG
U til'
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Final
e otciLt; uj. X\UJILJU v/tuuuua.
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
03/31/89 •*•
03/31/89 •*" •*• •*• •*•
10/04/89 •*-
06/01/86 •*• •*•
10/04/89 •*"
07/01/87 •*• •*• *• •*•
07/01/87 "*• «^
06/01/86 ^ "^ "^ +
07/01/87 "^ +
09/01/83 •*- •*• "^ ^"
06/24/88 •*- B^
03/31/89 "^ "*•
10/04/89 "^ "*•
05/05/89 "*-
06/01/86 •*•
10/04/89 +
03/31/89 "^ >*•
09/01/83 "^ "^ •*" ^
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
37 NATIONAL STARCH & CHEM. CORP
39 N.C. STATE U (LOT 86 FARM UNIT#1)
41 NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT
43 PCB SPILLS
45 POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SVS PITS
ROWAN Final 10/04/89
WAKE Final 06/10/86
NEW HANOVER Final 03/31/89
HALIFAX Delete 03/10/86
BRUNSWICK Final 03/31/89
XXV
-------
-------
-------
-------
ABC ONE H
CLEANER
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD024644494
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Onslow County
Jacksonville
Site Description
The 1-acre ABC One Hour Cleaners site has operated as a dry cleaning operation since
1954. Facilities previously consisted of three buildings, but two of the buildings were
joined to form one complex. Workers stored tetrachloroethylene (PCE), a dry-cleaning
solvent, in a 250-gallon aboveground tank. The only hazardous wastes known to be
generated at the site were from the recycling wastes still that was used to reclaim
spent solvents. Until about 1985, they were buried on the site, although operators now
send them to an EPA-approved hazardous waste facility. A septic tank-soil absorption
system, consisting of an underground concrete tank and lid, has always been used to
store wastewater. All these processes are housed in the rear building. In 1984, the
nearby Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, also proposed for the NPL in 1988, took
samples from 40 community drinking water supply wells. Analysts found organic
compounds in three wells near two off-base dry cleaners. Investigations by the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development narrowed the
source of the contamination to ABC Cleaners. After inspecting the site, the State found
that the stored solvent was entering the septic tank-soil absorption system and
polluting groundwater. This system has since been taken out of service. State analysts
also identified PCE in a monitoring well at ABC Cleaners and in two community wells
near the site. Approximately 41,000 people obtain drinking water from three public
well systems within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), mainly PCE. Nearby residents may be threatened if they drink
contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup at the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA began an intensive study of site conditions in 1989.
This investigation will explore the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It
is slated for completion in late 1991, with cleanup activities scheduled to start soon
thereafter.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary site investigations and
determined that the ABC One Hour Cleaners site was safe while waiting for the
investigation and cleanup activities to begin.
-------
ABERDEEN
PESTICID
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD980843346
Site Description
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Moore County
Aberdeen
Aliases:
Fairway Six Dump
Twin Dumps
Mclver Pesticide Dump
Route 211 Dump
Farm Chemicals, Inc. Dump
Aberdine Pesticide Dumps
The Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps are a cluster of five pesticide dumps ranging in size
from 1/2 to 1 1/2 acres within 2 miles of one another; all but one are privately owned.
They were discovered in 1984 during construction of a golf course. That same year,
the North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch found several bags
of pesticides and noted a strong chemical odor at the site. State analysis revealed soil
contamination with various pesticides. Soils at two other properties also were found to
be contaminated with pesticides. One is owned by the town of Aberdeen and the
other, 350 feet away, is privately owned. Both are 500 feet from the Farm Chemicals
operation, where a string of owners has manufactured pesticides since the 1930s. A
citizen tip led the State to the Mclver dump in 1984, where officials found 200 to 300
55-gallon pesticide drums in a leased rubble landfill. Further investigations disclosed
another area where pesticides had been dumped. Under a State Order, Farm
Chemicals and the lessee of the property removed the drums in 1985. After the EPA
began emergency cleanup at three of the dumps, the owner of another dump reported
site contamination to authorities. The State found a pile of cardboard containers,
pesticide bags, powders, and tarry residues. The last dump discovered is located on
the site of that long-standing pesticide manufacturer. Soils at all five areas contain
pesticide residues and are permeable, facilitating movement of contaminants into
groundwater. Nearby Page's Lake also is threatened. Four of Aberdeen's 12 municipal
wells are contaminated with forms of lindane; one well was shut down in 1986
because levels were sufficiently elevated to present a health risk. Approximately 15
other off-site wells contained various forms of lindane. The surrounding area is rural,
but residential growth is expected soon. The population within a 3-mile radius of the
sites is approximately 5,700, and 5,100 people actually draw drinking water from public
and private wells located within 3 miles of the sites.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Fifteen off-site wells contained various pesticides, as did soil in many
unlined trenches. On-site soils contain DDT, DDE, and toxaphene.
People may be exposed to health risks through touching pure pesticide
products in surface and subsurface soil or drinking and touching
contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on the cleanup of the Fairway Six dump and cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, EPA emergency workers removing surface
contamination at the Fairway Six site uncovered three large trenches of
buried, concentrated pesticide wastes. Wastes, pure product, and packing
material were excavated, stockpiled, and removed, along with contaminated soils.
Wastes and contaminated soil were removed from the Twin sites and the Mclver site;
workers shipped 458 truckloads to an EPA-approved facility for disposal. In 1985,
under State order, two parties potentially responsible for contamination at the Mclver
dump steam-cleaned, triple-rinsed, and crushed 687 drums and sent them to the
Moore County landfill. Another emergency response removal occurred in 1986 at the
Route 211 site. Five truck loads {105 tons) of pesticide-contaminated soil were shipped
off site for disposal. After pesticides were revealed in Aberdeen's drinking water in
1986, EPA emergency workers returned to discover four more trenches containing
about 12 million pounds of pesticide wastes at the Fairway Six site. An on-site mobile
incinerator burned 12,000 pounds of contaminated soil and debris. Incinerator ash was
stored in 27 on-site 55-gallon drums. In 1988, EPA workers excavated, shredded,
screened, and stockpiled about 22,000 cubic yards of pesticide-contaminated materials,
which now await further treatment through the remedial program.
Fairway Six Disposal Area: The EPA selected a cleanup remedy for this
portion of the site in 1989. It features: (1) excavating and blending
stockpiled pesticide-contaminated wastes; (2) burning them in a mobile
incinerator on site; (3) recycling wastes from this process back into the incinerator; (4)
monitoring air emissions; and (5) disposing of residual ash on the site. The EPA began
designing this remedy in 1989. Union Carbide Corporation has agreed to conduct the
cleanup activities, scheduled to begin in 1990.
Entire Site: The EPA began an intensive study of contamination at this
cluster of dumps in 1987. The investigation will characterize the nature
and extent of soil and groundwater pollution and will recommend the best
strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: Unilateral Administrative Orders were issued to four of the parties
potentially responsible compelling them to implement the cleanup activities at the
Fairway Six Disposal Area. One party agreed to comply with the order. Residential
development awaits disposal of 22,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris
sitting next to the golf course.
Environmental Progress
The emergency treatment and/or removal of solid and liquid wastes, and soil have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Aberdeen
Pesticide Dumps site while further cleanup activities are taking place.
A
-------
BENFIELD
INDUSTRI
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD981026479
REGION 4
'NGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Haywood County
Hazelwood
Site Description
Benfield Industries, Inc. began mixing and packaging bulk chemicals on this
3 1/2-acre site in 1976. The company listed a wide range of organic and inorganic
chemicals for sale. In 1982, a fire destroyed most of the plant; except for minor mixing
operations and cleanup of debris from the fire, operations ceased, in 1986, the owner
removed other debris and usable chemicals from the site in preparation for selling the
land. .The site lies in the floodplain of Richland Creek next to Browning Branch. Local
surface water is used for recreational activities. As of 1985, approximately 1,800
people used drinking water from private wells within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
In 1985, the North Carolina Division of Health Services found high
concentrations of polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the soil on
the western portion of the site, and in other places, produced from
chemical packaging activities. Because the site is unfenced, people and
animals could come into contact with wastes on site. If contaminants
enter groundwater, people who drink such water would be threatened.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA plans to monitor an intensive site study to be
undertaken by the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination.
This investigation will examine the nature and extent of pollution problems
on the site and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is scheduled to
begin in 1990 and conclude in 1992, at which time EPA will select the most effective
and efficient cleanup methods.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Benfield Industries site
while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
-------
BY-PASS 60
GROUND
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD044440303
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cabarrus County
Concord
Alias:
Martin's Scrap Recycling, Inc.
Site Description
The 2-acre By-Pass 601 Groundwater site contains battery salvage and metal recycling
facilities. Past practices included disposing of waste acid on site or selling it for
reclamation and using spent battery casings for fill material on site. In 1982, the
Department of Health Services for North Carolina notified the site owner that waste
materials must be cleaned up or the facility closed. In response, the owner removed 2
to 6 inches of soil in the operations area and sold it for reclamation along with process
waste byproducts. A permit for hazardous waste disposal was granted to the facility in
1983; groundwater contamination was discovered that same year. Approximately 3,000
people live in this rural community. Private wells are near the site, and the closest
home is within 500 feet.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with heavy
metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and chromium. Human health
could be threatened if people touch contaminated sediments or waters or
accidentally ingest contaminanted groundwater. Public access to the site
is restricted by a fence and difficult terrain.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
BY-PASS 601 GROUNDWATER
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1 990, the EPA sampled battery casings off site and will
send workers to clean up contaminated soils and to remove batteries
dumped on the site.
Entire Site: The EPA began an intensive study of site contamination in
1987. The part of the investigation that explored the nature and extent of
problems on site was completed in 1990. Recommendations for final
cleanup strategies are expected to be complete in mid-1990.
Environmental Progress
By performing site sampling and sending workers to clean up contaminated soils and
remove batteries, the EPA has made the By-Pass 601 Groundwater site safer while
investigations are being completed and cleanup activities begin.
-------
CAMP LEJE
MILITAR
RESERVATIO
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NC6170022580
Site Description
REGION 4
iNGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Onslow County
Jacksonville
Aliases:
USMC Camp LeJeune
Marine Corps Base
USMC New River
Marine Corps Air Station
Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, a U.S. Marine Corps Base established in 1941,
covers 170 square miles in Onslow County. The complex has a number of facilities,
including the Marine Corps Air Station New River, which adjoins the base. The main
functions of the base are to provide housing, training, logistical, and administrative
support for Fleet Marine Force Units. The Navy has identified 77 potential waste
disposal areas in Camp LeJeune and has designated 23 as posing a potential threat to
public health and the environment. The Navy has detected pesticides in the soil and
various contaminants in the groundwater. Several on-base drinking water wells have
been closed. Approximately 13,800 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3
miles of the contamination on the site, with the nearest well being 3,500 feet away
from one of the areas of contamination. Groundwater is the sole source of drinking
water for the base and the surrounding communities. Surface water from the base
drains into the Atlantic Ocean via the New River. Both bodies of water are used for
fishing and recreational activities.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as fuels and chlorinated solvents from the former disposal activities.
Soils are contaminated with pesticides, including DDT, DDE, and aldrin.
Because the soil at the site is permeable, conditions are favorable for
contaminants to move into the groundwater. Although several drinking
water wells on the base have been shut down, the contaminant plume
may affect other wells. People who drink the contaminated water may be
at risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the soil and groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RESERVATION
Response Action Status
Soil and Groundwater: The U.S. Marine Corps is studying the extent of
contamination at the site. Once the study is completed in 1992, several
alternatives for cleaning up the soil and groundwater will be
recommended. Because this site is so large, it is broken up into various units to more
effectively deal with the cleanup activities. Each unit covers a different area of
contamination on the base. These areas will be thoroughly investigated to determine
the best alternatives to clean them up.
Site Facts: Camp LeJeune is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP),
a specially funded program established in 1978. Under this program, the Department
of Defense (DOD) has been identifying and evaluating its past hazardous waste sites
and controlling the migration of contaminants from these sites. Public awareness of
contamination problems is high and Camp LeJeune has established a Technical Review
Committee, which includes private citizens from the community.
Environmental Progress
Presently, DOD is monitoring drinking water supplies and subsequently closes wells
when contaminant levels exceed health standards. These practices have reduced risks
from contamination at this site. After placing the Camp LeJeune Military Reservation
site on the NPL, the EPA conducted an initial investigation and determined that the site
does not presently pose an immediate threat to the surrounding communities or the
environment while studies leading to a final cleanup remedy selection are being
conducted by the U. S. Marine Corps.
10
-------
CAPE FEAR
PRESERV
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003188828
Site Description
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Cumberland County
Fayettevllle
The 41-acre Cape Fear Wood Preserving site contains a 10-acre wood preserving
facility. From 1953 until 1983, wood was treated using both the creosote and the
chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA) process. Process wastes were deposited in an
unlined treatment pond and a surface impoundment. Wastes were also allowed to
discharge from a sump into a drainage ditch. Contaminants have been found in
groundwater, a drainage ditch, and a diked pond on the site. Buildings contain
asbestos, and CCA crystals were spilled under the process building. The site is vacant
and access is unrestricted. Approximately 1,000 people live within 1/4 mile of the site.
About 16,000 people living within 3 miles of the site depend on public wells as a source
of drinking water. Land across the road from the site is used for agricultural purposes,
and an unnamed creek is nearby.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 07/01/87
ZTA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic and
chromium, as well as benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The sediments from the pond and surface water from the
drainage ditch are also contaminated with PAHs. The soil is contaminated
with PAHs and arsenic. People who accidentally touch or ingest
contaminated soil, sediments, groundwater, or surface water may be
exposed to hazardous materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, the EPA pumped water out of the pond and
added fly ash to solidify the sludge. The mixture was removed down to
the water table, which was about 7 feet below the surface. The pond
was then filled in with soil from the site. A portion of sediment from an
unnamed creek was also removed. In addition, sludge was removed from a septic
tank. In 1986, the EPA removed creosote from a tank and disposed of it in a federally
approved facility. In 1987, the EPA repaired pipes from the tanks, pumped liquids from
the pond into on-site tanks, and backfilled the pit. In 1988, the EPA dug up the
drainage ditch, installed several new drainage ditches, and removed the dike.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy for the site which
included: excavating the soil, treating it with heat to remove organics,
followed by either washing it or solidifying it to treat inorganics, and then
placing it back in the excavated area; and extracting the groundwater for
treatment The EPA is preparing the technical specifications and design for the
selected cleanup. The cleanup activities will begin once the design phase is completed
in 1990.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions, including pumping and treating contaminated pond water, removing
contaminated sediments from a creek, and repairing pipes and drainage ditches, have
made the Cape Fear Wood Preserving site safe while further cleanup activities are
taking place.
12
-------
CAROLINA
TRANSF
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003188844
Site Description
REGION 4
'NGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cumberland County
Near East Fayetteville
The Carolina Transformer site is on a 1 1/2-acre parcel located in a rural area near East
Fayetteville. The site was formerly used as an electrical transformer recycling facility.
In response to citizen concerns in 1978, the EPA conducted sampling, which revealed
contamination of the soil, a shallow residential drinking water well near the site, and
trace contamination in Carolina Transformer's deep industrial well. The house with the
contaminated shallow well was connected to the public water system in 1979. The
nearest residence is located approximately 250 feet from the site. An estimated 3,000
people reside within a 3-mile radius of the site. A food processing facility also is
located next to the site.
site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Private wells near the site were sampled and contained volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-carrier
compounds from the former transformer recycling operations were found
in a shallow residential drinking water well about 250 feet west of the
site. Soil on the site and nearby surface waters are contaminated with
PCBs and PCB-carrier compounds (chlorobenzenes). Removal of
contaminated soils and filling in the excavated areas with clean fill have
reduced potential risks on site, but exposure to off-site contaminated
soils, sediments, and surface waters may still exist. Potential risks may
exist to individuals who touch or accidentally ingest contaminated surface
or groundwater, soils, and sediments; breathe contaminated dusts; or
consume agricultural crops that may contain bioaccumulated
contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
Response Action Status
"**'" Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed 975 tons of contaminated
soil and transported it to a federally approved facility. Residents with
contaminated groundwater were connected to the public water supply.
Recently, the EPA completed a removal of PCB-containing capacitors disposed of at the
site after the 1984 removal activities were completed.
Entire Site: A study is being conducted by the EPA to determine the
extent of the contamination and to identify alternative technologies for the
cleanup. Once the results of the study have been reviewed, a final
cleanup remedy selection will be made, planned for late 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA has sued Carolina Transformer for cost recovery and treble
damages for not complying with an Administrative Orderlo clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soils from the site and the provision of a safe drinking
water source have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the
Carolina Transformer site while further studies leading to a final remedy selection are
taking place.
14
-------
CELANESE
CORPORA
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003446721
Site Description
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Cleveland County
Shelby
Aliases:
Fiber Industries, Inc.
Shelby Fiber Operations
The Celanese Corporation began operations in 1983 on 450 acres of this site near
Shelby. The plant, a polyester raw material production facility, consists of a
manufacturing area, a wastewater treatment area, a waste disposal area, and a
recreational and tree farming area. Operations at the site began in 1960 by Fibers
Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of polyester polymer chips and filament yarn. Chemical
wastes were disposed of directly into a drainage ditch during the early years of
operation, prior to completion of the wastewater treatment plant. Treated effluent has
been discharged to Buffalo Creek since the mid-1960s, when the treatment plant was
completed. In addition, there are several areas that have been used for waste disposal
including a buried waste area and a drum landfill. Oils and solvents were burned in a
small open area during the 1960s. When the storage of waste chemicals and solvents
ceased in the mid-1970s, drums were removed, properly disposed of, and the landfill
was covered. Approximately 21 acres of open area was used for landfarming of
nonhazardous sludge during the late 1970s in a project authorized by the State and
monitored by North Carolina State University. Monitoring wells on the site are
contaminated with organic chemicals. Approximately 500 people live within 1 mile of
the site. The closest well is about 1,500 feet away and 47 wells are within 1/4 mile of
the site. Buffalo Creek is 3,500 feet away and is the source of the plant's drinking
water. Land within 1/2 mile is used for forestry and agricultural activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soils, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and trichloroethene, and heavy
metals, including chromium and arsenic. Surface water is contaminated
with chromium, and phthalates. People who trespass on the site and
touch or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water,
soil or sediments may be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
CELANESE CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the groundwater and source control.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the
groundwater that includes pumping the groundwater, removing
contaminants with an air stripper, and treating the air before releasing it
into the atmosphere. In addition, the water will be subjected to treatment
by micro-organisms. It may be further treated, if necessary, by forcing the groundwater
through tanks containing activated carbon, a specially treated material that attracts the
contaminants. This will be followed by discharging the water to the on-site wastewater
treatment plant. If the effluent contains metals, it will be further treated by adding
chemicals that will cause the metals to collect at the bottom of the treatment container.
The Celanese Corporation has begun final construction of the groundwater treatment
system. The cleanup is expected to be completed in 1991.
Source Control: The remedy selected by the EPA in 1989 to clean up the
source of contamination includes excavating the contaminated soils,
sludges, and stream sediments and incinerating them on site; mixing the
incinerator ash and sediments with a hardening agent such as lime or
cement to form a solid and disposing of it on site; filling the excavated areas with clean
soil; and monitoring the site for contamination. Celanese Corporation is preparing the
technical specifications for cleaning up the source of the contamination. The cleanup
will begin once the design phase is completed in 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA and Celanese Corporation are negotiating an agreement for final
cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The investigation into the final remedies for the groundwater contamination and source
control have been completed. The groundwater treatment system construction is
under way, and design of the source control remedy has begun. These actions will
ensure that previously established environmental quality goals are met.
16
-------
CHARLES M
LAGOON
DRUM STORAGE
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD980840409
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Richmond County
11/2 miles southwest of Cordova
Alias:
lacon Site 1 Mile South of Cordova
The Charles Macon Lagoon and Drum Storage site is an abandoned, 16-acre hazardous
waste storage facility. According to a 1980 inspection by the State of North Carolina,
there were 11 lagoons on the site containing waste oil and sludges and 2,175 drums
containing various chemicals. Eight of these lagoons were unlined and overflowing.
Operations at the site ceased in 1981. In 1982, the State ordered the owner's estate to
clean up the site. The estate removed 300 drums and installed two on-site monitoring
wells. In 1985, the EPA detected chemicals in monitoring wells downgradient of the
site. Approximately 1,100 people draw drinking water from private wells within 3 miles
of the site, most of which are upgradient. There are 4 residences within 100 yards of
the facility. The Pee Dee River is 1 mile away; and two ponds, two streams, and a
swamp are located between the river and the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater downstream from the site is contaminated with
trichloroethylene (TCE) and heavy metals including barium and chromium.
Sediments from the pond are contaminated with toluene. Sludge is
contaminated with heavy metals and creosote. People who accidentally
touch or ingest contaminated groundwater, sediments, sludge, or soil
may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
CHARLES MACON LAGOON AND DRUM STORAGE
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed all the remaining drums
on the site and excavated and filled in 10 lagoons. The remaining lagoon
contains solidified waste sludge, crushed empty drums, and contaminated
soil and is covered with three feet of clay.
Entire site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination on
the site are studying the type and extent of the contamination. Once
completed in 1991, the study will recommend alternatives for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1982, the State issued an order to the owner to clean up the site. In
1987, the EPA filed an action against several parties potentially responsible for
contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
Removing the 55-gallon drums and filling in 10 of the 11 lagoons significantly reduced
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Charles Macon Lagoon and
Drum Storage site while further investigations leading to selection of a final cleanup
remedy are taking place.
18
-------
CHEMTRONICS
NORTH CAROL;
EPA ID# NCD095459
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Buncombe County
Swannanoa Township
Aliases:
Amcel Production, Inc.
Amcel Propulsion, Inc.
Site Description
Disposal activities at the Chemtronics, Inc. site involve 10 acres of a 1,027-acre parcel
of land. The active industrial plant has had several owners/operators since it was first
developed in 1952. A variety of products were manufactured at the site including
explosives, rocket fuel, and Pharmaceuticals. Byproducts of these manufacturing
activities were deposited in 23 areas on site and 3 areas off site. Two areas were
particularly involved: one area consisting of eight abandoned acid and organic waste
pits; the other of two lined basins for the neutralization and equalization of waste before
discharging it into local wastewater facilities. Solid wastes and solvents were burned
on site before 1971. From 1971 to 1975, liquid waste was disposed of in on-site pits
and trenches, while solid and explosive wastes were burned. Acid and organic wastes
were also disposed of in pits and trenches starting in 1975. In 1979, the disposal pits
were closed. Two monitoring wells near the pits were found to be contaminated.
There are several residences within several hundred feet of the off-site disposal areas.
The site is adjacent to Bee Tree Creek, and the Pisgah National Forest is north of the
site. One of the reported waste disposal areas, a municipal landfill, has been proposed
for development as a mobile home park.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
n\
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), explosives such as TNT, heavy metals including chromium, and
benzylic acid. Surface water is contaminated with VOCs, explosives, and
bromoform. People who accidentally touch or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil may be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
CHEMTRONICS, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA removed two drums of hazardous
materials and disposed of them in a federally approved facility.
Entire Site: The remedy selected by the EPA to clean up the site
includes: (1) covering the waste disposal areas with a cap, which includes
a high-density polyethylene membrane, clean soil, and planting vegetation;
(2) installing a gas collection ventilation system, if necessary; (3) pumping
and treating groundwater by using air stripping, carbon adsorption, or bioremediation
and sedimentation; (4) sampling of the pond water and sediments, and, if necessary,
cleanup; and (5) sediment, groundwater, and surface water monitoring. Treated
groundwater will be discharged to on-site infiltration galleries. The parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination are preparing the technical specifications and
design for cleaning up the site. Cleanup activities are expected to begin once the
design phase is completed in 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA and two of the parties responsible for contamination signed an
Administrative Order on Consent on September 30, 1985 to perform a study of the
nature and extent of contamination on the site. The EPA issued an order on March 22,
1989 to all three of the parties potentially responsible (Celanese, Chemtronics, and
Northrop) to conduct the engineering design and actual cleanup for the site. Each party
potentially responsible is in compliance with the Administrative Order.
\Enuironmental Progress
By removing the drums of hazardous materials, the EPA eliminated any immediate
threats posed by the Chemtronics, Inc. site while further activities are taking place to
design the final cleanup strategies.
20
-------
FCX, INC.
(STATES
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD095458527
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Iredell County
StatesvUle
From 1940 through 1985, FCX, Inc. repackaged and distributed agricultural chemicals at
this 5-acre site. Liquid and powdered pesticides were repackaged at the site until
1969. Over 5 tons of pesticides were buried under a concrete warehouse floor some
time before 1969. Also, spills occurred in areas where pesticides were handled. Soil
and groundwater collected at the site in 1986 are contaminated. The company filed for
bankruptcy in September of 1985 and began liquidating its assets. Private and public
wells within 3 miles of the site provide drinking water to an estimated 12,000 people.
The site is bordered on its north and west sides by Burlington Textile Mill and Carnation
Milk Company.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with pesticides such as chlordane and DDT, as
well as with coal tar distillates and halogenated organic solvents. Human
health would be threatened if contaminated groundwater were to enter
private wells. A private well upgradient of the site contains volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
PCX, INC. (STATESVILLE)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA installed four new monitoring wells through
the warehouse floor. Results of sampling showed groundwater
contamination. Soil sampling outside the building showed low levels of
pesticides.
Entire Site: The EPA will begin a study of the nature and extent of
groundwater and soil contamination remaining at the site and the
alternative technologies available for cleanup. These studies are expected
to begin in 1990 and end in 1992, with remedial action scheduled to start in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA is seeking a cash settlement through bankruptcy court against
PCX.
Environmental Progress
Initial assessments indicate that the site does not pose an immediate hazard to human
health or the environment while it awaits further studies and cleanup action.
22
-------
FCX, INC.
(WASHIN
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD981475932
REGION 4
NGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Beaufort County
Washington
Alias:
Washington Plant
Site Description
FCX, Inc. began repackaging and selling agricultural chemicals in 1945 on this 6-acre
site. During these operations, a large trench was filled with pesticide wastes and other
agricultural chemicals in the early 1970s. The company filed for bankruptcy and began
Liquidating its assets in 1985. The chemicals from the trench may move into Shallow
groundwater connected to the underlying aquifer. This deeper aquifer is the major
source of drinking water in the area. Approximately 2,850 people draw drinking water
from wells within 3 miles of the site. The area is mainly agricultural. The site is
bordered by a railroad and a wetland.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The soil of the trench contains pesticides, such as DDT and chlordane as
well as mercury. Direct contact with the contaminated soil would be a
threat to human health, but is unlikely since the area is fenced. If
contamination spreads from soils into the deeper lying aquifer, individuals
may ingest contaminants in drinking water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
PCX, INC. (WASHINGTON)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Beginning in 1988, the EPA began to excavate the
contaminated soil and analyzed it on site. They also fenced the excavated
area. The EPA is storing and covering all contaminated soil on site and is
backfilling the excavated area with clean soil.
Entire Site: PCX, Inc. will conduct a study into the extent and nature of
contamination at the the trench and main warehouse and will study the
alternative technologies for cleanup. The study is scheduled to begin in
1990 and end in 1992, with the design of the remedies selected by the EPA scheduled
for completion in 1994.
Site Facts: The EPA filed an Administrative Order selected by EPA, for PCX, Inc. and
Fred Webb, Inc. to remove pesticides from the trench area.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions, including excavating and storing contaminated soil and fencing the
site, have made the PCX, Inc. (Washington) site safer while further investigations and
cleanup activities are taking place.
24
-------
GEIGY CHEM
CORPORA
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD981927502
REGION 4
rRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Moore County
Aberdeen
Site Description
The Geigy Chemical Corporation site covers 1 acre and has been occupied by various
chemical companies since 1947. From 1949 to 1955, Geigy produced solid and liquid
pesticides on the site. The facility includes four aboveground storage tanks, an
office building, and two warehouses. In 1985, the State detected pesticides in private
and municipal wells. In 1987, the EPA detected pesticides in the surface and
subsurface soils on the site. The aboveground storage tanks were removed in 1989.
The Aberdeen Public Water Supply System and numerous private wells within 3 miles
of the site serve approximately 7,400 people. The Sandhill Aquifer underneath the site
supplies all the drinking water for Moore County. Drainage from the site collects in
several unnamed tributaries of Aberdeen Creek. The creek is used for recreational
activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being cleaned up through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
IA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lindane. The soil is contaminated
with pesticides including toxaphene, DDT, and lindane. Trespassers on
this unfenced site who touch, drink, or accidentally ingest contaminated
groundwater and soil may be at risk. Individuals frequenting Aberdeen
may be exposed to contaminants through direct contact with surface
water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Response Action Status
*x' Initial Actions: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination removed approximately 460 tons of pesticide-contaminated
soil and debris to an approved facility. A second removal was conducted
involving the removal of 227 tons of pesticide-contaminated soil to an approved facility
for disposal. Six 30-gallon drums containing concentrated surface debris were sent to
an approved incinerator facility for thermal treatment.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible are studying the type and
extent of contamination at the site. Various alternatives for the cleanup
will be recommended once the study is completed in 1991. After the EPA
selects the most appropriate remedies, design and construction of the final site,
cleanup will begin.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA and Ciba-Geigy Corp., Olin Corp., and Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corp. signed an Administrative Order. This agreement specified how
these parties would conduct the study into the type and extent of contamination at the
site.
Environmental Progress
The initial action to remove contaminated soils and debris has greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Geigy Chemical Corporation site
while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
A
26
-------
HEVI DUTY
COMPANY
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD039102959
REGION 4
'NGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Wayne County
2 miles south of Goldsboro
Site Description
Beginning in 1968, Hevi Duty Electric Company manufactured dry and liquid power
transformers on a portion of a 125-acre parcel of land. In 1979, 1,000 gallons of
transformer oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were spilled from an
underground storage tank. The company removed the soil from the spill area and
buried it in an unlined pit on the northern end of the property. In 1976, PCB-
contaminated soil from an underground storage tank area was removed and buried in a
plastic-lined pit under supervision of the State. In 1986, a spill from a cracked pipeline
on a tanker truck resulted in 1,400 gallons of oil running into culverts and an open
drainage ditch. The majority of the oil was recovered. Another spill of 1,500 gallons
occurred when an underground oil line cracked. Hevi Duty cleaned up the spill by
pumping the groundwater to flush the oil out of the ground. The State conducted tests
in 1986 and found contaminants in the groundwater. Approximately 7,600 people
obtain drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the site; the nearest well is
2,000 feet away. Approximately 15,000 people live within 4 miles of the site. The site
drains into the Neuse River, which is 4,650 feet from the plant. This river is used for
recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with
PCBs. People who touch or ingest contaminated groundwater or soils
may be at risk. Contaminated air on the site may pose a health threat to
those who breathe it. Because the site drains into the Neuse River,
people who eat fish from it may suffer adverse health effects.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
HEVI DUTY ELECTRIC COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Hevi Duty is studying the environmental condition of the site.
After this study is completed, the EPA will select the most effective
remedies and cleanup activities will begin soon thereafter.
Site Facts: In 1985, the EPA and Hevi Duty signed a Consent Agreement under which
the company paid a civil penalty for a PCB spill from an underground storage tank. .
Environmental Progress
After proposing this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Hevi Duty Electric site while
further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
28
-------
JADCO-HU
NORTH C
EPA ID# NCD980729602
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Gaston County
Belmont
Site Description
From 1971 to 1975, C.A. Hughes operated a solvent reclamation and storage facility at
this 6-acre site in Belmont. Workers reprocessed chemical waste from industries to
recover whatever could be resold and stored the residues on the site. In 1975, Jadco,
another firm, leased the site, equipment, and operation. A large quantity of drums had
accumulated by 1975, when operations ceased. The drums, in various stages of decay,
were stacked at several locations. The site also held several large storage tanks. By
1978, up to 18,000 drums were removed. Contaminated soil and debris were placed in
an unlined landfill on site, and the site was regraded. In 1983, bulk storage tanks and
other drums were removed; however, spillage and leakage resulted in contamination of
soil with heavy metals and organic solvents. An estimated 4,700 people use wells
within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Roughly 40 to 50 residences lie
within a 1,000-foot radius of the site, with the closest being 50 feet away. All homes
have access to a public water supply, although some residents may still be using water
from private wells. Migration of contaminants into groundwater is likely since the
landfill is unlined and only 6 feet above the water table. A ditch that drains the site
flows into the Catawba River, and Belmont's drinking water intake is 2 1/2 miles
downstream from the confluence of the river and ditch. However, sampling indicates
that neither private wells nor the public water supply have become contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
n
Threats and Contaminants
On-site sediments contain heavy metals including chromium, lead, and
nickel and polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs). RGBs and nickel have been
found in sediments off site. The soil contains heavy metals, RGBs, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including methylene chloride and
toluene. On- and off-site surface water has been shown to be
contaminated with metals such as barium and dichloroethane. People
may be harmed by direct contact with contaminated surface water and
sediment or by drinking contaminated water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
JADCO-HUGHES
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under the EPA's monitoring, the parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site began a study of its pollution
problems in 1986. This investigation will determine the nature and extent
of soil and water contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final
cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in mid-1990, at which time the EPA will
evaluate the alternatives and select the most appropriate remedies for final site
cleanup.
Site Facts: The North Carolina Department of Justice issued a complaint requiring
Jadco-Hughes to remove waste from the site some time in or after 1975. The
potentially responsible parties are conducting a study to determine the type and extent
of contamination under a Consent Order.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Jadco-Hughes site to the NPL, the EPA determined that PCB-
contaminated soil poses the threat of direct human contact and off-site migration.
However, excavation and disposal of the soil will take place shortly, while studies are
being conducted to select the best permanent cleanup strategies.
30
-------
JFD ELECTR
CHANNEL
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD122263825
REGION 4
RESSIONAL DIST. 02
Granvllle County
Oxford
Site Description
From 1962 to 1979, JFD Electronics manufactured television antennas at this 13-acre
site on Industrial Drive in Oxford. The owners built a 1/2-acre lagoon in 1964 to 1965 to
dispose of sludge generated by wastewater treatment. A chromate conversion
process and copper/nickel electroplating generated most of this wastewater. When
Channel Master bought the property in 1980, the company filled half the lagoon and
used it as a truck parking lot. A local department store rents a building on the property
as a warehouse. Channel Master believes that 25 percent of the site is contaminated.
The problem appears to be associated with leaking underground tanks of waste oil
used by the former owner and with an area where trucks carrying waste oil had been
rinsed. Approximately 2,500 people get drinking water from private wells within 3
miles of the site; the closest is about 2,000 feet to the southeast. The site also drains
to an unnamed tributary of Fishing Creek, which is used for recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in on-site shallow
monitoring wells. The current owner has contracted for several studies of
the site, and chromium, lead, and other heavy metals were found in the
sludge. People could potentially be at risk if they drink contaminated
groundwater or if they accidentally ingest the contaminated soil and
sludges.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Channel Master has contracted for several studies of the site.
One study developed a plan for cleaning up the lagoon and contaminated
, „, soil. Cleanup work was started in June 1987 and is nearing completion. In
1989, the EPA began an intensive study of groundwater contamination at the site,
exploring the nature and extent of its pollution problems. This investigation, which will
also recommend the best strategies for final cleanup, is scheduled for completion in
late 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding the JFD Electronics site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
evaluations of the site conditions and determined that the site does not currently pose
an immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while further
studies into the final remedy are taking place.
32
-------
KOPPERS
COMPANY
(MORRISVILLE P
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003200383
Site Description
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Wake County
1 mile northwest of Morrisville
The Koppers Company, Inc. {Morrisville Plant) site covers 52 acres and was used as a
saw mill until 1959 when it was sold to Unit Structures, Inc., which produced glue-
laminated wood products. Koppers Company purchased the site in 1962 and continued
the glue-laminated process. From 1968 to 1975, Koppers treated wood with pentachlo-
rophenol (PCP) at the site. Wastewater from the PCP process was discharged to an
on-site pond for the first 6 months of operation and then to two unlined lagoons nearby.
The owners closed the lagoons in 1977 and sprayed the liquids that remained in them
over a field on the northeast corner of the property. They mixed the sludge with soil
and spread it over the lagoon area. In 1982, the owners found PCP in on-site soil,
wells, pond water, and sediment Koppers sold the plant back to Unit Structures, Inc.,
but kept 10 acres of the original site where PCP was used. Unit Structures, Inc. is still
an active facility. Groundwater within 3 miles of the site is a source of drinking water
for 2,200 people. The North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch detected trace
contaminants in some off-site wells. Water from the northeastern corner of the site
drains toward Crabtree Creek, 2 miles away. Water from the southeastern corner
drains to Koppers Pond, which was used for fire protection. Occasional overflow from
Koppers Pond reaches Medlin's Pond, which is used for fishing and irrigating garden
crops.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The owner found soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments
contaminated with PCP in the early 1980s. The site is unfenced, making
it possible for people and animals to come into direct contact with
contaminated soils or water. Possible health threats include touching or
accidentally ingesting any of these contaminated materials.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
HOPPERS COMPANY, INC. (MORRISVILLE PLANT)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1980 and 1986, Koppers removed soil
contaminated with PCP from the lagoon area and transported it to an EPA-
approved hazardous waste facility, although contaminated soil remained on
the site. Starting in 1989, and under EPA monitoring, about 4 miles of public water
supply lines were extended to affected homes near the site.
Entire Site: In 1989, under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination began a thorough study of the type and
extent of soil and water pollution at the site. This study is slated to be
finished in late 1991 and will present strategies to clean up the site.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order was issued to the potentially responsible parties
to install a water line.
Environmental Progress
The emergency removal of soil and provision of alternative water have greatly reduced
the potential for exposure to contaminants at the site or through drinking water supply
while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
34
-------
MARTIN MAR
SODYECO
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD001810365
REGION 4
;GRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Mecklenburg County
lo miles west of Charlotte
Site Description
Chemical dyes have been made since 1936 on the 1,300-acre Martin Marietta site.
Opened by Sodyeco, the plant was taken over by American Martin Marietta in 1958 and
sold to Sandoz Chemicals Company in 1983. The plant has manufactured liquid sulfur
and vat and disperse dyes, as well as other chemicals from various industries. The first
indication of potential contamination at the site was the discovery in 1980 of organic
solvents in the company's drinking water well and nearby private wells. On-site
disposal of distillation tars and dye clarification cake had resulted in extensive
groundwater and soil pollution. Analysts traced the source to three trenches of buried
wastes. The company excavated the wastes and disposed of them off site. It was
later realized that five areas on the site are probable sources of soil and groundwater
contamination. Area A operated as a landfill between the 1930s and 1974. It accepted
sulfur residues and dyes, fiber clothes, empty metal and cardboard drums and cartons,
non-acidic and non-flammable chemicals, chemical wastes, and construction debris.
This area is currently covered with asphalt and buildings. Area B operated as a landfill
from 1973 to 1978 and received wastes previously sent to Area A. Area B was being
used as a parking lot covered with gravel. Area C, now a grassy area, once contained
the remains of laboratory and production samples, distillation tars, and waste solvents.
These are the trenches cleaned up in the early 1980s, but analytical techniques allowed
some soil contamination to go undetected. Area D contained two wastewater settling
ponds that have been taken out of service. Area D currently holds a lined freshwater
pond and a fuel oil storage tank. Area E is a drainage basin receiving discharge from
the old plant manufacturing area. No wastes are known to have been deposited there.
Approximately 4,500 people in Mount Holly live directly across the river from the site,
and the City of Belmont, with 4,600 people, is 3 1/2 miles downriver. Belmont's public
water intake is downstream of the site. The residents of Mount Holly and Belmont
depend upon local groundwater for drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
35
continued
-------
MARTIN MARIETTA SODYECO
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are polluted with, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Groundwater contamination is worst at Areas C, D, and E. Soil
contamination is highest in Areas C and D; the soil at Area E is
uncontaminated. There is currently no exposure of area residents to site
contamination as a result of early excavation of contaminated wastes.
However, the public drinking water supply may become polluted as
groundwater contamination migration occurs. Groundwater discharges
into the Catawba River, which is a source of drinking water for the plant
and area residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987, which includes:
(1) extracting contaminated groundwater and treating it on site; (2)
discharging treated groundwater to an off-site stream; (3) continuing cleanup
until contaminated water meets cleanliness goals; (4) capping Area B (the
truck staging area) with asphalt to keep rainfall and runoff from spreading contaminants;
and (5) treating contaminated soil in Area C {trench area) on site to remove organic
contaminants. Cleanup actions began in 1989 and are being performed by the
potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring. The asphalt cap has been
completed in Area B. Extraction wells have been installed and are operating. The
groundwater pump-and-treat process may require work until 1999. The next step is a
vacuum extraction treatability study on the Area C soils. If the vacuum extraction is
successful in Area C, Area D soils also will be excavated and treated by vacuum
extraction.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup actions undertaken so far, including groundwater treatment, removal of
highly contaminated wastes and secondary soils, and capping contaminated areas have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Martin
Marietta Sodyeco site while final cleanup actions are under way.
36
-------
NATIONAL S
CHEM. C
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD991278953
Site Description
REGION 4
GRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Rowan County
5 miles south of Salisbury
Alias:
Proctor Chemical Co. Inc.
The National Starch and Chemical Corporation (NSCC) site is located on a
500-acre parcel occupied by the NSCC-owned Cedar Springs Road Plant that currently
manufactures textile finishing and specialty chemicals. From 1971 to 1978, NSCC
disposed of approximately 350,000 gallons of reaction vessel wash waters in trenches
constructed on a 5-acre tract of land located behind the plant. Trenches in this area
also received liquid waste from the plant, and it was absorbed into the ground. After
the absorption rate substantially declined, the trenches were backfilled and seeded.
Site monitoring in 1976 and 1977 revealed shallow groundwater contamination adjacent
to or within the trench area. Consequently, the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources requested that NSCC stop on-site waste disposal activities.
Since 1978, production plant process waters have been pre-treated in a facility near the
production area and discharged to the Salisbury publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). The two main areas of contamination identified at the site are the trench area
and the wastewater lagoon area. The plant is located in a rural area that depends
heavily on wells for drinking water. Approximately 7,700 people use public and private
wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking water and other domestic purposes. Since
the site and the surrounding areas lie above a bedrock aquifer, residents drinking water
may be affected by site-related contaminants.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with
heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The soil is
contaminated with VOCs and lead. People who come in direct contact
with or accidentally ingest the contaminated groundwater may be
exposed to a potential health threat. Recreational uses of Grants Creek or
its tributaries may also cause a potential health threat due to possible
contamination of the water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
37
continued
-------
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEM CORP.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater
and soil cleanup.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: Design technologies were completed by the party
potentially responsible for the site contamination, and cleanup action is
scheduled to begin in 1990. The actions selected by the EPA for the
cleanup of groundwater include: (1) installation of a groundwater
interception and extraction system downhill of the source areas with pre-treatment,
which could include removing the contaminants by air filtering them to a gas; (2) carbon
adsorption filtration; and (3) metal removal or treatment through the exiting system at
the lagoon and surface aeration prior to discharging the groundwater to the Salisbury
POTW. If the POTW refuses to accept the treated groundwater, it will be discharged to
a local stream under an EPA-approved program known as the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System, which regulates discharge of treated groundwater into
surface waters. Another action selected to assist in cleanup is surface water and
sediment monitoring.
Soil Contamination: The potentially responsible party intends to conduct
a separate study of the type and extent of on-site soil contamination and
will evaluate alternative cleanup actions.
Site Facts: The State ordered a stop to on-site disposal activities after sampling in 1976
and 1977 showed shallow groundwater contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the National Starch and Chemical Corp. site to the NPL, the EPA
determined that the site does not pose an imminent threat to the surrounding
community or the environment while the investigations and design of technologies for
groundwater and soil cleanup are taking place.
38
-------
N.C. STATE
UNIVERSI
(LOT 86 FARM UNI
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD980557656
REGION 4
RESSIONAL DIST. 03
Wake County
Raleigh
Site Description
The 1 1/2-acre North Carolina State University site is situated north of Cafter-Finley
Stadium in Raleigh. The site was used by the science laboratories and agricultural
research facilities of North Carolina State University as a waste disposal area. From
1969 to 1980, the University disposed of solvents, pesticides, heavy metals, acids, and
some low-level radioactive laboratory wastes. The wastes are buried in containers that
are placed in 10-foot trenches. Analysis of groundwater from the wells indicate the
presence of high levels of organic contamination. The site is completely fenced and
located approximately 100 feet away from any public access point. The closest
residence is approximately 2,000 feet away from the site. Approximately 150,000 live
within 4 1/2 miles of the site. Most of these people use city-supplied water, which is
not contaminated. However, there are a few residents who use groundwater from
private wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/05/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including lead. Swallowing and
touching contaminated groundwater is a potential health hazard.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
39
continued
-------
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY (LOT 86 FARM UNIT #1)
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The University's Department of Marine, Earth, and
Atmospheric Sciences has extensively monitored the site since 1981. One
background and three downgradientwe\\s were drilled to a depth of about
10 feet below the water table. The EPA is currently investigating the nature and extent
of the contamination in the site. A report of the study is expected in 1991. The
selection of the remedies to be used for site cleanup will be determined by the EPA
that same year.
Site Facts: Negotiations between the EPA and North Carolina State University are
being finalized to perform the investigative work to determine the extent and the nature
of the contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that the North Carolina State University site posed no immediate threats
while further investigations are taking place.
40
-------
NEW HANOV
COUNTY
AIRPORT BUR
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD981021157
Site Description —
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
New Hanover County
Wilmington
The New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit was constructed by the County in 1968.
From 1968 to 1979, the Cape Fear Technical Institute used the pit for fire-training
purposes, burning jet fuel and gasoline in the burn pit and extinguishing the fires with
water. The Wilmington Fire Department used the burn pit for fire-training purposes
from 1968 to 1976. Jet fuel and drainage from petroleum fuel storage tanks in the area
were burned and the fires extinguished with water, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals.
Some time prior to 1982, materials used in river spill cleanups were dumped into the
pit. In addition, fuel oil, kerosene, and oil from oil spill cleanups were burned in the pit.
The pit holds approximately 22,500 gallons, of which 85% is water. In 1986, the North
Carolina Division of Health Services discovered heavy metals in the soil around the pit
and numerous organics in other soil samples. Surface water within 3 miles downstream
of the site is used for recreational activities, and there is an estuary wetland
approximately 1 mile from the site at the probable point of runoff from the site.
Approximately 6,300 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3
miles of the site. A private well is approximately 1,500 feet northwest of the site.
site Responsibility:
sjte ;s being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and petrochemicals. Sludges are contaminated with barium.
There is a possible health threat from direct contact with the soil. Direct
contact with contaminated water in a nearby creek may be a potential
health threat as well. Drinking water obtained from the upper aquifer
within 3 miles of the site may be contaminated.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
41
continued
-------
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: A cleanup investigation and a study of alternatives for cleaning
up the site contaminants were started in 1990. The work plan for the
investigation is being prepared. After completion of the investigation,
cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: A Consent Orc/erfor removal of the contaminants by the parties potentially
responsible is currently being negotiated.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the New Hanover County
Airport Burn Pit site while investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
42
-------
PCB SPILLS
NORTH C
EPA ID# NCD980&
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Halifax and 13 counties
243 miles of N.C. highway
The PCB Spills site falls along 243 miles of highway where 30,000 gallons of waste
transformer oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were deliberately
discharged in several areas along the shoulders of the highway in 14 counties of North
Carolina. The State conducted several studies and determined that contaminants did
not travel from the discharge areas into surrounding areas including rivers, lakes, or
streams. Therefore, the populations surrounding these numerous locations and the
plant and animal life have not been affected.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Deleted: 03/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with PCBs. After cleanup investigations were
completed, it was determined that contamination did not move from the
discharge areas into surface water, plant life or groundwater; therefore,
there is no health threat associated with the spills.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire spill area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
43
continued
-------
PCB SPILLS
Response Action Status
Entire Site Area: In 1982, the EPA and the State of North Carolina
initiated cleanup action to construct a landfill for disposal of PCB waste, to
remove, transport, and dispose of contaminated soils, and to reconstruct
the highway shoulders. The disposal of contaminated soil was completed in November
1982 and the landfill was capped, graded, and vegetated. Sampling was conducted
during cleanup at the beginning and end points of the contaminated strips to ensure
that all contaminated soils were removed. Random samples were collected from the
areas after soils were removed. No soils contaminated with PCBs above the accepted
levels were left in place. These areas were then excavated and filled with clean soil.
As a result of the completed cleanup actions and elimination of site contamination, the
EPA, in consultation with the State, deleted the site from the NPL on March 7, 1986.
Environmental Progress
The contaminated soil from the spill area has been excavated and removed to a closely
monitored landfill. Testing indicated no contamination was present in the groundwater,
surface water, or plant or animal life in the area of the PCB spill. The site is once again
safe for the public and the surrounding environment and has been deleted from the
NPL
/A
44
-------
POTTER'S
SEPTIC T
SERVICES P
NORTH CAROLI
EPA ID# NCD981023260
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Brunswick County
Sandy Creek, approximately
18 miles west of Wilmington
The Potter's Septic Tank Services Pits site covers 5 acres of land. In 1976, the U.S.
Coast Guard was notified of an oil spill in Rattlesnake Branch Creek. The Coast Guard
and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources traced the oil
spill to one of the four disposal pits at the site. In 1983, the present owner informed
the North Carolina Department of Human Resources that he had uncovered sludge in
his front yard. The State found contaminants in his well and shut it down. The EPA
found contaminants in the soil and groundwater on the site. Approximately 1,800
people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
7_A
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including benzene and xylene, phenols, and other petroleum compounds.
The soil is contaminated with heavy metals, chloroform, phenols, VOCs,
and other petroleum compounds. People who use contaminated well
water may be at risk. Touching contaminated soil may be harmful,
especially to children playing in the area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
45
continued
-------
POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The U.S. Coast Guard and the North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources removed 40,000 gallons of oil from the
stream and pits and 150 truckloads of oil sludge and oil-stained soil. Thick
oil sludge that could not be removed was mixed with sand and buried on the site. In
1984, the EPA removed approximately 3 million pounds of contaminated soil from the
site and transported it to a federally approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The EPA is studying the type and extent of contamination at
the site. Strategies for the final cleanup will be determined once the study
is completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial soil and sludge removal actions described above have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Potter's Septic Tank Services
Pits site while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
46
-------
iy"!'"-!« his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
l\ J^ ^ fact sheets for the State of North Carolina. The terms
"' 31. ~* and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
\ •.%•.•,% s -.v! *"*
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH. (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called ground water.
G-l
-------
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in-which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecticide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This salt is used extensively as a wood pre-
servative in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic and water soluble, making it
a relatively mobile contaminant in the environment.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of water, such as streams, come together.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
G-2
-------
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh water from rivers and salt water from nearshore
ocean waters are mixed. These areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes,
and lagoons. These water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and wildlife.
Fly ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
G-3
-------
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances produced from petroleum in refinery operations
and as fuel oil residues. These include fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are made. These chemical substances are often
toxic to humans and the environment. •
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure, to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Remedial: A course of study combined with actions to correct site contamination
problems through identifying the nature and extent of cleanup strategies under the
Superfund program.
G-4
-------
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds],
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
------- |