&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/047
September 1991
PB92-963209
National
Priorities
List Sites:
NORTH CAROLINA
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-733A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
North Carolina
. i -. ,^,wn .'V.v.cV
y S Environmental r^-*-"-" • <
Reoion 5, Library (P!1'•'••, %i.
ssi^«^ "l"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of North Carolina 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 69
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 85
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline 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. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation 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 envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly known as Superfund
— was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
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
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. 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 imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The 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. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half — have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies — like those designed to clean up ground-
water — must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. 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, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
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. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating 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 TOGETHER
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.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, 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, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
1 Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
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. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about 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.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate 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 con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents 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
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
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 contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so 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 whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation 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 assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. 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 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
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 pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the 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 that 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 poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL 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 proposed 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. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
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 capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
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 chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity 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 the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, 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 of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an MRS 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 prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a.feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered 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,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
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 to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup 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 de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the 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 con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
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 the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the 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 (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
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. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities 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 clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary 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 the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can 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 involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
""Sil^Description
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Otncr NAITWSI
Site Responsibility: •
NPL Listing History
Proposed!
Final:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: P.
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.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
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 environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
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 often are 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 descrip-
tion.
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 the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing 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,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
North Carolina
The State of North Carolina is located on the Eastern Seaboard within EPA Region 4, which
includes eight southeastern states. The state 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 13% increase in population between 1980 and 1990, according to the
1990 Census, and has approximately 6,629,000 residents, ranking 10th in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries are agriculture, tourism, and the manufacture of textiles, food products,
electronic and electrical equipment, chemicals, furniture, and machinery.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of North Carolina?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
22
_i
23
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 1,4,5,9 1 site
Congressional Districts 10, 11 2 sites
Congressional Districts 7,2 3 sites
Congressional District 3 4 sites
Congressional District 8 5 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of North Carolina?
# of sites
7
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
type of sites
Chemical & Allied Products
Disposal Facilities
Textiles
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Lumber & Wood
Recyclers
Storage Facilities
Others (Dry cleaner, federal facility)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
20--
16--
8 --
GW Soil SW Sed
Air Solid
Wast*
Contamination Area
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), pesticides, polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), and petro-
chemicals.
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), creosote (organics), pesti-
cides, and polychlorinated biphenyls.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), and creosotes
(organics).
Air: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
heavy metals (inorganics), and pesti-
cides.
* Appear it 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
14
Site*
with
Studies
Underway
1
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
4
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
3
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
1
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 16 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
f Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
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 Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O-) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are 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 differ-
ent 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" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
• A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
• A final 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
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
• A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
• A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
• A final 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 currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
• A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
April 1991
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of North Carolina
CO
(O
N3
O
Page Site Name
23 ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
25 ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
27 BENFffiLD INDUSTRIES, INC.
29 BYPASS 601 GROUND WATER CONT.
31 CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RESERV.
33 CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING
35 CAROLINA TRANSFORMER CO.
37 CELANESE CORP. (SHELBY FIBER)
39 CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM
41 CHEMTRONICS. INC.
43 PCX.INC. (STATESVELLEPLANT)
45 PCX.INC. (WASHINGTONPLANT)
47 GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
49 HEVI-DUTY ELECTRIC COMPANY
51 JADCO-HUGHES
53 JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
55 KOPPERS CO, INC. (MORRISVILLE PLNT)
57 MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO. INC.
59 NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP
61 N.C. STATE U (LOT 86 FARM UNIT #1)
63 NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT
65 PCB SPILLS
67 POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICES PITS
Initial Sit* Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
ngoing Complete Deleted
County
ONSLOW
MOORE
HAYWOOD
CABARRUS
ONSLOW
CUMBERLAND
CUMBERLAND
CLEVELAND
RICHMOND
BUNCOMBE
IREDELL
BEAUFORT
MOORE
WAYNE
GASTON
GRANVILLE
WAKE
MECKLENBURG
ROWAN
WAKE
NEW HANOVER
HALIFAX
BRUNSWICK
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Deleted
Final
Date
03/31/89
03/31/89
10/04/89
06/01/86
10/04/89
07/01/87
07/01/87
06/10/86
07/22/87
09/01/83
02/16/90
03/31/89
10/04/89
08/30/90
06/01/86
10/04/89
03/31/89
09/01/83
10/04/89
06/10/86
03/31/89
03/07/86
03/31/89
Response Studies Selected
O
000
o-
r~^ i *> r~^>
O
o o o
o- o
o o
o o-
1 — *> 1 *> 1 ^
r~^ r~^
r~^> i — ^
f*> r~*>
o- o
O O O
o- o
O O
i~*> r~*> i~*>
0 O
o
o o
1 ^> 1 ^>
Desigi
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 4
21
April 1991
-------
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 the EPA's
Region 4 Office in Atlanta, Georgia or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 4 Superfund Community Relations Office (404) 347-3454
EPA Region 4 Superfund Office (404) 347-5065
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
North Carolina Superfund Office (919) 733-2801
April 1991 22
-------
ABC ONE HOUR
CLEANERS
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD024644494
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Onslow County
Jacksonville
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, wastes 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, sampled 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 was polluting groundwater. This system since has 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 USTING 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' health may be threatened if they drink or come in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater.
23
April 1991
-------
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 1992, 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 to the surrounding community and the environment
while the investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies is taking place.
April 1991
24
ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
-------
ABERDEEN
PESTICID
DUMP
NORTH CAROLINA^ 0
EPA ID# NCD980843346
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Moore County
Aberdeen
Other Names:
Fairway Six Dump
Twin Dumps
Mclver Pesticide Dump
Route 211 Dump
Farm Chemicals, Inc. Dump
Site Description
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 property 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 discovered dump is
located on the site of the 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, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL 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 direct contact with pure pesticide products in surface and subsurface soil or by
ingesting or coming into direct contact with contaminated groundwater.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: emergency actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on the cleanup of the Fairway Six dump, assessing environmental risks and groundwater
contamination, and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status _^_
Emergency Actions: In 1985, EPA emergency workers removing surface
contamination at the Fairway Six area 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 more than 450 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 nearly 700 drums
and sent mem to the Moore County landfill. Another emergency action occurred in 1986 at the
Route 211 site. Five truckloads (100 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 area. 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 long-term 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
complete the design and to conduct the cleanup activities, scheduled to begin in mid-1991.
Environmental Risks and Groundwater: The EPA is undertaking a study of
environmental risks associated with the site and of the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination. This study is expected to be completed in 1992.
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 mid-1991.
Site Facts: Unilateral Administrative Orders were issued to four of the potentially responsible
parties, compelling them to implement the cleanup activities at the Fairway Six Disposal Area. One
party agreed to comply with the Order. Residential development is awaiting the disposal of 22,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris presently sitting next to the golf course.
Environmental Progress
The emergency treatment and/or removal of solid and liquid wastes and soil, as well as the
installation of fences, have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Aberdeen
Pesticide Dumps site while further cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 26 ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
-------
BENFIELD
INDUSTRI
NORTH CAROLINA
EPAID#NCD981026479
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Haywood County
Hazelwood
Benfield Industries, Inc. began mixing and packaging bulk chemicals on this 5-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 flood plain 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
polycyclic 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.
27
April 1991
-------
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 potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, initiated an
intensive study to evaluate 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 began in early 1991 and is scheduled to conclude in 1992, at which time EPA will
select the most effective 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.
April 1991
28
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC.
-------
BYPASS 601
GROUND WATE
CONTAMI
NORTH CA
EPA ID# NCD044440303
Site Description —
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cabarrus County
Concord
Other Names:
Martin's Scrap Recycling, Inc.
The ByPass 601 Ground Water Contamination site is an area in Concord where the groundwater is
contaminated by multiple sources. The best known source is the Martin Scrap Recycling Facility
(MSR), which occupies approximately 13 acres. 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 must be 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 by-products. A permit for
hazardous waste disposal was granted to the facility in 1983; groundwater contamination was
discovered that same year. Six other potential sources have been identified and are under
investigation. 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
lead and chromium. Human health could be threatened if people come in direct contact
with contaminated sediments or waters or ingest contaminated groundwater. Public
access to the site is restricted by a fence and difficult terrain.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Martin Scrap Recycling area and of the additional sources of
contaminaton.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA sampled battery casings off site and is expected to remove
batteries dumped on the site in 1991.
Martin Scrap Recycling Area: The EPA selected a remedy that entails excavation,
consolidation, and capping of contaminated soils. The engineering design of the remedy is
underway and is expected to be completed by mid-1991.
Additional Sources: In 1990, the EPA began a study to determine the nature and extent
of groundwater contamination. Additionally, the EPA is attempting to identify sources of
the groundwater contamination. To date, six sources have been identified. This study is
scheduled for completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
By performing site sampling and the expected removal of batteries, the EPA will make the ByPass
601 Ground Water Contamination site safer while investigations are being completed and cleanup
activities begin.
April 1991 30 BYPASS 601 GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
-------
CAMP LEJEU
MILITARY
RESERVATION
NORTH CAROLINA
EPAID#NC6170022580
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Onslow County
Jacksonville
Other Names:
USMC Camp LeJeune Marine
Corps Base
USMC New River
Marine Corps Air Station
Site Description
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.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
groundwater at two areas of the site, the mercury dumpsite, the chemical rifle range dump, and the
remaining areas of the site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater Zone 1, Shallow Aquifer: The U.S. Marine Corps began studying the
nature and extent of contamination in the shallow aquifer in 1989. This study will
determine the best alternatives for cleaning up the shallow aquifer and is expected to be
completed in 1992.
Groundwater Zone 1, Site 6: Studies on the nature and extent of contamination in the
groundwater at site 6 began in 1990. Once the study is completed in 1992, several
alternatives for cleaning up the site will be recommended.
Mercury Dumpsite: Contamination at the mercury dumpsite has been the subject of
studies conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps since 1990. Alternative remedies for cleaning
up the site will be selected based on the results of the studies.
Chemical Rifle Range Dump: Investigations into the nature and extent of
contamination at the Chemical Rifle Range dump began in 1990 and are expected to be
completed in 1994.
Remaining Areas: Studies on the nature and extent of contamination at the remaining
areas of the site are scheduled to begin as early as 1991. Cleanup alternatives will be
selected upon completion of these studies conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps.
Site Facts: Camp LeJeune is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978, to identify, investigate,
and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
Presently, the DoD is monitoring drinking water supplies, and subsequently is closing 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.
April 1991 32 CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RESERVATION
-------
CAPE FEAR
PRESERVI
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003188828
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Cumberland County
Fayetteviile
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 lagoon and a surface
impoundment. Wastes also were 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. Hie 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
Threats and Contaminants
7E
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic and chromium, as
well as benzene and poiycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sediments from the
pond and surface water from the drainage ditch also are contaminated with PAHs. The
soil is contaminated with PAHs and arsenic. People who accidentally come in direct
contact with or ingest contaminated soil, sediments, groundwater, or surface water may
be exposed to hazardous materials.
33
April 1991
-------
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.
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 then was filled in with soil from the site. A portion of
sediment from an unnamed creek also was removed. In addition, sludge was removed from a septic
tank. Soils from an unlined lagoon used for disposing CCA-related waste also were removed,
backfilled, and regraded. In 1986, the EPA removed creosote from a tank, solidified the creosote
with fly ash, and stored these residues on site, under a covered shed. 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 owner 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 that includes: excavating
the soil, washing the soil to reduce the volume of contaminated soils, treating
contaminated soils either by bioremediation or heat to remove the organic s, leaching or
solidification to contain 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.
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 being planned.
April 1991 34 CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING
-------
CAROLINA
TRANSFO
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID#NCD003188844
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cumberland County
Near East Fayetteville
Site Description
The Carolina Transformer Co. site is on an approximately 5-acre parcel located in a rural area near
East Fayetteville. The site formerly was 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. In 1989, the North Carolina Environmental Services Division
inspected the abandoned site and found 98 capacitors, 18 of which were ruptured and leaking onto
the soil. 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 still may exist. Potential risks exist to individuals who come in direct contact with
or accidentally ingest contaminated surface water or groundwater, soils, and sediments;
inhale contaminated dusts; or consume agricultural crops that contain bioaccumulated
contaminants.
35
April 1991
-------
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.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed 975 tons of contaminated soil and
transported it to a federally approved facility, and fenced the area. Residences with
contaminated groundwater were connected to the public water supply. In early 1990, the
EPA completed a removal of 98 leaking capacitors that had been 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
mid-1991.
Site Facts: The EPA has sued Carolina Transformer for cost recovery and treble damages for not
complying with an Administrative Order to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soils from the site, the provision of a safe drinking water source, and
the construction of a fence 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.
April 1991 36 CAROLINA TRANSFORMER CO.
-------
CELANESE
CORP. (SH
OPERATIONS)
NORTH CAROLINA
EPAID#NCD003446721
EPA REGION 4
NGRESSIONALDIST. 10
Cleveland County
Shelby
Other Names:
Fiber Industries, Inc.
Shelby Fiber Operations
Site Description
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 were used for landfarming of
non-hazardous sludge during the late 1970s for 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 a 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: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
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. If nearby
residents drink contaminated groundwater from private wells, they may be at risk.
People who trespass on the site and come into direct contact with or accidentally ingest
contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
groundwater and controlling the source of contamination.
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 is subjected
to treatment by microorganisms. It also is being treated by forcing the groundwater through tanks
containing activated carbon, a specially treated material that attracts the contaminants. This is
followed by discharging the water to the on-site wastewater treatment plant. If the effluent contains
metals, it is treated further by adding chemicals that will cause the metals to collect at the bottom of
the treatment container. The selected remedy is treating contaminated groundwater successfully and
controlling off-site migration.
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. Construction of the incinerators is
completed, and excavation of the source waste began in early 1991. Cleanup activities are expected
to be completed by late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater treatment system construction is completed, and groundwater is being treated, thus
controlling contaminant migration. An incinerator has been built and cleanup of the source of
contamination is underway at the Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations) site.
April 1991 38 CELANESE CORP. (SHELBY FIBER OPERATIONS)
-------
CHARLES M
LAGOON
STORAGE
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD980840409
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Richmond County
1 1/2 miles southwest of Cordova
Other Name*:
Macon Site 1 Mile South of Cordova
Site Description
The Charles Macon Lagoon & 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 drams 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 four residences within 100 yards of the facility. The Pee
Dee River is a 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: 07/22/87
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 come in direct contact with or ingest contaminated groundwater,
sediments, sludge, or soil may be at risk.
39
April 1991
-------
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 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 3 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 the study is completed, expected
in 1991, alternatives for site cleanup will be recommended.
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 reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials at the Charles Macon Lagoon and Drum Storage site while investigations
leading to selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
April 1991 40 CHARLES MACON LAGOON &
DRUM STORAGE
-------
CHEMTRONICSaMC,
NORTH CAROLI
EPA ID# NCD095459
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Buncombe County
Swannanoa Township
Other Names:
Amcel Production, Inc.
Amcel Propulsion, Inc.
Site Description
Disposal activities at the Chemironies, 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. By-products of these manufacturing activities were deposited in 23 areas on site
and three areas off site. Two areas were particularly involved: one area consisted of eight
abandoned acid and organic waste pits; the other contained two lined basins used for the
neutralization and equalization of waste before it was discharged 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 also were 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 to the 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
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 come in
direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, or
soil may be at risk.
41
April 1991
-------
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 and
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 a local treatment facility. The parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination are preparing the technical specifications and design for cleaning up the site.
The design phase is expected to be completed in 1991. A number of extraction wells were installed
in 1990, and the construction of a groundwater treatment system will begin in mid-1991.
Site Facts: The EPA and two of the potentially responsible parties 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 potentially responsible
parties (Celanese, Chemtronics, and Northrop) to conduct the engineering design and actual cleanup
for the site. Each potentially responsible party is in compliance with the Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
By removing the drums of hazardous materials, the EPA eliminated any immediate threats posed by
the Chemtronics, Inc. site while the design of final cleanup strategies is taking place and cleanup
activities are started.
April 1991 42 CHEMTRONICS, INC.
-------
PCX, INC.
(STATES VIL
PLANT)
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD095458527
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Iredell County
Statesville
From 1940 through 1985, PCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant) 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 northern and western 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
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
IT
The soil is contaminated with pesticides such as chlordane and DDT, as well as with coal
tar distillates and halogenated organic solvents. The groundwater contains pesticides
including lindane, chlordane and DDT, and halogenated organic solvents. Human health
would be threatened through direct contact with contaminants or if contaminated
groundwater were to enter private wells. A private well upgradient of the site contains
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including tetrachloroethylene.
43
April 1991
-------
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 and fenced the site. Results of sampling showed groundwater
contamination. Soil sampling outside the building detected low levels of pesticides, but
suspected buried pesticides were not found.
Entire Site: The EPA has begun a study of the nature and extent of groundwater and soil
contamination remaining at the site and the alternative technologies available for cleanup.
Field work for these studies is expected to begin in 1991 and end in 1992, with cleanup
actions scheduled to start in 1993.
Environmental Progress
Initial assessments indicate that the site does not pose an immediate hazard to human health or the
environment while it awaits PCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant) studies and cleanup actions are being
planned.
April! 991
44
PCX, INC. (STATESVILLE PLANT)
-------
PCX, INC.
(WASHING!
PLANT)
NORTH CAROLINA
EPAID#NCD981475932
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Beaufort County
Washington
Other Names:
Washington Plant
Site Description
PCX, Inc. (Washington Plant) 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.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The soil of the disposal 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 aquifer, individuals may ingest contaminants in drinking water.
45
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1988, the EPA began to excavate the contaminated soil and analyzed
it on site. The site also was fenced. The EPA is storing and covering all contaminated soil
on site and is backfilling the excavated area with clean soil.
Entire Site: PCX, Inc. is conducting a study into the extent and nature of contamination
at the trench and main warehouse and will study the alternative technologies for cleanup.
The study began in 1990 and is scheduled to 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 to compel 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 Plant) site safer while investigations leading to cleanup activities
are taking place.
April 1991
46
PCX, INC. (WASHINGTON PLANT)
-------
GEIGY CHEMICAL
CORPORATIQ
(ABERDE
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID#NCD981927502
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Moore County
Aberdeen
The Geigy Chemical Corporation (Aberdeen Plant) 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, and two warehouses were removed in 1991. 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 addressed through a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' action.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lindane. The soil is contaminated with pesticides
including toxaphene, DDT, and lindane. Trespassers on this site who come in direct
contact with 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.
47
April! 991
-------
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: 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 action 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. The site also has
been fenced.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties 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 1992. 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 actions to remove contaminated soils and debris, in addition to fencing the site, have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Geigy Chemical Corporation site
while investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 48 GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(ABERDEEN PLANT)
-------
HEVI-DUTY
COMPAN
NORTH CAROLIN
EPA ID# NCD039102959
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL 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. 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 nearly 4,700 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
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with PCBs. People who
come in direct contact with or accidentally 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.
49
April 1991
-------
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: In 1976, contaminated soil was removed from an underground storage
tank area. In 1986, Hevi-Duty cleaned up an oil spill by pumping groundwater to flush oil
out of the ground.
Entire Site: Hevi-Duty is studying the environmental condition of the site. After this
study is completed, planned for 1992, 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 additional immediate actions were needed at the Hevi-Duty Electric Company site while
further studies are being conducted.
April 1991 50 HEVI-DUTY ELECTRIC COMPANY
-------
EPA ID# NCD980729602
JADCO-H
FACILI
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA 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 the soil with heavy
metals and organic solvents. In 1984, an estimated 4,700 people used 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, because 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. Trace amounts of site-related contaminants have been
detected in a private well that is no longer in use.
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
On-site sediments contain heavy metals including chromium, lead, and nickel.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were a concern at the site, but cleanup of the PCB-
contaminated sediments and soils is completed. PCBs and nickel have been found in
sediments off site. The soil contains heavy metals 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. Migration of contaminants to the groundwater is a priority
concern.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, PCB-contaminated soils and sediments were removed from the
southeastern swale area of the site.
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 was completed in 1990. The EPA selected a remedy entailing treatment of
soils using soil vacuum extraction and soil flushing techniques. Groundwater will be pumped and
treated and disposed of either in local wastewater treatment plant or in a tributary, in accordance
with national discharge permits. The design of the remedy is schedued to begin in 1992.
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
conducted a study to determine the type and extent of contamination under a Consent Order.
Environmental Progress
Excavation and disposal of the PCB-contaminated soil and sediments reduced the potential of direct
contact while engineering designs for the cleanup of the site are being planned.
ApriM991 52 JADCO-HUGHES FACILITY
-------
JFD ELECT
CHANN
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Granville County
Oxford
EPAID#NCD122263825
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 their 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 contracted for several studies of the site, and chromium, lead, and
other heavy metals were found in the sludge and soils. VOCs are contaminating the
surface water, sediments, and groundwater. People could be at risk if they accidentally
ingest or come in direct contact with the contaminated groundwater, soil, and sludges.
53
April 1991
-------
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: 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 1987 and is nearing completion.
Entire Site: 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 also will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup, is scheduled for
completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The ongoing cleanup of the lagoon and contaminated soil has reduced the threat of continued
contamination of the groundwater. 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 cleanup
activities continue and further studies into the final groundwater remedy are taking place.
April 1991
54
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
-------
KOPPERS
COMPA
(MORRISVILLE
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD003200383
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Wake County
1 mile northwest of
Morrisville
Site Description
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 pentachlorophenol (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 northeastern 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. still is 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. Koppers installed over 3 miles of
public water lines to residences where PCP or isopropyl ether was detected in the drinking water.
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. Occa-
sional 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 Dale: 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. Dioxins and furans also are found on site. 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 coming into direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting any of these contaminated materials.
55
April 1991
-------
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 3 miles of public water supply lines were extended by Koppers 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. Field work is completed, and reports due in mid-1991 will present strategies to
clean up the site.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order was issued to the potentially responsible party to install a
water line. A second Administrative Order was issued to conduct site investigations.
Environmental Progress
The emergency removal of soil and provision of an alternate water supply have reduced the potential
for exposure to contaminants at the site or through the drinking water supply while investigations
and cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 56 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
(MORRISVILLE PLANT)
-------
MARTIN-MARI
SODYECO
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD001810365
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Mecklenburg County
10 miles west of Charlotte
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 resulted in extensive groundwater and soil pollution. Analysts traced the
source of contamination 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 currently is 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 available analytical techniques allowed some soil
contamination to go undetected. Area D contained two wastewater settling ponds that have been
taken out of service. This area 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
57
April! 991
-------
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. Area residents are not at risk of
being exposed to site contamination, as a result of early excavation of dangerous 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 two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Contaminated wastes and secondary soils were excavated and removed
from the site.
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 treatment
process may require operation 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 of contaminated areas have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Martin-Marietta Sodyeco site while final
cleanup actions are underway.
April 1991 58 MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO, INC.
-------
NATIONAL STARC
CHEMICAL
NORTH CARO
EPA ID# NCD991278953
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Rowan County
5 miles south of Salisbury
Other Names:
Proctor Chemical Co. inc.
Site Description
The National Starch & 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 from this source could become affected by
site-related contaminants; however, no off-site contamination of groundwater has been detected.
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 also may cause a health threat due to possible contamination of the
water. The northeastern tributary shows very low levels of contaminants at the site;
however, these contaminants are removed prior to leaving the site property. No
contaminants have been detected downstream of the property.
59
April 1991
-------
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 began 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 die lagoon and surface aeration prior to
discharging the groundwater to the Salisbury POTW. Modifications were made to the pretreatment
design to meet the POTW pretreatment standards. Extraction wells have been installed, and off-site
monitoring wells are to be installed soon. Groundwater pumping and treatment continue over the
long term.
Soil Contamination: The potentially responsible party conducted a study of the type
and extent of on-site soil contamination and evaluated alternative cleanup actions. In
1990, a remedy was selected, which entails natural soil flushing, soil monitoring, and deed
restrictions on the site. The engineering design of the selected remedy is planned to begin in 1991.
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 & 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
cleanup of groundwater and soil is taking place.
APril 1991 60 NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP.
-------
N.C. STATE U
(LOT 86,
FARM UNIT #1)
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# NCD980557656
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Wake County
Raleigh
Site Description
The 1 1/2-acre North Carolina State University site is situated to the north of Carter-Finley Stadium
in Raleigh. The site was used by the North Carolina State University science laboratories and
agricultural research facilities 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 indicates the presence of high levels of organic contamination. The site is completely
fenced and is 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 people live within
4 1/2 miles of the site. Most of these residents 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 USTING 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. Ingesting and coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater is a potential health hazard.
61
Apn'11991
-------
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: The University's Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
has monitored the site extensively since 1981. One background and three downgradient
wells were drilled to a depth of about 10 feet below the water table. The EPA currently is
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.
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 investigations are taking
place.
April 1991 62 N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY
(LOT86, FARM UNIT #1)
-------
NEW HANOV
COUNTY
AIRPORT BURN
NORTH CAROLINA
EPAID#NCD981021157
Site Description
EPA 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 were 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 held 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 to the
northwest 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
II
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 health threat as well. Based on preliminary investigations, groundwater
contamination remains on site. An estuary wetland is located approximately 1 mile from
the site.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The 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: In 1990, the potentially responsible parties, under EPA supervision,
removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sludge and soils, piping, tanks, and training
structures from the site.
Entire Site: An investigation of the nature and extent of site contamination and a study
of alternatives for cleaning up the site contaminants were started in 1990. The
investigation is scheduled for completion in 1991, with a decision on a cleanup plan
expected in 1992.
Site Facts: A Consent Order for removal of the contaminants by the potentially responsible parties
was signed in June 1990.
Environmental Progress
Removal of sludge, soils, and debris from the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit site has
reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants while investigations leading to final cleanup
activities are taking place.
April1991 64 NEW HANOVER COUNTY
AIRPORT BURN PIT
-------
PCB SPILLS
NORTH CA
EPAID#NCD980602163
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 02
Halifax and 13 counties
243 miles of N.C. highway
Site Description
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: 03/07/86
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.
65
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site Area: In 1982, the EPA and the State of North Carolina initiated cleanup
actions 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 1982, and the landfill was capped, graded, and vegetated.
Sampling was conducted during cleanup at the beginning and ending 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 then were excavated and filled with clean soil. As a result of the
completed cleanup actions and the 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.
April 1991
66
PCB SPILLS
-------
POTTER'S
SEPTIC T
SERVIC
NORTH CAROLI
EPA ID# NCD9810232
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Brunswick County
Sandy Creek, approximately
18 miles west of Wilmington
Site Description
The Potter's Septic Tank Service 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
Threats and Contaminants
ZT
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. Direct contact with contaminated soil
was a health threat, especially to children playing in the area, before the removal of
contaminated soil and sludge.
67
April 1991
-------
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: 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, planned
for 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial soil and sludge removal actions described above have eliminated the possibility of contact
threats from contaminated soil at the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits site while investigations and
cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 68 POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
69
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
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 possibly may create toxic com-
pounds 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 the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
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 responsible
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 the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
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.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
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
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
71
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
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 contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
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 generally is
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.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of din.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
72
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
73
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minims contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient 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.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
74
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
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 ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
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.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
75
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
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 pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
76
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
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
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
77
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
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.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions 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 often are
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.
78
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
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 creo-
sotes 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 immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund 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. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
79
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of 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 con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
80
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
81
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
82
-------
GLOSSARY
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
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, 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.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated 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.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
83
-------
_ APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in North Carolina
85
-------
00
Information Repositories for NPL Sites in the State of North Carolina
Repositories are established for all NPL sites so that the public can obtain additional information related to site activities. Some sites may have more than one repository
location, however, the primary site repository is listed below. All public access information pertaining to the site will be on file at these repositories. The quantity
and nature of the documentation found in the repositories depends on the extent of activity and cleanup progress for each site and may include some or all of the
following: community relations plans, announcements for public meetings, minutes from public meetings, fact sheets detailing activities at sites, documents relating
to the selection of cleanup remedies, press releases, locations of other public information centers, and any other documents pertaining to site activities.
Site Name
ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
ABERDEEN PESTICIDES DUMP
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES. INC.
BYPASS 601 GROUNDWATER
CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RESERVATION
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
CELANESE CORP./SHELBY FIBER OPERATION
CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM STORAGE
CHEMTRONICS, INC.
PCX, INC.. STATESVILLE
FCX, INC.. WASHINGTON
GEIG Y CHEMICAL CORPORATION
HEVI DUTY ELECTRIC/GENERAL SIGNAL CO.
JADCO-HUGHES
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
KOPPERS COMPANY. INC.. MORRISVILLE PLANT
MARTIN MARIETTA SODYECO
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP.
NC STATE UNIVERSITY/LOT 86 FARM UNIT #1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT
PCB SPILLS (DELJSTED)
POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS
Sit* Repository
Onslow County Public Library, 58 Doris Avenue, East, Jacksonville, NC 28540
Aberdeen Town Hall, 115 North Poplar Street, Aberdeen, NC 28315
Hazelwood Town Hall, 101 West Georgia Avenue. Hazelwood, NC 28738
Charles A. Cannon Memorial Library, 27 Union Street, North Concord, NC 28025
Onslow County Library, 58 Doiris Avenue, East, Jacksonville, NC 28540
Cumberland County Public Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Cumberland County Public Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Cleveland County Library System, 104 Howie Drive, Shelby, NC 28151
Thomas H. Leath Memorial Library, 412 East Franklin Street, Rackingham, NC 28379
Martha Ellison Library, Warren Wilson College, 701 Warren Wilson Road, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Not Established
Not Established
Aberdeen Town Hall, 115 North Poplar Street, Aberdeen, NC 28315
Not Established
Gaston County Public Library, Belmont Public Library Branch, 111 Central Avenue, Belmont, NC 28012
Grandvillle County Library System, Richard H. Thorton Library, Main and Spring Streets, Oxford, NC 27565
Wake County Dept. of the Public Library. Cary Public Library Branch, 310 South Academy St., Cary, NC 27511
Mt. Holly Public Library, 245 West Catawba Avenue, Mt. Holly, NC 28120
Rowan Public Library, 201 West Fisher Street, Salisburg, NC 28144
Not Established
New Hanover County Public Library, 201 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
Columbus County Library, Route 2, Highway 87, Riegelwood, NC 28456
------- |