Superfund Progress At National Priority List Sites, North Carolina, 1992 Update


LvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA/540/R-93/031
December 1992
PB93-963232
 SUPERFUND:
              Progress at
              National
              Priority
              List Sites
  NORTH CAROLINA
     1992 UPDATE
Irmted on Recycled Paper

-------
                                           Publication #9200.5-7336
                                                December 1992
      NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
                  North Carolina
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
            Office of Program Management
                Washington, DC 20460
                                  U S Environmental Protection Agency
                                  Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                                  77 "West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
                                  Chicago,  IL 60604-3590

-------
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, VA 22161
                                (703) 486-4650
The complete set of the 49 State reports may be ordered as PB93-963250.

-------
        TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
   A Brief Overview of Superfund	v
   Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model	ix
   How Superfund Works	x


THE VOLUME
   How to Use the State Book	xi
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
.XV
THE NPL REPORT
    Progress to Date	xix
THE NPL FACT SHEETS                      i
THE GLOSSARY
    Terms used in the NPL Book	G-l

-------
                     INTRODUCTION
           A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SUPERFUND
      During the second half of the Twentieth
      Century, the environmental conse-
quences of more than 100 years of industrial-
ization in the United States became increas-
ingly clear. Authors such as Rachel Carson
wrote passionately about the often-hidden en-
vironmental effects of our modern society's
widespread use of chemicals and other haz-
ardous materials. Their audience was small at
first, but gradually their message spread.
Growing concern turned to action, as people
learned more about the environment and be-
gan to act on their knowledge

The 1970s  saw environmental issues burst
onto the national  scene and take hold in the
national consciousness. The first Earth Day
was observed in 1970, the year that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
founded. By the end  of the 1970s, Love Canal
in New York and the Valley of the Drums in
Kentucky had entered the popular lexicon as
synonyms for pollution and environmental
degradation.
Superfund Is Established

The industrialization that gave Americans the
world's highest standard of living also created
problems that only a national program could
address. By 1980, the U.S. Congress had
passed numerous environmental laws, imple-
mented by the EPA, but many serious hazard-
ous waste problems were slipping through the
cracks.

Responding to growing concern about public
health and environmental threats from uncon-
trolled releases of hazardous materials, the
U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Popularly known as
Superfund, CERCLA had one seemingly
simple job—to uncover and clean up hazard-
ous materials spills and contaminated sites.
A Big Job

Few in Congress, the EPA, the environmen-
tal community, or the general public knew in
1980 just how big the nation's hazardous ma-
terials problem is. Almost everyone thought
that Superfund would be a short-lived pro-
gram requiring relatively few resources to
clean up at most a few hundred sites. They
were quite mistaken.

As the EPA set to work finding sites and
gauging their potential to harm people and
the environment, the number of sites grew.
Each discovery seemed to lead to another,
and today almost 36,000 hazardous waste
sites have been investigated as potential haz-
ardous waste  sites. They are catalogued in
the EPA's computerized database, CERCLIS
(for the Comprehensive Environmental Re-

-------
INTRODUCTION
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Informa-
tion System).

The damage to public health and the environ-
ment that each site in CERCL1S might cause
is evaluated; many sites have been referred to
State and local governments for cleanup. The
EPA lists the nation's most serious hazardous
waste sites on the National Priorities List, or
NPL.  (These Superfund sites are eligible for
federally-funded cleanup, but whenever pos-
sible the EPA makes polluters pay for the
contamination they helped create.) The NPL
now numbers 1,275 sites, with 50 to 100
added each year. By the end of the century,
the NPL may reach as many as 2,100 sites.

Superfund faces some of the most complex
pollution problems ever encountered by an
environmental program. Improperly stored or
disposed chemicals and the soil they contami-
nate are one concern. More difficult to correct
are the wetlands and bays, and the groundwa-
ter, lakes, and rivers often used for drinking
water that are contaminated by chemicals
spreading through the soil or mixing with
storm water runoff. Toxic vapors contaminate
the air at some sites, threatening the health of
people living and working near by.

Superfund aims to control immediate public
health and environmental threats by tackling
the worst problems at the worst sites first.
Wherever possible, Superfund officials use
innovative treatment techniques—many de-
veloped or refined by the EPA—to correct
hazardous materials problems once and for
all. Many of the treatment techniques they use
did not exist when the program was created.

The EPA Administrator had challenged Su-
perfund to complete construction necessary
for cleanup work at 130 NPL sites by the end
of the 1992 federal fiscal year. By September
30, 1992, the end of fiscal year 1992, con-
struction had been completed at a total of 149
NPL sites. Superfund is well on its way of
meeting the Administrator's goal of complet-
ing construction at 200 NPL sites by the end
of fiscal year 1993, and 650 sites by the end
of fiscal year 2000.
Quick Cleanup at
Non-NPL Sites

Long-standing hazardous waste sites are not
Superfund's only concern. The EPA also re-
sponds to hazardous spills and other emergen-
cies, hauling away chemicals for proper treat-
ment or disposal. Superfund teams perform or
supervise responses at rail and motor vehicle
accidents, fires, and other emergencies in-
volving hazardous substances. They also
evacuate people living and working near by,
if necessary, and provide clean drinking water
to people whose own water is contaminated.
Removal crews also post warning signs and
take other precautions to keep people and ani-
mals away from hazardous substances.
                                             Superfund employee prepares equipment for groundwaler
                                             treatment.
                                           VI

-------
                                                              INTRODUCTION
Quick Cleanups, or Removals, are not limited
to emergencies. When cleanup crews at con-
taminated sites find hazardous substances that
immediately threaten people or the environ-
ment, they act right away to reduce the threat
or to remove the chemicals outright.  As the
EPA implements the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), more and more sites
will undergo quick cleanups, and many of
these will be cleaned up completely without
ever being included on the NPL. (See
"Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Ac-
celerated Cleanup  Model.")

Some of Superfund's most significant gains in
public health and environmental protection
have been won by the removal program. As of
March 31, 1992, the Emergency Response
Superfund employee removing drums from a Superfund site.

Program had logged more than 2,300 removal
completions since Superfund was established.
The Public's Role

Superfund is unique among federal programs
in its commitment to citizen participation. Al-
though the EPA is responsible for determin-
ing how dangerous a site is and how best to
clean it up, the Agency relies on citizen input
as it makes these decisions.

Community residents are often invaluable
sources of information about a hazardous
waste site, its current and previous owners,
and the activities that took place there. Such
information can be crucial to experts evaluat-
ing a site and its potential dangers.

Residents also comment on EPA cleanup
plans by stating their concerns and prefer-
ences at public meetings and other forums and
in formal, written comments to Agency pro-
posals. The EPA takes these comments and
concerns seriously, and has modified many
proposals in response to local concerns. For,
ultimately, it is the community and its citizens
that will live with the results of the EPA's de-
cisions and actions; it is only fair that citizens
participate in the process.
A Commitment to
Communication

The Superfund program is very serious about
public outreach and communication. Com-
munity relations coordinators are assigned to
each NPL site to help the public understand
the potential hazards present, as well as the
cleanup alternatives. Local information re-
positories, such as libraries or other public
buildings, have been  established near each
NPL site to ensure that the public has an op-
portunity to review all relevant information
and the proposed cleanup plans.

The individual State volumes contain sum-
mary fact sheets on NPL sites in each State
and territory. Together, the fact sheets provide
a concise report on site conditions and  the
progress made toward site cleanups as  of
March  1992. The EPA revises these volumes
periodically to provide an up-to-date record of
program activities. A  glossary of key terms
relating to hazardous  waste management and
Superfund site cleanup is provided at the back
of this book.
                                          VII

-------
INTRODUCTION
Superfund is, of course, a public program, and
as such it belongs to everyone of us. This vol-
ume, along with other State volumes, com-
prises the EPA's report on Superfund
progress to the program's owners for the year
1992.
                                        VIII

-------
                                                          INTRODUCTION
  STREAMLINING SUPERFUND:  THE SUPERFUND
             ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
      Historically, critics and supporters alike
      have measured Superfund's progress
by the number of hazardous waste sites de-
leted from the NPL. Although easy enough to
tally, this approach is too narrow. It misses
the major gains Superfund makes by reducing
major risks at the nation's worst hazardous
sites long before all clean-up work is done
and the site deleted. It also ignores the Re-
moval Program's contributions  to meeting
Superfund's twin mandates of maximizing
public health and environmental protection.

Renewing Superfund's commitment to rapid
protection from hazardous materials, the EPA
is streamlining the program. The Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model, or SACM, will
take Early Actions, such as removing hazard-
ous wastes or contaminated materials, while
experts study the site. SACM also will com-
bine similar site studies to reduce the time re-
quired to evaluate a site and its  threats to
people and the environment. This way, imme-
diate public health and environmental threats
will be addressed while long-term cleanups
are being planned.

Emergencies such as train derailments and
motor vehicle accidents will continue to be
handled expeditiously. Teams of highly
trained technicians will swing into action
right away, coordinating the cleanup and re-
moval of hazardous substances  to ensure pub-
lic safety as quickly as possible.

Breaking With Tradition

The traditional Superfund process begins with
a lengthy phase of study and site assessment,
but SACM will save time by combining sepa-
rate, yet similar, activities. Each EPA Region
will form a Decision Team of site managers,
risk assessors, community relations coordina-
tors, lawyers, and other experts to monitor the
studies and quickly determine whether a site
requires Early Action (taking less than five
years), Long-term Action, or both.

While the site studies continue, the Decision
Team will begin the short-term work required
to correct immediate public health or environ-
mental threats from the site. Besides remov-
ing hazardous materials, Early Actions in-
clude taking precautions to keep contaminants
from moving off the site and restricting access
to the site. Early Actions could eliminate most
human risk from these sites, and Superfund
will further focus its public participation and
public information activities on site assess-
ment and Early Action.

Long-Term Solutions

While Early Actions can correct many hazard-
ous waste problems—and provide the bulk of
public health and environmental protection—
some contamination will take longer to cor-
rect. Cleanups of mining sites, wetlands, estu-
aries, and projects involving incineration of
contaminants or restoration of groundwater
can take far longer than the three to five years
envisioned for Early Actions. Under SACM,
these sites will be handled much as they are
now.

Also under SACM, the EPA will continue its
pursuit of potentially responsible parties who
may have caused or contributed to site con-
tamination. Expedited  enforcement  and
procedures for negotiating potentially respon-
sible party settlements will secure their par-
ticipation. Superfund personnel will  continue
to oversee clean-up work performed by poten-
tially responsible parties.
                                        IX

-------
INTRODUCTION
                    HOW SUPERFUND WORKS
     Each Superfund site presents a different
     set of complex problems. The same haz-
ardous materials and chemicals often con-
taminate many sites, but the details of each
site are different. Almost always, soil is con-
taminated with one or more chemicals. Their
vapors may taint the air over and around the
site. Contaminants may travel through the soil
and reach underground aquifers which may be
used for drinking water, or they may spread
over the site to contaminate streams, ponds,
and wetlands. The contaminating chemicals
may interact with each other, presenting even
more complicated cleanup problems.

Superfund's cleanup process is arduous and
exacting. It requires the best efforts of hun-
dreds of experts in science and engineering,
public health, administration and manage-
ment, law, and many other fields.

The average NPL site takes from seven to ten {
years to work its way  through the system,
from discovery to the  start of long-term
cleanup. Actual  cleanup work can take years,
decades if contaminated groundwater must
be treated. Of course,  imminent threats to
public health or the environment are cor-
rected right away.

The diagram to the right presents a simplified
view of the cleanup process. The major steps
in the Superfund process are:

  • Site discovery and  investigation to iden-
   tify contaminants and determine whether
   emergency action is required;

  • Emergency site work such as removing
   contaminants for proper treatment or  dis-
   posal, and securing the site to keep people
   and animals away, if warranted by condi-
   tions at the site;

  • Site evaluation  to determine how people
   living and working nearby, and the envi-
   ronment, may be exposed to site contami-
   nants;
 • Detailed studies to determine whether con-
  ditions are serious enough to add the site to
  the National Priorities List of sites eligible
  for federally funded cleanup under Super-
  fund;

 ' Selection, design, and implementation of a
  cleanup plan, after a thorough review of
  the most effective cleanup options, given
  site conditions, contaminants present, and
  their potential threat to public health or the
  environment.

 • Follow-up to ensure that the cleanup work
  done at the site continues to be effective
  over the long term.
   The Superfund Process
From the earliest stages, EPA investigators
work hard to identify those responsible for the
contamination. As their responsibility is es-
tablished, the EPA negotiates with these "re-
sponsible parties" to pay for cleaning up the
problem they helped create. This "enforce-
ment first" policy saves  Superfund Trust Fund
monies for use in cleanups where the respon-
sible parties cannot be identified, or where
they are unable to fund cleanup work.

-------
                          THE VOLUME
                    How to  Use the State Book
  I  he site fact sheets presented in this book
 A 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 discovered and related threats
to public and ecological health ("Threats and
Contaminants"). "Cleanup Approach" pres-
ents 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 environment. The
summaries  also pinpoint other actions,  such as
legal efforts to involve polluters responsible
for site contamination and community con-
cerns.

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-
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.
                                           XI

-------
THE VOLUME
   NPL LISTING HISTORY
 Provides the dates when the
 site was Proposed, made Final,
 and Deleted from the NPL.
   SITE RESPONSIBILITY
  Identifies the Federal, State,
  and/or potentially responsible
  parties taking responsibility
  for cleanup actions at the site.
      ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROGRESS

  Summarizes the actions to
  reduce the threats to nearby
  residents and the surrounding
  environment and the progress
  towards cleaning up the site.
                               SITE NAME
                                     EPA REGION XX
                                        COUNTY NAME
                                         LOCATION

                                        Other Names:
Threats and Contaminants
                               Response Action Status
Site Facts: Xxx*xx x*, xx*.

(jjXXXXX XXX XXXXXX
Environmental Progress

                                Site Repository
                                                       SITE REPOSITORY

                                       Lists the location of the primary site repository. The site
                                       repository may include community relations plans, public
                                       meeting announcements and minutes, fact sheets, press
                                       releases, and other site-related documents.
                                               XII

-------
                                                   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.

                          xiii

-------
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 vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a drink-
ing 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 vicinity
of the site. (Examples include wet-
lands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial, Immediate, or Emergency
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.
XIV

-------
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
             xv

-------
Superfund
Activities in
North Carolina
The State of North Carolina is located within EPA Region 4, which includes the eight southeast-
ern States. The State covers 52,669 square miles. According to the 1990 Census, North Carolina
experienced a 13 percent increase in population between 1980 and 1990, and is ranked tenth in U.S.
population with approximately 6,629,000 residents.
The North Carolina Comprehensive Environmental Response Act of 1987 grants the State the
authority to order polluters to conduct cleanup activities or, if the polluters refuse, to recover the cost
of cleanup from the polluters. In practice, the State must seek voluntary action from the polluters
before issuing orders or taking direct action. If a polluter refuses to participate in cleanup activities,
the State must demonstrate that a site poses a threat to public health or the environment, as well as
prove that its expenses were reasonable for recovering the cost of cleanup. The statute also created
the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund, which is used to fund the 10 percent contribution from
the State required by the Federal Superfund program in addition to State cleanup activities at Super-
fund sites, including emergency response actions, removals, studies and design, and long-term
cleanup actions. Emergency cleanup actions also are funded by the Emergency Response Fund,
established by the North Carolina Waste Management Act. The State requires that a notice and
summary of the cleanup plan be published weekly for three weeks in a local newspaper. A copy of
the plan also must be filed with the register of deeds before approval. Before a State-funded cleanup
can proceed, a 45-day public comment period is requked. Currently, 22 sites in the State of North
Carolina have been listed as final on the NPL; one has been deleted. One new site has been proposed
for listing in 1992

The Division of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
implements the Superfund Program in the State of North Carolina
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
North Carolina include:
Chemical and
Pesticide
Other -rf^HHiill,-,',,'^Manufacturers
Federal
Facilities

Wood
Production
and Treatment
Facilities
Storage and
Disposal Facilities
Manufacturing
Facilities
Facts about the 24 NPL sites
in North Carolina:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at 17
sites.