United States ,,
Environmental Protection
Agency'
Office of
Emergency and
„, Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-87/024
September 1987
4>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Sodyeco, NC
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(P/~tUl ntld InltfUClions on Ih~ 'tvtn~ blfOft com"lttingJ
1. REPORT NO. /2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
I "''''''/''''''''/'''04-87/024
.. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION c::..nl-ember 24 1987
Sodyeco, NC 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION eOOE
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AUTHORCS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
e, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO,
. 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency H'.;n",1 ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
18. ABSTRACT
The Southern Dyestuff Company (Sodyeco) site, located in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, consists of approximately 1,300 acres., ,Approximately 20-30 residents reside
within a one-quarter mile radius of the site, while many of the areas 9,137 residents
commute daily to the site for employment. The site contains an operating manufacturing
facility consisting of production 'units, a waste water treatment ~rea and materials
storage areas. Approximately 1,040 acres are underdeveloped. Sodyeco began operations
at the site in 1936. In 1958, American Marietta (which became Martin Marietta in 1961)
purchased the site and expanded the company's liquid suI fer dye production to include
the manufacture of vat and disperse dyes and specialty products for agrochemical,
electronic, explosive, lithographic, pigment, plastic, rubber and general chemical
industries. The Sandoz Chemical Company purchased the plant in 1983. Five CERCLA
facilities, identified as A, B, C, D and E, were identified as probable sources of the.
ground water and soil contamination. Area A operated as a landfill between the 1930s
and 1973 or 1974. It accepted suI fer residues and dyes; fiber cloths; empty metal and
cardboard drums and cartons; non-acidic, non-flammable chemicals; chemical wastes; and
construction debris. This area is currently covered with asphalt and buildings. Area E
operated as landfill between 1973 and 1978 and received wastes previously disposed in
Area A. Area C consisted of three covered trenches that contained laboratory and
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. eOSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Sodyeco, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: TCE s, PAHs, VOCs
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (TI,is Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 62
.-
20. SECURITY CLASS (TI'is pagtl 22. PRICE
Ncn<'!
!,. ,- 2220-1 (R... .-n)
PI"I:VIOUI I:DITION II 0810L.I:TI:
-------
"-
1-; I "
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
RIPORT NU_IR
Insert 'he I:.PA report number u in"... on tile cower of the pubtkation.
LIAVI BLANK
2.
3.
RICIPIINTS ACCISItON NUM8IR
Re.rYed for 11M by r.h:h report re.:ipilnt.
Tlnl AND SU8Tlni
Tide should indicatel:lc;uly and brieny the subj4ft:t I:ovcrap: uf t~ n:port. ;and be di~rbYl.'d prumin.:nlly, ~I ","'illl.'. If u,,"d. m ~nl;alil.'r
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. Whca a report i. rrcp;ared in moR' thoan ""'" vulul11l:. rl.'p-:lt IIII.' prunary '"Ic. ;add "ul~ml.'
number and inc1ude subtitle tor the specific title.
4.
I.
RIPORT DATI .
EacIt report sbaU carry. date incliatiq.t ""t month and YC'U. Indk."alc Ihc h;a~.. un whi~h il .;a~ ~..ll.'I.'tL'" (c'.~.. .HIlc' ,,[iUllc'. Jillc' Cll
tlpJWONl, .,. of IftptllfltiOll. "C.).
,.R'ORMING ORGANIZATION COOl
Leave blank.
..
7.
AUTHORCS'
Give name,.) in I:\)nventional order (John R. OM. J. Robr" Dor, "IC',), Li.., aUlhur'~ aniliiallUII ii' il JitTI.'~ frunl IhL' 11I.'rfurmillJ ,.rpni- .
zalion.
I.
"RFORMING ORGANIZATION RIPORT NUMBER
I...... if pedorminl orpnization WIShes to;willl Ihis number.
..RFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMI AND ADDRISI
Gm name. street. city, state. and ZIP code. List no more than two levell of an urpnilaliun;al hirarL"hy,
..
1~ PROGRAMILEMINTNUM88R
Use the propam element number under which the report wa... pnpared. Subordin;atc: number.. IlIiI)' be i",,'ludl.'d en 11;Irl.'lIlhl.'~"
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBIR
Insert concnct or If8nt number under whidl report wal pn:pucd.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMI AND ADDRIII
Indude ZIP code.
. .
13. TVPI 0' RIPORT AND PlRIOD COVERED
IndiQte interim f1na1, etc.. and if applicable, data covered.
14. SPONSORING AGIINCY CODI
Insert appropriate code.
11. SUPPLE_NTARY NOns
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such a...:
To be published in. Supersedes. SupplementS. etc.
Prepared illl:ooper..tiun wllh. rr..n~II"" "'. 1'r1.",,,,,"IL'd ;al ~',,"I~'n'II'" "".
18. A81TRACT
Include a brief (200 worth or 11"1 faCtual s~mmary of the m~' ~ipliti~anl Infurmalinn I:untailll.'illll Ih~' "'Ilurt. II II", "'1'"'' nUII;aIIl'"
silftilicant bibliOlf8phy or literature survey. mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YIII
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Select from the Thesaurus of I::npnccrin,;&IId Sc:ic:nlilil: Tl:nn!lo Ihe pruper aUlhuri/l:d II.'''II~ Ihal Identify thl: mainr
conee,t of the research and are suf'ficiendy spec:d'ic and pr.... to be UIL-d a!lo Inch:JI. entries "ur utaluaun\t. .
. . . I
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN.ENDED TERMS. U. identil1en for projc:c:t Aarm.!Io. cude namc~. l."'Iulprnent d':"II""Iu,!'I. 1.'11:. c;~ 1'1'1:.
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no dcM:riptur I:~ists. . " . .
(c) COSA TlI'IELD GROUP. Held and poup assipmentl ... to be talu:n "rom the 196$ (,OSI\ 1I SuhjLol:l ('alL'!!"'y li~t. Sin"". the ma.
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in 11811118. the Primary Held/G,oup as...qolMnth) wIll "'= ''''''Lilli; lJi\L"lplin.:. area "" hum;an
endeavor. or 'ype of physical object. The applicationCs) will be c:rou-n:"l:n:nlo-cd with ",',;unwry I il.'ldH iruul' ""Ipnlll.:nh that \0\'111 1"..11...
the primary postinlts,.
11. DISTRIBUTION STATIMINT .
Denote releasabilit)' '0 the public: or limitation tor reasons other .ban !iI.'l:uri.y rur I:Ailmplc: ult.:lea'l.' I:lIhllllh....:' ("'II.' ;all" ..~;ailahlhl)" In
the public. wlJh address ;&lid p"c.:e,
1.. . 20. SECURITV CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit ciauiftCd reporu to the National Tec.:I\nieallnformation !iCrvic.:c.
21. NUMB.R OF PAGES
Insert the total nu~ber of paPS. includinl this one and unnumbered pap'. bul oxl:ludc: di'''Ibutiun 1"1. II any.
2Z. PRICI
Insert the price set by the National rec:hnicallnformation SI:rvic:e ur thl: Government Printintr Office. il" knuwn.
'1(,
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-87/024
Sodyeco, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
production samples, distillation tars and waste solvents. They have since
been excavated, regraded and grassed. Area D contained two waste water
settling ponds that have been taken out of service. Area D currently holds
a lined fresh water pond and a fuel oil storage tank. Area E, downgradient
of the old plant manufacturing area, has no known waste disposal
receptacles. The primary contaminants of concern include: TCE, PAHs and
other volatile organics.
The selected remedial alternative includes: extraction and onsite
treatment at the waste water treatment facility of contaminated ground water
with offsite discharge to a stream~ onsite treatment of contaminated soil in
Area C (Treatability studies will be performed to determine which type of
treatment will be used)~ excavation and offsite incineration of contaminated
soil in Area D~ and asphalt capping of Area B. The estimated present worth
cost of this remedy will range from $2,089,000 to $3,865,000.
-------
ENFORCEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SODYECO SITE
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
..
PREPARED BY:.
U . S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
A'l'LANTA, GEORGIA
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Sodyeco
Charlotte. Mecklenburg County. North Carolina
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for this site
developed in accordance with CERCLA. as amended by SARA. a~d to the extent
practicable, th~ National Contingency Plan.
The State of North Carolina has concurred on the selected remedy.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based upon documents which make up the site Administrative.
Record. The attached index identifies items which comprise the Administr~tive'
Record. ~
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
GROUNDWATER
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater
- On-site treatme~t of. extracted groundwater
- Discharge of treated groundwater to off-site stream
- Groundwater remediation will be performed until all
contaminated water meets the cleanup goals specified
Summary of Alternative Selection
in the attached
SOIL
- Asphalt cap of Area B (Truck Staging Area)
- Excavation and off-site incineration of contaminated soil in Area
D (Settling Pond Area)
- On-site treatment of contaminated soil in Area C (Trench Area) to remove
organic contaminants
IMPLEMENTATION
The Remedial Design and Remedial Action will be conducted under an amendment to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCIA) Part B Permit Number
NCD001810365. issued March 31. 1987. Personnel in EPA's RCRA program will
oversee the work to be performed.
-------
-2-
DECLARATION
"The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference for treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principle element. Finally, it is
determined that this remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable."
~ c;. ~
Lee A. DeHihns, III
Acting Regiona~ Administrator
SEP 2 4 1987
~
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SODYECO SITE
: CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
u.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEQR<;aA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
IntroductIon[[[1
1.1 Site Location and Description.........................................1
1.2 Site History[[[4
2.0
Enforcement Analysis[[[".7
3.0
Current Site Status[[[7
3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting.................................................7
3.2 Site Contamination[[[8
3.3 Receptors[[[17
4.0
Clean-Up Criteria[[[18
4.1 Groundwater Remediation..............................................18
4.2
4.3
S011 Remediation[[[22
Surface Water Remediation............................................22
5.0 Alternative Evaluation[[[22
5.1 Alternatives[[[~28
..
6.0
-------
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
1 - Site Location Map.................................................2
2 - Site Vicinity Map.................................................3
3 - CERCLA Areas at the Sodyeco Site..................................5
4 - Analyte Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil Samples
from Areas A & B..................................................9
5 - Location of Groundwater Sampling Wells Where Organic
Compounds Were Not Detected......................................ll
6 - Analyte Concentrations in Groundwater and Soi1 Samples
from Area C[[[12
7 - Analyte Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil Samples
from Area D[[[13
8 - Ana~yte Concentrations in Groundwater and Soi1 Samples
from Are. E[[[15
Figure 9 - Analyte Concentrations in Surface Water and Sediment
Samples at the Sodyeco Site......................................16
Figure 10 - Off-Site Water Supply Wells Within One-Half Mile of
CERCLA Areas..................................~..................20
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
~
LIST OF TABLES
1 - Groundwater Cleanup Goals........................................21
2 - Preliminary Screening of Treatment and Disposal Technologies.....23
3 - Preliminary Screening of Containment and Migration Control
-------
ENFORCEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SODYECO SITE
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
..0 Introduction
:he Sodyeco Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List
:NPL) in December 1982 and ranks 146 out of 703 NFL sites. The Sodyeco Site
las been the subject of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasiblity Study (FS)
lerformed by the'responsible party, Sandoz Chemicals Co., under an
~ministrative Order. by Consent, dated February 10, 1986. The RI report, which
!xamines air, sediment, soil, surface water and groundwater contamination at
:he site was completed on August 17, 1987. The FS, which develops and examines
Llternatives for remediation of the site, was issued in draft form to the
lubl1c on August 19,1987.
~his Record of Decision has been prepared to summarize the remedial alternativ~
ielection process and to present the selected remedial alternative.
.1 Site Location and Description
~e Sodyeco Site is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
Lpproximately 10 miles west of Charlotte (Figure 1). The City of Mount Holly
.s located across the Catawba River west of the plant. The plant site consists
~ ~oughly 1300 acres (Figure 2). It extends over 2000 feet north of State
lighway 27, south past Long Creek, over 500 feet east of Belmeade Drive and is
lounded on the west by the Catawba River.
1£ the approximately 1300 acres at the Sodyeco Site, about 2Q percent is
Iccupied by production units and the waste water treatment facility. The
lajority of the remaining acreage is undeveloped.
~e Sodyeco Site contains an operating manufacturing facility consisting of
Iroduction units, a waste water treatment area, and material storage areas. .
~e facility is partially fenced along open road frontage areas and a security
:learance is required for entrance.
~e area in the vicinity of the Sodyeco plant is gently rolling, with
tlevations ranging from about 570 feet NGVD (National Geometric Vertical Datum
1£ 1929) near the river to 670 feet east of the plant area. The original
;opography of the plant has changed considerably during its operation as the
~esult of various grading and landfilling operations in conjunction with the
:onstruction of new facilities.
~ a result of previous studies, five CERCLA areas were identified, whose use
lates back to the late 1930's. In addition to the CERCLA areas, a RCRA permit
las been issued for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
In-site. Waste water treatment and discharge activities are regulated under
;he NPDES program.
-------
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Sodyeco Site
Mecklenburg County J North Carolina
.
NORTH CAROLINA
81.,
. 1111/1)
"'.~ ~~
\G~n-c;:,~y
',,>
,
"
,
I
;.
,.
I
-2-
-------
Figure 2
Sodyeco Site Map
G~.
~.
..fJ
-3-
-------
-4-
The areas surrounding the Sodyeco Site are primarily undeveloped woodland,
sparse residential and light industrial areas. To the north of the plant (and
NC Highway 27) is an area of primarily undeveloped woodland. A convenience
store, located immediately north of Highway 27, is not owned by Sandoz. The
area to the east is primarily agricultural with sparse residential and light
industrial areas. The area west of the Catawba River, which forms the western
site .boundary, encompasses the outskirts of the town of Mount Holly and
includes a power substation, sewage disposal plant, industrial facilities and.
some residential areas. Approximately 20-30 residents are estimated to reside
within a one-quarter mile radius of the site. Because the Sandoz Chemicals
Corporation is one of the largest employers in the area, many residents,
including residents of Mount Holly and Belmont, commute daily to the plant.
The most recent census (1980) gives a population of 4,530 for the city of Hount
Holly and 4,607 for the city of Belmont.
1.2 Site History
The Southern Dyestuff Company (Sodyeco) began operations at the current
location in 1936. Initially, the plant produced liquid sulfur dyes from
purchased raw materials. American Marietta (which became Martin Marietta in .
1961) purchased the Sodyeco site in 1958. In the early 1960's, the company's, 'j
product lines expanded to include vat dyes and disperse dyes. Since that time,~
the company has produced specialty chemical products for the agrochemical,
electronic, explosive, lithographic, pigment, plastic, rubber and general
chemical industries. Sandoz purchased the Sodyeco Plant from Martin. Marietta
in 1983.
The Sodyeco Site contains five CERCLA facilities, identified as Areas A, B, C,
D and E (Figure 3). The following is a description of these CERCLA areas:
Area A - This landfill's use began in the late 1930's. Waste materials
disposed of at this facility included sulfur dye clarification residues,
off-specification sulfur and disperse dyes, filter cloths, empty metal and
cardboard drums and cartons, small amounts of non-acidic, non-flammable
discarded chemicals and chemical wastes, and construction debris. The
landfill was closed sometime between 1973 and 1974. Most of the area
above the facility is now covered with asphalt and buildings.
Area B - This landfill operated between 1973 and 1978 and received wastes
that had previously been disposed in Area A. The area is presently
covered with gravel and used as a truck staBing area..
Area C - This area originally consisted of three covered trenches that
contained the remains of laboratory and production samples, distillation
tars, and waste solvents. The two northern pits were excavated in March
1981 and the contents were trucked off-site to a landfill in Pinewood,
South Carolina. Removal of the remaining pit was conducted in 1983.
After excavation activities, Area C was regraded and grassed.
-------
.Ii
,
(8'-
. ~
~
8
-..-
CERCLA AREAS AT
THE SODYECO SITE
----.-
.
LEGEND
131 CERCLA AI..
.
...'
-
-,n, I
-5-
"'...
..
.
.
...,
H
G")
~
~
(".J
-------
-6-
Area D ~ This area formerly contained two wastewater settling ponds. The
ponds were taken from service in 1966; one was cleaned out in 1973 and the
other between 1976 and 1977. This area currently holds a lined fresh water
pond and a fuel oil storage tank. A French drain is located immediately
downgradient of the area to intercept shallow groundwater.
~rea E -No wastes are known to have been disposed of in this area which
located downgradient of the old plant manufacturing area.
The first indication of potential groundwater contamination at the Sodyeco Site
was the discovery of organic solvents in the company's potable water well in
September 1980. Contaminated groundwater was also detected in water supply
wells adjacent to the plant. Residents of five homes were vacated and the
plant water supply was changed from groundwater to surface water (Catawba
River). .
In June 1982, a hazardous waste site investigation of the Sodyeco Site was
conducted by EPA. Results of surface water, groundwater and sediment samples
revealed the presence of organic contaminants in the groundwater and small
amounts in the surface water.
In February 1983, EPA sampled eleven potable water wells for pH, sulfate and ~
metals. All wells were off-s~te to the east and north of .the plant boundary.
All samples met primary and secondary drinking water standards for the criteria
evaluated.
The Sodyeco Site was placed on the National Priorities List in December 1982,
due to the presence of potable water wells within a three mile radius and the
presence of two municipal surface water intakes on the Catawba River. EPA and
Sandoz signed a RIfFS Consent Agreement on February 10, 1986. The final RI
report was issued August 17, 1987 and the draft FS was released to the public
August 19, 1987.
The objectives of the site investigation were to determine:
* The population, environmental and welfare concerns at risk;
* The routes of exposure; .
* The amount. concentration, hazardous properties, locations,
environmental fate and transport, and the form of the substances present;
* Hydrogeological factors;
* The extent to which the substances have migrated or are expected to
migrate from the area of their original location and whether future
migration may pose a threat to public h,alth, welfare or the
environment;
* The contribution of the contamination to an air, land, water, and/or
food chain contamination problem.
-------
-7-
The purpose: of the feasibility study was to develop and examine remedial
alternatives for the site, and to screen these alternatives on the basis of
protection of human health and the environment, cost-effectiveness and
technical implementability. In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), alternatives in
which treatment would permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances at the Site were preferred
over those alternatives not involving such treatment.
2.0 ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
The Sodyeco Site was added to the NFL in December 1982 and EPA assumed lead
responsibility for the site at that time. The Sodyeco Company has operated on
the site since 1936. The current owner, Sandoz, acquired the site in 1983 and
agreed to perfo~ the RI/FS. Therefore, no potentially responsible party
search was conducted. A notice letter was sent to Sandoz Chemicals on August
30, 1985. Negotiations for the RI/FS Consent Agreement were concluded with the
signing of the document by both EPA and Sandoz on February 10, 1986.
The Remedial Design and Remedial Action will be conducted under an amendment t9
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit Number
NCD001810365, issued March 31, 1987. Personnel in EPA's RCRA program will
oversee the work to be performed.
~
3.0 CURRENT SITE STATUS
'3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting
The Sodyeco Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, a northeast
trending zone underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks. The Piedmont is
subdivided into other northeast trending geologic belts. One of these, which
contains the Sodyeco Site, is termed the Charlotte Belt. This belt is
characterized by residual soils developed from the in-place chemical weathering
of rock which was similar to the bedrock currently underlying the site.
Groundwater recharge in this area is derived almost entirely from local
precipitation. Generally, the depth to the water table depends on the
topography and rock weathering. The water table varies from the ground surface
in valleys (streams) to more than 100 feet below the ground surface in sharply
rising hills.
A groundwater divide is located approximately 50 feet north of CERCLA Area A
and approximately 900 feet north of Area C. In general, groundwater flow is
northerly, north of the divide, and south-southwesterly, south of the divide.
-------
-8-
Average gro~ndwater flow rates from the CERCLA areas to Long Creek were
calculated to be approz18ately 180 gallons per day (gpd) from Area A.
approximately 200 gpd from Area B and approximately 10-140 gpd for Area C.
Estimated flow from CERCLA areas D and E to the Catawba River were
approximately 3.000 gpd and 10.000 gpd respectively.
The primary hydrologic features influencing the Sodyeco site are the Catawba
RiveT (regional drainage feature) and Long Creek (major tributary to the
river). Surface drainage from the western side of the site is directly to the
river, from the northeastern area to the river via several small streams. and
from the eastern and southeastern areas to Long Creek and then to the river.
The five CERCLA areas are not within the 100-year flood elevation of Long Creek
and the maximum recorded level in the Catawaba River since development of
downstream Lake Wylie in 1904.
3.2 Site Contamination
The Sodyeco Site contains five CERCLA areas designated as A, B, C, D and E.
Soil, groundwater, surface-water and sediment samples have been collected in
and around each area aDd analyzed. All samples have been analyzed for the
following volatile organic indicator parameters that were chosen based upon
previous HSL scans at tbe Sodyeco Site:
* Trichloroethylene
* Tetrachloroethylene
* Chlorobenzene
* Ethylbenzene
* o-Dichlorobenzene
* Toluene
* Xylenes
Surface-water and sedi8ent samples were also analyzed for three polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons:
* Anthracene
* Fluorene
* Phenanthrene
In addition to the above analyses. two surface water samples from the Catawba
River and two surface vater samples from Long Creek (upstream and downstream in
each) were analyzed for the Hazardous Substance List (HSL) parameters. Since
. acetone was detected in ..ny samples, acetone results ara also reported.
Acetone is believed to have been a laboratory and decontamination process
contaminant.
Areas A & B
Figure 4 shows the soil and groundwater sampling locat~ons in and around Areas
A & B includes the analyte concentrations detected.
-------
..,
FIGURE 4
ANAL YTE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb)
IN GROUND-WATER AND SOIL SAMPLES
FROM AREAS A AND B
October. 1986 to January 1987 P
EDwL-e 'IND
1.1-" . /EJIHD
C8 - 7.1 .A-t-I.
T - 1.1 -. A-t-t
.
1.1-10'
ND
1.1-10' .
.ND
- -
11.1-20'
ND
-.
11.1-20'
ND
21.1-2"
CS - .220
ODCS - II
'.
. - ND
tmI
........ u..e ..
eua..... .
I - 4CE - 1.1
C8 - 720
ODCS - 110
LEGEND
. .. ' ..1 LIM8t* .. ...
....11.... .. -
. ........
. ,",IL I- 1 ......... .." 11 UI',
.... .......,....
P88D - ......... - --
IID- ....,... - ......
TC:8 - 1ft .1111. M8a......
.ca - ""''''1 ...Ia.....
C8 - cr', III 1
a - ....-
j
-,..
I
0DC8 - 0 - '11' 1111
T---
X - ...-
1- --.......
I - ....
II" .......
200
, FEET
D - .... ..... ..
-9-
.
-------
-10-
Boring B-2-1 lies between CERCLA Areas A and B and shows chlorobenzene
concentrations of 220 and 43 ug/Kg and o-dichlorobenzene concentrations of 85
and 26 ug/Kg at depths of 23.5 to 25 feet and 28.5 to 30 feet, respectively.
Since this boring lies downgradient of Area A and at a depth within the water
table, the contamination most likely indicates organic migration in the
direction of the groundwater gradient from Area A towards Area B.
Figure S shows the locations of groundwater ,ampling wells where no organic
contamination was detected.
Volatile organics were detected in samples from well cluster WQ-5A, which is
located about 100 feet from the southwestern edge of Area B.
These results indicate that the upper aquifer zone is not contaminated. The
intermediate aquifer zone in the vicinity of CERCLA Area B shows contamination
with tetrachlorethylene, chlorobenzene, and o-dichlorobenzene, and the deep
aquifer zone shows much lower concentrations of two of these three indicator
parameters (chlorobenzene and ortho-dichlorobenzene).
Area C
Figure 6 depicts the soils and groundwater sampling locations in Area C and
lists all analytes detected with their respective concentrations.
The results from the samples define the maximum boundary of the contaminated
soil in Area C. In the past, this area contained three trenches or pits, C-l,
C-2, and C-3.
Based on the boring analyses and field observationa,.there are approximately
5,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil and uncontaminated soil cover in Area C.
Four wells in the immediate vicinity of Area C were sampled: WQ-27, WQ-28,
WQ-29 (well cluster), and WQ-34 (well cluster). Well WQ-6 is considered the
shallow well of well cluster WQ-29.
Area D
Analyte concentrations detected in the soil and groundwater samples
are shown in Figure 7. Boring D-1-3 was sampled twice. The volwae
contaminated soil is about 40 cubic yards with about 7S cubic yards
soil.
from Area D
of
of cover
All aquifer zones of well cluster WQ-33, which are located appro~imately 75
feet south of D-2-2, are contaminated with volatile organics. These results
ind~cate that contaminants in Area D have migrated downward into the alluvium,
gravel and upper bedrock zone to an 84 foot depth.
Groundwater flowing through Area D discharges into the Catawba River.
-------
I
....
....
I
.
,
,
(..
LEGEND
. .r... ....r""
- - All"".. ... D8.....~
LOCATION OF
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING WELLS
WHERE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
WERE NOT DETECTED
December. 1986 10 January. 1987
........ ~
.
VI
-------
I-f ........
..,..: I-f. U-I' a '.'-1' U-I' ....-w 0DC8 - '.1 .CI - ,..
lID 0DC8 - ,.' .D C8 .- II './
I.'-W ....-.. . - '.'" 1.1-1'
II - "'.'" .1 - 18..... ...-,. - ...-..
OOCI - '".''' OOCI - 41'"'' '.'-1' lID " -
I - '."'.'" . - '."'.'" .. - II.'" '.'-1' /'
. - ....... 11.'-'1' OOCI - ,..
....- 'I' 11.'-'1' ODel - '.'"
II - "'.'" OOCI -... '.'-If' . -.. '.'-W
OOCI - "'.'" I - ... OOCI - .. C' - II \ 0 10
, - ...... .. - " SCALE . . FEET
I - ..'".''' 1-."
'ANALYTE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) IN '.
SOil AND IN GROUND-WATER ./
SAMPLES FROM AREA C . A
October,'1988 to January. 1987 & ~~~'V"\
1.'-1' 11.'..'1' .,0 'O+~ /tl
"'-1' ....-,.. C, - .11 ODCI,- ..' :t
C. - ". .1 - ..,...... , 1-'
OOCI - " OOCI - "."'.'" '.'-If' ..'-If' .
I - II."'.'" CI - I.' -
..-..
ooc. - ."
I - II
. - .....
'.'-If'
CI - '"
'ODel" II
11.'-'"
eI .. ...
OOCI - II
,
-
N
,
1.'-1'
CI - .....
'.,-If'
-
LI-I'
00C8 - IN
'.1- I'
CI-"
0DC8 -."
....,.
0DC8 - ...
..'-If'
00C8 - I"""
I - '..'"
".1-'1' ,
OOCI - "'
I -II
'I -..
".'-.1'
00C8 - .........
I - .18.'"
AI ......... - ~ '\
.......: 1.1-1'. ...-...
'.1-11" a 18.1-.
lID
1CI .. "
4CI - ...
CI - ...
OOCI - I.'"
I-III
II.'-If'
OOCI - ......
I - n....
'.1-1'
ci-ar
.1 'or ,..'
OOC. ~ .11
......
CI - ..
.. - ...
0DC8 - ..'"
I - II
'-IID
. -_D
D-IID
U-I'
_D
11.'-"
.1 - "'.'"
OOCI - ""'.'"
. - ..'".'''
'.I-If'
CI - I.'"
.1 - ...
I - I..'
".1-'.
.. - .......
DOC' - "......
I - '."1."1
LEGEND
[----, -'h- . .11 .. ..-
---.
. '",,' JII"-"-
- - ,.........
.
.. ..,.... ,..I' . ......
. "".' I..""""" hi.' -,
..... .......,....
. - ..... --- ...
. -...... -111 --- ...
... .... --- ...
ft:8.. ....., _.aI'.1 I
tea - ""''''111 . I
C8.. "11111111.
a.. ""1
08C8-'.TI
,- ......
.-...-
- - ....... - ......
I I
>oj
H
c;)
~
0\
-------
FIGURE 7
I
I
~
ANALYTE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb)
IN .GROUND-WATER AND SOIL SAMPLES
FROM AREA D
October, 1986 to January, 1987
~.. - ..
C. - \100
ODC8 - 21,000
X - 2.700
2nd Samp'. 2-21-17
2.'-.
ca - '1,000 .
ODC. - 1,000,000
PAD
,iND
I - 4CI - 51
C8 - '1,000
.8 - 2,300
ODca - 11,000
T - 7,100
X - 4,800
.
I - C8 - 1,100
.8 - 710
ODC8 - 12,000
T - 2,100
X - 1,100
ICALI t
zoo
, n.T
D - 4CI - 410
C8 - 14,000
.8 - 110
ODCa - 38,000
T - 2,700 .
X - 1.700
...~
.J
LEGEND
. 'd:M}<~ -,....... u.... .. CHCLA Ar..
S "p,."",. L8...... ., ....
118....."., .811 ca....
. ... CIt.,....,....... .."...
e .,,,.....t. L8...... ., ",.......,
Drill" .."...., .81..
.tCI - T..,.8II..,.....,....
C8 - ca..,........
ODCS - O-OIeIa'.,........
T - T.',,-
X - .,....
'OD - PI.,. ....... .... De......
I - ........ ~,.. 1M.
I - ....,...,... """. 18..
D - De., &81"'. 18..
.8 - III\"IM......
-13-
-------
-14-
Area E
All borings sampled in Area E were field screened as clean (See Figure 8).
These results indicate that the unsaturated zone and the shallow, saturated
zone sampled were uncontaminated. Samples from Well K and Well Cluster WQ-32
contained volatile organics (intermediate and deep zones).
Groundwater flow to this area is from the old manufacturing area located
southeast of Area E where chlorobenzene and o-dichlorobenzene were formerly
stored.
Boundary
Fourteen wells along the site property boundaries were sampled. These wells
were positioned to be in the most sensitive areas of concern, namely
preferential flow directions (i.e., channelized drainage features) and/or in
line with potential groundwater users (although upgradient). Figure 5 shows
the well locations. Since no volatile organics were detected in any of these
boundary wells, no contaminated groundwater migration beyond the north, south,.
and east boundaries has been observed or is expected given the site
hydrogeology.
Surface Water
The Catawba River is the major surface water feature at the Site. Tributary B
. and Long Creek empt, into the Ca~awbaRiver and Tributaries A and C flow into
Long Creek. The analytical results of the surface water samples and sample
locations are shown in Figure 9. Two samples from Long Creek and two samples
from the Catawba River were analyzed for the Hazardous Substance List
parameters. No volatile indicator parameters were detected.
I
;
Groundwater from Area E and Tributary B discharge to the Catawba River.
Samples collected in the Catawba River upstream from Area E and along the
river adjacent to Area E showed no signs of organic contamination.
Volatilization and dilution likely reduced the organics in the discharged
groundwater to undetectable levels.
There are three surface water features around Area B: Tributary A on the
east, Tributary C on the west, and Long Creek to the south.
. Tributary A, as seen in Figure 9, flows south Qf Area C and into Long Creek.
Two surface water and two sediment samples were collected in Tributary A.
During the first sampling period, Tributary A, at sampling point TRIB
A-I, was stagnant and was mainly composed of groundwater recharge. The flow
rate was much greater for the second sampling because a storm prior to
sampling increased surface water runoff to the tributary. Groundwater
recharge from Area C is the suspected source of the organic compounds detected
in TRIB A-1. The difference in concentration between the first
.and second samples is probably the result of dilution with surface water
runoff during the second sampling period. The downstream surface water sample
TRIB A-2 was not contaminated. Organics detected upstream were likely to
volatilize before reaching the downstream sampling point.
-------
~- --,-,,_._~--_.
FIGURE 8
o
ANAlYTE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb)
I.N GROUND-WATER .AND SOIL SAMPLES
. FROM AREA E
October.. 1986 to January. 1987
J I-I
tfO--~o
, ,p.
".D
. - ND
I - CI - 11.000
ODC' - 11,000
X - 100
D - C. - .10
ODe, - 7.0
. -
-- ~.
.,..- ..
o
SCALI I
'.
-
..
,
C'.,~
"'.
~..
"#-t
LEGEND
F&;;'i:i}\1 ANn""'. U8118 .t C."Cl.A Ar..
S Ap~"""18 Le...... .. ...
......,... .eII et....
... ca......ut'" ..,....
. AII~""..'. Le...... .. "......1,
Drill... ""...'.811. -
CI - CId.,.......
II - ....,.......
'SND - PIe.. ........ .... De,.,,'"
ODca - O-D'''''.,.".''.
T - Tel....
. X - Jyt....
ND - ...".. ... De'.".
. - ........ _It. 18..
I - Ia..,..."'. _It. 18..
D - Dee, ~ult., 18..
-15-
-------
----_._".-~~---
I
....
0'1
I
t.. ...".. tll../8.
.,- TCE - 330
4CE - 480
C8 - 110
. ODC8 "!I' 18
8D - TCE - 28
4CE - 22
CB - 22
. F - 1.'
P - 1.3
Ia4 "."8 4111/87
8W - TCE - .
4CI - 7
C8 - 23
8W - ND
SO - X - 8.7
, - 1.4
P - 1.7
8W - ND .'.
SD-A-1.0
F - 2.1
P - 1.7
LEGEND
A'."" ...., ...".
.........
. ...... ..... ... .
""I!I'.' ...". .........
8W - "'H' ....; """.
8D - ........ ......
. TCE - ""II8..r.....,....
4CI! 8it '..r......,.....,....
C8 - C"'.r.........
8W - ND
8D - A - 1.1
'-2.1
P -72
8W - ODC8 - '.0
aD - ND
ODeS - O-IIII8'er."'..",
X - .,.....
A - M'''ra~_.
. - .......
8W - ND
8D -. - 2.0
P -14
P - "'.'."r..
ND - .. ee.,.....
De,.....
',..UlAJlY .
.
.
ANAL YTE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb)
IN SURFACE-WATER AND .
SEDIMENT SAMPLES AT THE ~ f
SODYECO SITE 0 eoo
October. 1986 SCALE . I fEET
HOTE: Ph.n.n"..n. IU ppb..nd 110",",12.1 ppbt -. de'8Cl8d In .~ ,x'lfn.ludl
I
"o:j
H
(')
c=
ca, ~
!
\D
-------
-17-
Two. sediment and surface water samples were collected from Tributary B which
flows through Area E. Analysis reveals that neither the upstream surface water
sample (TRIB B-1) or the downstream sample (TRIB B-2) is contaminated with
volatile organics. Both sediment samples contained relatively low-
concentrations of anthracene and fluorene.
Seven surface water samples from the Catawba River were collected and analyzed
for the indicator parameters; samples upstream and downstream from the Sodyeco
Site were also analyzed for the HSL parameters. Figure 9 shows the location of
each sampling point. Volatile organics were not detected in any of these
samples.
Air Quality
Air quality monitoring was conducted as part of this investigation. Based on
measurements taken during sampling activities and worst case predicted
emissions, no air quality problems are known or expected to exist. Since Area
D contained the highest concentration of volatile organics in soils, additional
air monitoring and flux analyses were conducted in this area to determine a
mass emission rate. Using a dispersion model in conjunction with site specific
wind rose data, worst case downgradient concentrations were estimated. All .
concentrations were well below the threshold limit value (TLV), which -
establishes acceptable 8-hour exposure concentrations for health based
standards. .
3.3 Receptors
Groundwater in the Sodyeco Site aquifer is classified as Class IIA, a current
source of drinking water, using the USEPA Groundwater Classifications
Guidelines of December, 1986. Although the site aquifer is not currently used
for drinking water purposes, potential (future) use was incorporated in the
baseline risk assessment. Consideration of potential groundwater use is
consistent with 40 CFR 300.68(e)(2)(v).
Groundwater has been noted to be contaminated on-site. Groundwater on-site
moves west to the Catawba River and south-southeast to Long Creek, discharging
to these surface water features. Groundwater contamination was noted
principally in the area south of Highway 27 and in Area E. No drinking water
wells currently exist between these areas and groundwater discharge points,
thus, pathway completion via domestic well usage is currently incomplete.
. .
Fugitive dust generations (lDG) is considered an unlikely event. Areas A and B
are capped by gravel and/or concrete; Areas C and E are well vegetated. Area D
is in a low lying, grass covered area.
Contaminated soils will continue to leach to surrounding soils.
Surface runoff from surface soils may contaminate additional soils, although
concentrations would not be expected to be high. Tracking of soils by on-site
workers may occur in Areas C and D.
-------
-18-
Volatilization from contaminated soils and sediments in Areas C and D may
occur. This may affect on-site workers within the zone of influence. Volatile
organic contaminants were found in significant concentrations in Area D soils;
lower levels were found in Area C. Emission levels from Area D would be
expected to be minimal and would quickly dissipate. Emissions from Area C would
be expected to be undetectable.
The Catawba River was found to have several potential exposure pathways
associated with it. The Catawba is routinely used for swimming and fishing.
There are several industrial river water intakes across the Catawba River from
, the plant. Sodyeco uses the river as a source of drinking water for the plant
and for process water. Water used for drinking is treated by rapid sand
filtration, polymeric coagulation and chlorine. The City of Belmont drinking
water intake is located approximately 3 miles downstream of the Site. . Although
there were seve~al exposure points identified, pathway completion via this
route is not expected since no surface water contamination was found in the
river. The possibility of ingestion of fish or other aquatic life that had
bioaccumulated low (non-detectable) levels of' site contaminants was
considered. However, BCl values are very low for the site related volatile
organics. The three polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (anthracene, fluorene'
and phenanthrene) have elevated BCF values. However, a review of the
literature and discussions with experts in the field of PARs indicates that
these compounds do not, in general, bioaccumulate in vertebrates such as fish
and man. - .
-
The final potential exposure pathway presented considers local waterfowl and
small mammals that may frequent contaminated areas. These animals may receive
exposure via ingestion or dermal contact with soils and sediments. Local
residents may then hunt and consume' these animals. The probability of pathway
completion via this route is very low and difficult to quantify.
4.0 Cleanup Criteria
The extent of contamination was defined in Section 3.0, Current Site Status.
This section examines the relevance and appropriateness of water quality
criteria under the circumstances of release of contaminants at this Site.
Based upon criteria found to be relevant and appropriate, the minimum goals of
remedial action at this site have been developed.
4.1 Groundwater Remediation
In determining the degree of groundwater cleanup, Section 121(d) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that the
selected remedial actions establish a level or standard of control which
complies with all "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs)" .
Groundwater in the area is classified as Class II A, a current source of
drinking water, using the USEPA Groundwater Classifications Guidelines of
December, 1986. A survey was made of existing off-site water supply wells
-------
-19-
within a one-half mile radius of the Sodyeco CERCLA facilities on the east side
of the Catawba River. (The Catawba River acts as a groundwater divide.) A
convenience store, located north of the plant, receives water from the Sodyeco
water supply system. A gas station (owned by Sandoz) has a well that provides
water for a minnow tank. The potable water used by the gas station is provided
by the Sodyeco plant. An upholstery shop, owned by Sandoz, has a well that is
used. only for sanitary facilities.
There are seven wells supplying water to twelve buildings within a one-half
mile radius of the Site (all upgradient) (Figure 10). One well is a community
well which supplies water to seven houses; one residence has two wells; and the
other wells serve single residences. The nearest domestic wells to the CERCLA
sites are about 1300 feet northeast (near Highway 27) and about 3000 feet
southeast (along Belmeade Road), both hydrologically upgradient from the CERCLA
sites. "
The value to society of Class IIA groundwater resources supports restoration of
this contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human health and the
environment. Based upon groundwater classification, remediation of the
groundwater to reduce contaminants to levels protective of human health and the
environment would be necessary. Groundwater cleanup goals given in Table 1
meet these requirements.
~
Future exposure to contaminated groundwater w~s estimated based on the
possibility of a well being placed on the site and producing water containing
the maximum levels of contaminants which were detected in monitoring wells
during the remedial investigation. Lifetime cancer risks were calculated under
these assumptions for the indicator chemicals identified in "the Public Health
Evaluation (PRE). EPA's draft "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated
Groundwater at Superfund Sites" (October 1986) specifies thtt grou~~water
remediation should achieve a leve!60f protection in the 10 to 10
excess cancer risk range, with 10 being the nominal acceptable lifetime
value. Larger values present an unacceptable risk from exposure. Because
Section 121 of SARA requires consideration of potential as well as current
groundwater use, the levels of contaminants in the groundwater must be reduced
to acceptable levels.
The conclusion of the above discussion is that a no-action alternative for
groundwater would be out of compliance with Section 121 of SARA, which requires
cleanup of contaminated groundwater to levels which are protective of human
health and the environaent. Classification of the groundwater and the
potential future use of the groundwater indicates that present contaminant
levels in the groundwater are not acceptable.
Indicator chemicals were used to establish cleanup goals for groundwater.
Indicator chemicals were selected based on the results of previous sampling
activities and the current RI results. All indicator chemicals analyzed for in
the RI were utilized in the Public Health Evaluation.
Groundwater is not used by human receptors downgradient of the Site.
Groundwater from the site discharges to Long Creek or the Catawba River, and
there are no intermediate users.
-------
r-.
FIGURE 10
I
l
I -
o 2DQO
5 L.
C- ~--~Rox. SCAL£, ".
o1OCO
~
~-
ONE-HALF tALE RADIUS BOUNCRY
FROM THE CERClA AREAS
-20-
-.- ----------:: - -.- ---- .-. -
<=> - 4' .r ,-~ c .
.....,..,. ~.'='".~----=-<=».---..
-------
TABLE 1
GR:XJNI:MATER CLEANUP OOAIS
CDMPCXJNI) CLEANUP OOAL ugll
Trichloroethylene 2.7 (2)
Tetrachloroethylene 0.8 (2)
Chlorobenzene 60 (1)
Ethylbenzene ~ 680 (1)
l,2-dichlorobenzene 400 (5)(3)
Toluene 2,000 (1)
Xylene 440 (1)
Anthracene 2.8 ng/l (4) .
Fluorene 2.8 rtg/l ( 4 )
Phenanthrene 2.8 ng/l (4)
(1) Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, 50 Federal Register 46936
(November 13, 1985).
(2) The concentration value given for potential carcinogens corresponds to
a cancer risk level of 10-6 . .
(3) Includes all isaners.
(4) As total polynuclear aranatic hydrocarbons, no criteria set for these
caq;xxmds alone. . . .
(5) USEPA, .Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual,. Ofice of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., 1986. USEPA Ambient Water
()Jali ty Criteria for Aquatic Organisms and Drinking Water.
-21-
-------
-22-
Levels presented as groundwater cleaup goals are based on the following
criteria: drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria,
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs), and State environmental
standards. Indicator chemicals, maximum concentrations detected in groundwater
at the Sodyeco Site, and the cleaup goals for these chemicals are presented in
Table 1.
4.2 Soil Remediation
The Public Health Assessment in the RI Report determined that risks to human
health as a result of exposure to on-site contaminants via inhalation,
ingestion, and dermal contact are low under present use conditions at the
Site. For potential future use scenarios, the risk is higher. Therefore,
remediation or institutional controls will be undertaken to assure that an
increased risk to human health is not posed in the future.
Contaminants remaining in the soil following groundwater remediation may, over
time, leach into the groundwater. Therefore, the soils and the leachate from
the contaminated soils will be sampled and analyzed for the indicator compounds
and the soils will be treated until the leachate meets the ARARs.
4.3 Surface Water Remediation
..
. -
The contaminant levels in the surface water (Tributaries A, B and Long Creek)
are expected to decline, as groundwater and soil remediation continues. Thus,
it was concluded that remediation of surface water is not necessary. No surface
water contamination was detected in the Catawba River.
5.0 Alternatives Evaluation
~e purpose of remedial action at the Sodyeco Site is to mitigate and minimize
contamination in the soils and groundwater, and to reduce potential risks to
human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives were
determined based on regulatory requirements and levels of contamination found
at the Site:
* To protect the human health and the environment from exposure to
contaminated on-site soils through inhalation or direct contact.
* To restore contaminated groundwater to levels protective. of human
health and the environment.
An initial screening of possible technologies was performed to identify those
which best meet the criteria of Section 300.68 of the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) (Tables 2 & 3). .
-------
, TABLE
2
PREJ.lMINARY SCRF.ENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECIINOLOCIES
Techno 109)'
Description
C~nts
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
~
Excavation
Landfill
t
N
W
I
Ifast. Pile.
Incineration
In-Situ
Flu.hing
Solvent Flushing
Phyaical re~val of conta.lnated
..t.rlal. for treat..nt or d18-
poaal.
Di.poaal of e.cavated ..teriala
In an approved ha.ardou. waste
facility. "aterlal. .ay 'be
dru888d or dlaposed of in bulk.
Surface .torage of excavated
..tedah.
Ther..1 conta.inant destruction
by co.buatlon/oxldatlon at very
high te.peratures.
Percolation of water through
conta.Inated eolls to solubilize
adsorbed co.pounds and reduce
residual concentrations.
Percolation of solvent through
conta.inated 80l1s which CRn
achieve tvo purposes. vastp
recovery for 8urface treatMent
or 80lubllization of adsorbe~
co.pounds to pnhance in-situ
treRt.ent. Recovery of solvent
Is accoMplished throuqh a wpll
point sysle...
Should be con8idered for landfliled
.aterial8 in Area B and conte.lnated
80il8 in Area8 C and D.
x
Since the total concentration of
F-118ted 801vent8 i. >1\ in so..
locations, landfilling i8 prohibited
at a RCRA facility. Land ban li.ita
8cheduled for July 8, 1981 apply
to halogenated organic co.pound8 (HOC)
in total concentration8 greater than or
equal to 1000 ~/kg. However, a two-year
nationwide variance viii delay the
co.plianee date until July, 1989.
Requires ~nitorlng and ..intenance.
Generally con81dered to be an in-
terl. .. opposed to long-tel'.
Bolution.
,A proven technology for de8truction
0' ~Bt organic.. A possible treat-
..nt technique for excavated ..terial./
conta.inated Boil8. Pi8posal o(
re.aining ash .U8t be considered.
x
Provides an alternative to excavation.
May 8horten the tl.. required for
ground-vater pu.plng of the aquifer
by reducing the extent of source
conta.ination. Recovery would be
achieved through a well syste..
x
Given ground~vater elftvatlons and
depths o( conta.lnated Bolls on site,
the (Iushlng solvent could further
conta.inate ground water.
r
x
x
x
-------
PRELIMINARY SCREENING or TREATMENT ANO DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
(ConU nued )
TABLE 2
'l'echnology
De8cdpUon
C08Iaent8
P088ibly
AppUcable
Not
AppUcable
~ (continued)
In-Situ Stea.
Stdppi",
GROUND WATER
I
N
~
I
Per.eable Treat.ent
Bed.
Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Re8in ~.orptlon
Air Stdpping
Stea. Stripping
:,,: .,1(1"0
An innovative technology where
bladed c!ldlU", equipllent and
.tea. are u.ed to drive volatiles
fr08l conta.inated 80ils to the
.urface. Vapors are collected,
treated, and reinjected for
cl08ed-loop operation.
A trench, installed downgradient
of a plu.e, i8 filled with a
treab8ent .edia (e.g., activated
carbon) to deconta.inate ground
water a. it flows through.
Ground water re.oved by pu.ping
'.. passed through a colu.n where
organic conta.lnants absorb to the
carbon due to physical/che.lcal
forces.
SI.llar to activated carbon except
resin I. u8ed a8 the adsorbent.
Re.oves volatile organics fr08l
an aqueou8 strea.. If necessary,
dls801ved gases transferred to
the air 8trea. can be treated
by activated carbon or ther.al
oxidation.
SI.Ilar to air stripping except
stea. 18 u8ed a8 the stripping
gas.
Stea. will volatilize conta.lnants
faster than air. Equipllent provide.
soil .ixi", for .ore h08logeneous treat-
.ent. Maxl.u. re.oval efficiencies
have not been de.onstrated.
I
Require.ents are a shallow aquifer
. and underlying I.per.able bed. The
shallow aquifer condition is not .et.
Generally considered to be te.porary
due to plugging potential.
An applicable .ethod for re.oving
organic C08lpounds fr08l water.
I
A c08plex treataent ache.e would result
since different resln8 would be required
to re.ove the different organic c08lpounds.
Not cost c08lpetltive with carbon adsorption.
A de.onstrated technology for re.oving
volatile organic conta.lnants fr08l
water.
I
A de.onstrated technology for re.ovinq
volatile organic conta.lnants frOG
water at rates faster than air stripping.
Hay be econo.tcally c08lpetltive with atr
strtpptnq why a ,source of Inexpensive
steam I. avallahle.
x
x
x
-------
TABLE 2
PRELIMINARY SCREENING or TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
(Continued I
Technoloclr
Description
COMMents'
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Biological
Tr.at_nt
Che.lcal
Oxidation
W Oxidation
I
N
U1
I
Reverse O._i.
Liquid/Liquid
(Solvent)
Extraction
Deep Well Injection
Off-Site Treat8ent
Biological de9radatlon technique
where bacteria utilize .upplled
oXYgen to oxidize or9anlcs to
CO2.
Conta.lnent destruction by
che.lcal reaction. Various
oxidlzlR9 agent. exi.t for
. or9anlc c08pound..
Ultraviolet li9ht I. used as an
oxidlziQ9 agent. A pri.ary
treat8ent proce.. for or9anics.
Concentrate. Inorganic salta and
.08e or9anlcs by forcing the
.olvent throu9h a .e.i-per.eable
.e8brance which act. a. a filter.
Proce.. where the conta.lnant
I. re80ved fr08 one liquid MediuM
Into another 8aally extractable
liquid .edlu. that has a higher
absorption capacity for the
cont..lnant. Extracted COM-
ponents are disposed of or
reused .
Injection of
water Into a
which 18 not
connected to
conta.lnated waste-
very .deep substrata
hydraulica lly
other aquifer tones.
Biological treat8ent (aerated la900nsl
are part 01 the existlQ9 RCRA waste-
water facill~y on .Ite.
I
x
x
x
x
x
Discharge to the Charlotte-
Hecklenbur9 Utility Depart.ent
CCMUD) Publicly Owned Treat.ent
Norks (POTN) wastewater collect-
Ion and treatMent systeM.
Che.lcal oxidation (I.e. ozonatlon)
Is not econ08lcal1y c08petltlve
with activated carbon for treating
low-level organic wastes.
Generally pnly econ08ical for s.all
quantities of water.
Pri.ary uses have been as a pretreat-
.ent step In the reMoval of irior9anlcs
. (Ion-exchange) or In recovery of
reusable I.purltles.
'Prl.arlly used for phenolic extractions
Most econOMical when Material recovery Is
possible to offset. process costs. Final
pollshin9 is usually needed. It Is not
econOMically c08petltive with biological
oxidation or adsorption for large quantities
of dilute waste. SteaM stripping is .ore
econOMical for low-.oderate concentra-
tions of volatile solutes.
Under Section 1004(f) of RCRA. EPA
consideration of underground HOC injec-
tion is not expected until results of an
agency study (due AU9ust. 1988) evalu-
ating protectiveness are issued.
An application has been subMitted.
RequireMents for significant industrial
users are being exa.ined to deterMine if
withdrawn gr9und-water would be accepted.
x
r ..
-------
• mil
TABLE 2
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OP TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
(Continued)
Technology
Description
nts
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
SOILS (continued)
Soil Mashing
Blodegradatlon
I
ro
Soil Aeration
Composting
In-Sito
Air Stripping
The ma 1 Processing
Place excavated, screened soils
and Mash water in a flotation
machine with a Mechanical
Impeller for Mixing.
In-sltu treatment using mlcro-
organiaM to biodegrade the
organic contaminants.
Mechanical addition of air to aid
•icrobial decomposition. Fre-
quently used in conjunction with
in-situ treatment methods and
land disposal technologies.
Mixing excavated soils with
nutrients to achieve aerobic
degradation at an elevated
temperature.
Mechanical injection of clean air
into contaminated soils to vola-
tile organlcs. Air la withdrawn
and vented to the atmosphere
or to an emission control system
(e.g. activated carbon adsorption)
depending on volatile concentra-
tions .
An innovative technology where
excavated soils are placed in
a heat exchanger (thermal processor)
and heated to volatilize orqanlcs.
Vapors are treated In an after-
burner or otherwise treated as
necessary.
Withdrawn leachate would require
treatment.
Given the contaminant types, concen-
trations, depths, and soil permeabili-
ties, degradation in soils has a low
probability of success. Toxlcity pro-
blems could result from some of the
degradation by-products.
Typically used In conjunction with
biological degradation.
An experimental technology for the hazar-
dous soils on-slte. May be performed with
an Induced draft under controlled
conditions.
Most effective for loose, sandy soils
well above the ground-water table. The
degree of fines, clay content, and rock
formations on-slte are unfavorable
conditions which are expected to severely
limit contaminant removal. Ultimate
effectiveness has not been established
even under Ideal soil conditions.
An alternative to In-sltu air strip-
ping where soils are tightly packed,
have high clay content, and/or
rock formations are present.
-------
TABLE 3
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OP CONTAINMENT AND MIGRATION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Description
Comments
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
I
ro
Solidification/
Encapsulation
Fixation
GROUND MATER
An impermeable barrier is placed
ovsr the soil surface to minimize
the amount of water percolation
through contaminated materials/
soils.
Contaminated Materials/soils
are Incorporated in a eolld
matrix to reduce contaminant
mobility and leachate generation
Can also be used in conjunction
with landfllllng.
Process to mix chemical wastes
with inert material (e.g., lime
fly ash) to reduce waste
solubility.
Nay be applicable to the landfill
in Area B and contaminated-soils in
Areas C and D.
Most economical for small waste quanti-
ties. The technology ie developmental
for organic contaminated soils.
Primarily applicable to acid, inorganic,
and scrubber sludge wastes.
Ground-Hater
Recovery
Subsurface
Collection
Drains
Impermeable
Barriers
Leachate
Collection
Pumping from a well point sys-
tem and/or trenches to withdraw
contaminated ground water.
A trench is excavated, backfilled
with highly permeable material,
and usually lined to prevent
plugging.
Underground barriers used to
physically divert ground-water
flow away from an area or to
contain a contaminant plume.
Method used to Intercept leachate
before It contaminates ground
water. Consists of a series of
drains which Intercept leachate
and channel It to a sump, wetwell,
or surface discharge point.
A demonstrated technique for
ground-water removal. Aquifer
•characteristics must be determined
for design.
Requires continuous monitoring. Nay
be used in conjunction with ground-
water pumping.
The barrier must be tied Into a rela-
tively shallow impermeable base layer.
Site conditions are -not well suited
for this option.
Generally associated with designed
impoundments or landfills and used
in association with the leachate
controls.
-------
-28-
Following the initial screening of technologies, potential remedial action
alternatives were identified and analyzed (Table 4).
These alternatives were further screened and those which best satisfied the
cleanup objectives, while also being cost effective and technically feasible,
were developed further (Table 5).
5.1 'Alternatives
Alternative 1:
No Action
This alternative will eventually reduce the volume of soil contamination
through natural flushing. Contaminant mobility and toxicity are not reduced in
the absence of treatment. Given the contaminant concentrations at the Site,
the time requir~d to significantly reduce contaminant levels is unrealistic.
No action does not provide permanent source contro1~
Alternative 2:
Natural Soil Flushing Areas B, C, D
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment Areas A - E
This alternative does not employ a soil technology and, therefore, the exposure
pathways and associated risk are the same as for the baseline no-action -'
..
alternative. In the absence of source control measures, the time required to
pump and treat the groundwater is unrealistic.
This alternative and the others that will be described below,. requi,res the
collection of the groundwater through a series of recovery wells to intercept
the contaminant plume in each area before it reaches Long Creek or the Catawba
River.
The biological degradation and aeration of the groundwater in Sodyeco's
existing facility was chosen as the best groundwater alternative. It will be
easy to implement since all that is required is the connection of the CERCLA
groundwater collection system to the existing sewerage system. Organic
compounds in the groundwater will be biodegraded by the microorganisms present
in the aeration -lagoon; a portion of the organics will be volatilized as a
result of aeration. This treatment system is more than 98 percent efficient
based on the removal of o-dichlorobenzene. Of the organic contaminants,
o-dich10robenzene is the most difficult to remove. Removal efficiencies near
99 percent are expected for the other compQunds. The treated groundwater will
then be discharged to the Catawba River under the NPDES permit for the
, facility. The CERCLA influent and the total ~ff1uent will be sampled
periodically to monitor the effectiveness of the treatment.
Alternative 6:
Cap Area B
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate Excavated Materials On-Site
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment Areas
A-E
Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated for incineration.
Incineration is a proven method for destruction of organic contaminants. This
method provides the same basic level of protection as other treatment
technologies considered, however, the cost is prohibitive.
-------
TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF GENERAL ALTERIIATtVES
Bum ON EFFBCTtVENESS, tMPLENEtft'ABILITY, AND COST CRITERIA
Alte~nat1ve
No.
Delcdption
C08IIIentl
Retain fo~ Detailed
Assess.ent
;,
]
4
I
N
\D
I
5
6
.~,. '.' ',1
No Action.
Natu~al soil flushing A~eas B, C, D
G~ound-wate~ 8Onlto~lng A~eas A-E
Natu~al soil flushing A~eas B, C, D
G~ound-water ~ecovery and treat.ent
Areas A-I
Capping of Areas B, C, 0
Ground-water recovery and treat.ent
Areas A-I
Ixcavate Areas B, C, D
Incinerate excavated ..terlals off lite.
G~ound-wate~ recove~y and t~eat.ent
Area. A-I
Ixcavate Area. B, C, D
Incinerate excavated .aterlall on-site
Ground-water ~ecovery and t~eat.ent
Area. A-I!:
Cap Area 8
Excavate Area. C and D
Incinerate excavated .aterlals
on-site
Ground-water recovery and treat.ent
Areas A-E
Public health not predicted to be ..
at risk. P~ovldes baseline C08pa~l-
son fo~ other alte~natlves.
Partial contaln.ent with t~eat.ent option.
Conta.lnants In the unsaturated zone
.Igrate naturally to the g~ound water
and are withdrawn and treated.
C08blned contaln.ent and treat.ent option.
Capping In Areas C and 0 Is not effective
for long-ter. source control.
Costs fo~ excavating and off-site
incineration are approxl.ately $48 .Illion.
Findings of the baseline public health
risk assess.ant do not justify this
level of expenditure over other
treat.ent alternatives ($0.8-5.8 .Illlon).
Cost. for excavating and on-site Inciner-
ation are approxl.ately $]1 .Iliion.
Findings of the baseline public risk
asses..ent do not justify this level
of expenditure over other treat..nt
alternatives ($0,8-5.8 .Illlon).
Adequate to protect public health and the
environ.ent. E8ploys a per.anent treat8ent
technology for conta.lnant destruction.
r ..
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Ye.
-------
'..
TABLE 4 (Continued)
PRBLIMINARY SCREENING OF GENERAL ALTERNATIVES
. BASED ON BFFtrrIVENESS, IMPLEMENTABILITY, AND COST CRITERIA
Alternati".
No.
De.cdptlon
C0888nt.
Retain for Detailed
A..es...nt
7
"0
.e
9 .
I
W
o
I
10
ea.. a. Alternative 6 .ub.tltutlng
off-.ite Incineration for on-.lte
Incineration
8a.. a. Alternatl". 6 .ubetltutlng
tller..l .trlpplng- of excavated
eoll. for on-elte Incineration
Cap Area 8
Yreat..nt of Area C 8011 by.
9A In-.ltu .tea. .trlpplng,-
98 Thermal Processing
9C In-.ltu flu.hlng-, or
9D Wa.hlng.
Ixcavate Area D and Incinerate
off-.ne
Ground_ater recovery and treat..nt
Area. A-I
Cap Area 8
.atural flu.h Area C
Excavate Area D and Incinerate
off-.ite
Ground_ater recovery and treat_nt
Area. A-I
I. not coat coapetltlve with on-site
Incineration for the wa.t. quantltlee of
concern. Require. tran.port of conta.l-
nated ..terlal. for a .Ignlflcant dl.tance.
Offer. no advantage. over on-.lte
IncJnerat1on~
Innovatlve/devel0p88ntal treat..nt technology
with high .ucce.. probability for organic .011
conta.ln.tlon. Adequate to protect public
health and the envlroP88nt. Potentially
~re co.t-effectlve than on-.lte Incineration.
Ie.
Innovatlvefdevelop.ental treat..nt technology
with potential for the .011. with organic
conta.lnante. Potentially ~re co.t-
effective than on-site Incineration.
Topography In Area D precludes In-.ltu
.trlpplng. , Conta.lnant concentration. In
Area D would' uke treat.ent by the re..lnlng
technologies .ore difficult.
Yee
Co.blned contaln..nt and treat_nt option.
The tiN to. pu.p and treat ground water
recovered fro. Area C will be longer In the
abaence of 8011 treat..nt.
Ie.
- An InnovaUve/develop..ntal technology
r "
-------
TABLE 5
StM1ARY OF ~ING CRITERIA FOR cx:MPARING ALTERNATIVES
Technical ~sibility,
Reliability
Reduces
foV'I'IV
Cost
Alternative-1
No Action
Natural soil flushing
Lo~term Qi mni toring Areas A-E
Alternati ve 2
Natural soil flushing Areas B,C,D
Q~ recovery " treatment Areas A-f:.
Al ternati ve 6
CapB
Excavate Areas C " D
Incinerate excavated materials onsite
Gl recovery" treatment Areas A-E
Alternati ve 8
CapB
. Excavate Areas C & D
ensi te thermal processing of
excavated materials
Qi recovery " treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 9
Cap B
Treatment of Area C soils
9A: In-situ Steam Stripping
98: onsite Thermal Processing (C&D)
9C: In-Situ Flushing
- 90: Soil Washing
Excavate D and incinerate offsite
GW recovery " treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 10
CapB
Natural soil flushing Area C
Excavate Area D and incinerate offsi te
Gl recovery and treatment Areas A-E
flbnitoring is rcutine
No engineered soil
technology enployed.
Qi punp " treat is a
deIIonstrated technology.
All technologies are
demonstrated.
Includes an inncNative/
develcpll8ntaI treatment
technology. Reliabili ty
not proven.
Includes an innovative/
developnental treatJ1ent
technology. Reliabilty
not proven.
All technologies are
demonstrated .
-31-
Minor reductions in contaminant
vol\me will require an extended
time period.
Minor reductions in vol\me thrcuc1t
flushing. Si~ficant reduction
in Jll:lbili ty and toxicity thrcuc1t
Qi P\mP and treat.
PrOITides permanent & significant
reductions in M/TIV.
PrOITides permanent & si~ficant
reductions in M/TIV
PrOITides permanent and
sig\ificant reductions
in foV'I'IV.
Prcwi.des permanent" si(Jrlficant
reductions in M/TIV. fibre
extended period to punp and treat
Gl in Area C.
$ 170,000
$1,016,000
$6,765,000
-
$3,776,000
9A: $3,792,000
9B: $3,776,000
9C: $2,089,000
9D: $3,865,000
$1,568,000
-------
-32-
Area B in this and the other remaining alternatives will be a cap consisting of
3 inches of asphalt. 2 inches of binder-bituminous concrete and a 9 inch gravel
base.
Alternative 8:
Cap Area B
Excavation and Treatment of Areas C and D Soils
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment Areas A - E
This alternative recommends the excavation and treatment of contaminated soils
in Areas C & D by thermal processing. The treated soils would then be
backfilled and the area would be regraded.
Alternative 9:
Cap Area B
Treatment of Area C Soils
:Excavate Area D and Incinerate Off-Site
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment Areas
A - E
The excavation and off-site incineration from Area D (approximately 150 cubic
yards) will effectively eliminate the area that contains the highest level of .
contamination. The area will be backfilled with clean. low permeability soil
and regraded. Off-site incineration is cost effective given the small volume.o~
material from Area D. .
Four different innovative technologies will. be subjected to treatability
studies to determine the most effective treatment technology. i.e.. the
technology that is most effective in removing the contaminants within a
reasonable time frame. These are:
1)
Flushing - In situ percolation of water through contaminated soils to
solubilize adsorbed compounds and reduce residual concentrations.
Water would be introduced through a header system and recovered through
a series of wells.
2)
Soil Washing - Place excavated. screened soils and wash water in a
flotation machine with a mechanical impeller for mixing. Treat.
withdrawn leachate in the existing wastewater treatment facility with
recovered groundwater. .
3)
Thermal Processing - Place excavated soils in a heat exchanger
(thermal processor) to volatilize organics. Vapors are treated in an
after burner or treated otherwise as necessary.
. .
4)
In-situ Steam Stripping - In-Situ steam injection through bladed
drilliag equipment to volatilize organics. Vapors are collected.
treated, and reinjected for closed-loop operation.
Alternative 10:
Cap Area B
Natural Flushing Area C
Excavate Area D and Incinerate Off-Site
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment Areas A-E
This alternative proposes no action for the contaminated soils in Area C.
Tfierefore. the exposure pathways and associated risk would not be reduced.
Since the source of groundwater contamination would still be present. a longer
period to pump and treat the groundwater in Area C would be required.
-------
-33-
6.0 Recommended Alternatives
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy
The recommended alternatives for remediation of groundwater and soil
contamination at the Sodyeco Site include extraction, treatment and discharge
of groundwater; excavation and off-site incineration; capping; and on-site
treatment of contaminated soil. (Alternative 9)
Treatability studies will be performed for the contaminated soils in Area C to
determine the treatment system which will be used. The systems to be evaluated
are: 1) Flushing; 2) Soil Washing; 3) Thermal Processing and 4) In-Situ
Steam Stripping. The contaminated soils in Area D will be excavated and
incinerated off-site. Area B will be capped with asphalt.
Groundwater will be extracted through recovery wells, and transported through
the plant's sewer system to the on-site wastewater treatment facility.
These recommended alternatives meet the requirements of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300.68(j), and the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This recommended~
remedy permanently and significantly reduces the volume of hazardous substances
in the groundwater, and reduces the volume a~d/or mobility of contaminants in
the soil.
6.2 Operation and Maintenance
When the remedy is completed, long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) will be
required on the asphalt cap. Long-term groundwater monitoring will be required
to assure the effectiveness and permanence of the other soil and groundwater
remedies. .
6.3. Cost of Recommended Alternatives
Capital costs for groundwater remediation is $335,000 with system operating and
maintenance cost at $80,000 per year, which includes sampling and analysis.
The total present worth cost of the groundwater remediation i8 $1,016,000.
Capping of Area B is estimated at $378,000 including 0 & M for 20 years.
Excavation and off-site incineration of contaminated soils in Area D is
estimated at $173,000. The treatment of Area C soils, including the
treatability studies will range from $634,000 to $2,505,000 depending on which
technology is used. These costs include engineering, overhead, profit,
contingency and administration fees.
The total present worth cost of this remedy, including both soil and
groundwater remediation, will range from $2,089,000 t9 $3,865,000.
-------
-34-
6.4 Schedul~
The planned schedule for remedial activities at the Sodyeco Site will be
governed by RCRA permitting requirements, but tentatively is as follows:
September 1987 - Approve Record of Decision
'December 1987 - Begin Remedial Design/Treatability Studies
Karch 1988 Install Recovery Wells
August 1988 - Complete Treatability Studies
November 1988 - Complete Remedial Design and Begin Mobilization
6.5 Future Actions
Following completion of remedial activities, long-term groundwater monitoring
will be required to assure the effectiveness of the groundwater cleanup.
Maintenance of the asphalt caps on Areas A & B will continue.
6.6 Consistency with Other Environmental Laws
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all applicable Federal
and State regulations. All alternatives considered for the Sodyeco Site were:
evaluated on the basis of the degree to which they complied with these ~
regulations. The recommended alternatives were found to meet or exceed all
applicable environmental laws, as discussed. below:
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The recommended remedy will be incorporated into Sodyeco's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B permit. The incineration
will be conducted off-site at a permitted facility.
* Clean Water Act
Trace amounts of contamination were detected in surface water.
The soil and groundwater remediation will result in an end to
the water contamination.
* Floodplain Kanagement Executive Order 11988
The CERCLA areas do not lie within a floodplain and thus are not
subject to the requirements of E. o. 11988.
* Department of Transportation
Transport of hazardous substances is regulated by the
Department of Transportation (DOT). Kateria1 transported to
the incineration facility will follow DOT regulations governing
its shipment.
* Occupational Safety and Health Administration
A health and safety plan will be developed during remedial
design and will be followed during field activities to assure
that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) are followed.
-------
-35-
. Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act were found to be relevant and appropriate to remedial action at
the Sodyeco Site. The cleanup goals for groundwater were established in
Section 4.
. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Discharge of treated groundwater is part of the recommended remedial
alternative. This discharge will meet effluent limit requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Aquatic life
chronic toxicity values, which are used in the NPDES permitting system,
were used in determining the groundwater cleanup goals in Section 4.
. Endangered Species Act
The recommended remedial alternative is protective of species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Requirements
of the Interagency Section 7 Consultation Process, 50 CFR, Part 402, will
be met. The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, will-
be consulted during remedial design to assure that any endangered or . ~
threatened species, if identified, are not adversely impacted by
implementation of this remedy. .
. Ambient Air Quality Standards
The soil and groundwater treatment systems will be designed and
monitored to assure that air emissions meet all State and Federal
standards.
. State Drinking Water Standards
Maximum contaminant levels established by the State of North Carolina
regulations are adopted from those of the Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, and will be met.
7.0 Community Relations
Fact sheets were transmitted to interested parties, residents near the Site,
media and state, local and federal officials before the &1 work began at the
Site in August 1986.
Two information repositories were established, one in Kt. Holly near the Site
and one in the city of Charlotte.
-------
-36-
A public me~ting was held on August 19, 1987, at the Ida Rankin Elementary
School in Kt. Holly to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation and
the alternatives from the Feasibility Study. EPA discussed the preferred
remedial alternative. Two comments (one oral at the meeting, and one in
writing during the comment period) were received on an ozonation treatment
process. No other comments in regard to any of the alternatives were received
during the three-week public comment period which ended September 9, 1987.
The public did show a desire for remediation of the Site. No opposition from
the public is expected if the recommended remedial alternative is implemented.
A Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to summarize community concerns and
EPA'a community relations activities.
-------
S::>DYEro SITE, CHARWITE, OORI'H CAROLINA
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
!his camunity relations responsiveness SUI'lltlaJ:Y is divided into the following
sections:
SEcrION I.
Overview. '11lis section discusses EPA's preferred alternative for
remedial action and likely public reaction to this alternative.
Back~ on Camunity Involvement and Concerns. !his section
provldes a brief hist0J:Y of ccmnunity interest am concerns
raised during remedial planning activities at the SOdyeco Site.
SECTICN II.
SEcrIOO III. S~ of Major Ccmnents Received during the Public Ccmnent
Perlod and the EPA Responses to the Carments. Both the comnent
and EPA's response are provided.
Remaining Concerns. 'nlis section describes remaining carmunity:
concerns that EPA should be aware of in conducting the remedial..
design and remedial action at the Sodyeco Site.
In addition to the above sections, Attachment A, inciuded as part of this
responsiveness summaJ:Y, identifies the ccmnunity relations activities
conducted by EPA during remedial response activities at the SOdyeco Site.
SECTICN IV.
1. OVERVIEW
At the time of the public meeting and the beginning of the public comment
. period, EPA presented its preferred alternative to the public. TI1is
alternative addresses both the soil and groundwater contamination problems
at the site. '!he preferred alternative specified in the Record of Decision
(ROD) includes: treatment of contaminated groundwater, treabnent of
contaminated soil, off-site incineration of highly contaminated soil, and
on-site asphalt cap of an abandoned landfill.
The camunity, in general, favors remedial action tOOuc1t few expressed a
preference for a particular process.
-------
-2-
2. ~GRa.JND ON CCJ.!MUNI'IY INmLVEMENI' AND OONCERNS
The Sodyeco Site is located in a predaninantly rural area of ~klenburg
County and carmunity interest has been low. According to local officials,
cx:mrunity interest in the Sodyeco Site began in the 19605 when area residents
~came concerned about the effects of buring solvent wastes on air quality.
~en Sodyeco teminated the practice of open burning in the late 1960s,
ccmnunity interest decreased significantly.
The Mecklenburg Health Department received one call fran a resident concerned
about his well water. In addition, the North Carolina Ht..man Resources
Department received a call fran a resident concerned about geese that were
swinming in one of the Sodyeco settling ponds. He later received information
that satisfied his concerns.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina had also expressed an interest in
keeping the local residents infoDned by providi ng them with ajdi tional
information.
3. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC mMMENI'S RECEIVED OORING PUBLIC aJMMENl' PERIOD AND
AGENCY RESPONSES.
~
Carments raised during the Sodyeco public' meeting and public carment period
are Stmmarized briefly below. '!he carment period was held Hfran August 19
to September 9, .1987 to receive carments fran the public on the draft
feasibility study. .
1. 'lWo separate COItp3nies suggested an ozonation process to treat the
organic dye wastes at the Sodyeco Site.
EPA Response: EPA followed up by requesting that the PRP's contractor,
Engineering Science, follow up this suggestion by obtaining information on
the process, and by visiting a local operation using the process. '!he
conclusion was that the process was not applicable at this time for the
canpounds identified at the Sodyeco Site. '!he primary waste being treated
by this process to date has been creosote fran wood treating operations.
2. One area resident expressed concern about the treated water being
. discharged into the Catawba River.
EPA Res~: The resident, a former Sodyeco employee, was directed to the
informatlon resposi tory for additional information and was assured that the
water being discharged would ocmply with the plant's current NPDES permit.
-------
-3-
3. One resident expressed concern at the public about the plant contamination
migrating toward his private well.
EPA Resrx:>nse: A respresentative fran EPA's Water Division explained to the
resident that the contaminated groundwater was flowing away fran his well,
not towards it.
4. One resident during the public meeting expressed concern about sane
1961 data that showed that the ci ty of BelnDnt' s water supply (off the
Catawba River) had an elevated level of phenol.
EPA Res~nse: BelnDnt's current water intake on the Catawba River is over
three nu.les downstream fran the plant site. Sarrples of the Catawba River
water near the plant did not show any traces of phenol.
4. REMAINING PUBLIC <.'CNCERNS
No additional public concerns were left unresolved.
..
-------
ATrACHMENI' A
CQt.1MUNITY REIATIONS ACTIVITIES OONDUCTED
AT mE SODYECO SITE
carmunity relations activites conducted at the Sodyeco Site to date include
the following:
o EPA conducted ccmnunity interviews with local officials and interested
residents (May 1986)
o EPA prepared camunity relations plan (August 1986)
o EPA prepared an:) distributed fact sheet on Superfurxi an:) backgrouOO of
site (August: 1986)
o Two information repositories were established; one at the Mt. Holly Public
Library and one at the Charlotte Public Library (Au~st 1986)
o Press release issued announcing public meeting and public comment period
(Auglst 1987)
.
o Feasibility study released for public review and oonment (August 1987)
o EPA held a public hearing at the Ida Rankin Elementary School in Mt. Holly
to describe the RI and FS results and to respond to citizens' questions..
Approximately 60 people attended including citizens, Sodyeco employees,
elected officials, and media from area television stations and newspapers.
(Auglst 19, 1987) A transcript of this meeting is available.
o The conment period lasted three weeks, from August 19 to September 9, 1987.
Ccmnents received by EPA were addressed.
o The Administrative Record for this remedial selection is located in Atlanta
and the Mt. Holly Public Library.
-------
CHARLOTTE OBSERVI:R -
August 12, 1987
Cleanup At Plant To Be I
Discussed At Hearing I
By.JACK HORAN plant. or toward Lonl Creek,
S"ff Wrhr which flows Into the Cauwba. I
Seven years ago, toxic chemi- "All the people (nearby residents) .
cals were detected in the ground- 011 weU water are up grad.1ent."
water under the Sodyeco Co. tex. she sa1e1, meaning the chemicals I
tile dye plant In weStern Meclden- would. not flow to their wells.
burl COUDty. Soc1yeco" owner. Sandoz Chem-
Those chemicals would be ~ leals Corp., bought the plant In I
moved by a combination of exca- 1983. Under an agreement with
vatton and pumping under a EPA. Sandoz hired an enlineertn8
cleanup proposeci to the U.S. Envi- firm to c1etennil1e the exteut of the I
ronmental protection .Agency contamination
(EPA). A Sandoz official, Mike Smith,
The cleanup could. "begin within said the firm recommended pump- I
a year and could cost Sodyeco's ing the contamlnatecl water out ot
owner at least $1.3 mllUon, ac- the ground throup 13 reCovery
cording to Glezelle Bennett. the wells. The water would be purl- I
EP A's project manager for the site. fle<1 in the- plant's wastewater
The contamination and cleanup treatment plant, then c1Iscnarged
proposals will be discussed at an Into the river. I
EPA-sponsored public meeting SmJth said the firm also pro-
next Wednesday at Ida Rankin posed removinl the soU from un- I
Elementary School In Mount der One contaminated area aud I
HoUy. The meeting wiU be at 7:30 cooking out the chemiCals il1 aD
p.m. 'incinerator. The recommendations
The EP A hu tbe power to de- also call for letting rainwater flush I
cide hQw the Sodyeco contamina- the COl1tamlZW1tS out of the soil
don will be elimJnateci because the beneath a second area, so they can
site was declared a high-priority I be pumped out, and sealing off I
federal superfund site LI1 1982. two other contaminated areas.
The contamination came from Smith, director. of envtronmen-
. chemicals that were buried in tal affairs, salc1 those actions I
landfills on the site. Three lanc1flUa would cost $1.3 m1l1lon.
were Identified and removed. The EP A's Bea.nett sald the ageacy's
chemicals - toxins such u chlo- Atlanta oftlce acreed with San-
robenzene and trtchloroethaDe - doz', plans to pump the ground- I
.eeped into -the soU and the water and cUg up one CObtaml- .
groundwater. No contamination. nated area aDC! seal off two others. .
has been found otf the l,eeO-acre But she said the agency wants
site. Sandoz to either treat in place or I
Bennett sald the groundwater is d.18 up the soli from the second'
moving either toward the Ca-. area. That woulc1 Ukely Increase
tawba River. which borders the the cost ot the cleauup.
.
Etr:' T,e:; 1:.; 1
-------
~'1f.O S1'4"-
~ "C".s-
!~\
\~~~
~, PR(ftf;.~4\
"
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Sodyeco Superfund Site
PUBLIC INFORMATION
MEETING
ANNOUNCEMENT"
- .
~
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19,1987
at 7:30 p.m.
in the
IDA RANKIN ELEl\1ENTARY SCHOOL
301 West Central Avenue
Mt. Holly, North Carolina
The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of the sampling
investigation and the recommeded cleanup action at the Sodyeco
site, and to initiate the 21-day public comment period. EP A
staff will address questions and concerns that the community
might have regarding EP A's involvement at the site.
A questi~n and answer period will follow a brief presentation by EP A.
'"
~
-------
V
O •
4
LooKing ioi in.on
counting software for PC's and PC networks? More power, more
flexibility, more informative reports, AND Easier operation?
Please call us at Texas-Carolina Trading Corporation to reserve your
place at one of our CYMA PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERIES
demonstrations to be given August 26 and
September 2 and 8 A.M., 12 A.M.. and 5 P.M.
Seating Is limited.
Seminary1!! be given at our conference center.
TEXAS-CAROLINA TRADING CORP.
7 Woodlawn Green/Suite 31 3
Charlotte. NC SB217 USA
Tel. 704-525-0165
<8
m
US. Environment*! Protection Agency Sodyeco Superfund Site
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19,1987 at 7:30 p.m.
IDA RANKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
The VS. Environmental Protection A|«ney *IU conduct • public meeting to discuss the
sampling Investigation and reeommendedjueuup »t the Sodyeco Superfond Site,
located approximately 10 miles Northwest ft Charlotte, N.C The meeting will be held
August IB, 1987.7:30 p.m. at Rankln Etanfhui^ehQoUB Mt. ftplly. Oral and written
comments on the recommended cleanup eje^«leoingyi£d the §eetlng will mark the
beginning of the 21-day public
The Sodyeco Site la a one tbouAiAacre •bpertyJlhichle* b*» need alnce 1036 for
- - Iwater eontamlna*
1986 EPA began a
the nature and
Med recently and
ibllc comment period.
11 be formulated.
Investigation Report
Holly and Charlotte
the manufacture of dyes and
tton ted EPA to add the rite
Remedial Inveitigatioo and
extent of the contamination
cleanup alternatives are
any comments submitted will
Pertinent documentation on
and the Draft Feasibility Study Report, may be viewed at tin
PubUc Libraries until the end of the comment period. Written comments should be sent
to:
Ms. GleceUe Bennett
Enforcement Project Manager
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, RE.
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
Confused by MEW.'.
tax laws? Learn about
them from H&R Block.
America's Finest Income Tax Course
Learning Income taxes now could offer you money-making
opportunities and save you money on your return at tax time.
• Morning, afternoon, evening classes
• Reasonable course fee • Classes begin September 10th
• Held at 10 area locations
_^ Send for more Information today or call nowl
I 916 East MowJJSad^rchlrlottl M e 9«9fu I
;l
I
916 East Morerwtd St. Charlotte, N.C 26204
3754145
Please send me free Information about your tax preparation course.
Name
**•:
***
Beat The Hig
ENERGY With
VINYL REPU
WINDO
• Eliminates Storm
Windows*
• 100% Solid Vinyl
to Conserve
Energy
• No Costly
Painting Forever
• Double
Insulation-Two
Panes of Glass
• Built-in Screens
• Custom Sizes "
Made to Your
Exact Window
Measurements
• Double Weather
Stripping
• Windows Tilt-In
for Easy inside
Cleaning
ft
h)
i;
TREE Stoi
First 20 Cuttorr
FREE Storm Door
purchase of 8 or m
windows.
FREE!
For Our Ou
CALL
In N.C. 1.
In* C. 1-
-------
- L j J-
By JACK HORAN
SMWIMr
Rules for low-level radioactive
waste disposal in North Carolina
will be the subject of a Charlotte
public hearing tonight at 7.
The most far-reaching measure
would outlaw the method of dis-
posal used in South Carolina and
other states, burying waste la
drums in landfill trenches.
Under rules proposed by the
N.C. Radiation Protection Com-
. mission, which will hold the hear-
ing, disposed waste drums must be
surrounded by "engineered barri-
ers."
Such barriers could be concrete
vaults or containers sturdy enough
to keep out groundwater.
The rules were drafted in 1986.
However, the N.C. legislature on
July 17 banned landfill disposal
under a bill introduced by Sen.
Lura Tally, D-Cumberland, super-
seding the rule.
The law also would restrict the
location for a disposal site.
couldn't bs) anywhere the
high wader table comes Irithln
feet^Mne Waste. That wfuld rule
out floolt 14% of f|e stai
One vuyoiranc\
olina mutt deyelBp Tciispoaal site
for low-llvel Vast* by 1992.
The eignt-state Southeast Com-
pact Commission in
nated the state to takithe
uhiiiotle
waste for 20 years beginning in
1992. Should North Carolina pull
out of the compact and go it alone,
it would have to dispose of its own
radioactive waste permanently.
The regulations would govern
the licensing, operating, monitor-
log and decommissioning of the
disposal site, whether it handles
waste from eight states or only
from North Carolina.
Other rules would:
e Bar a site in drinking water
supply watersheds, flood plains
and wetland areas and within.
1,000 feet of drinking water wells.
e Require an examination of
the company that Is to operate the
site, Including its training, experi-
ence, finances and sjMltyyjto pro-
vide long-term
public health a
e Set up a fQd io provide for
long-termynajateiaice of the site.
le from inad-
in the site after
i. will
g County
ronmental
1200
tof Envl
dltoriu
near Char
EPA Presents Proposals
For Mount Holly Cleanup
ByKENSOO
e*»
MOUNT HOLLY — A proposal
to remove toxic chemicals from
the Sodyeco Co. textile dye plant
site drew little comment Wednes-
day except from a Charlotte man
who claimed his disposal company
could do a better Job.
At a public hearing, US. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
(EPA) officials recommended that
Sodyeco's owners spend at least
f 1.4 million to treat contaminated
soli and pump contaminated
groundwater from the site. Toxic
dye wastes were found seven
yean ago in groundwater at the
site on the Catawba River In west-
ern Mecklenburg County.
Wednesday's hearing at Ida
Rankin Elementary in Mount
Holly marked the opening of a
three-week public comment period
on the EPA recommendation.
About 60 people attended the
hearing, but few commented.
Sherman Mayne of Radiation
Disposal Systems Inc. of Charlotte
said the EPA should have picked
treatment processes like those his
company offers.
Mayne, using a blackboard to
illustrate bis argument, warned
chemicals found at Sodyeco can
cause cancer.
Mayne's remarks about the
chemicals' danger drew quick re-
buttal from EPA officials and from
representatives of Sandoz Chemi-
cals Corp., which bought Sodyeco
in 1983.
Cody Jackson of the EPA said
the levels of toxic' chemicals in
groundwater at Sodyeco are too
low to be harmful. Another EPA
official assured the audience that
no contamination has been found
off the plant site or in the Ca-
tawba River.
The EPA has proposed Sandoz
pump contaminated water from
the ground through 13 recovery
wells. The contaminated water
would be treated and discharged
into the Catawba River.
Anyone with suggestions can
contact the EPA in writing by
Sept. 9. Address comments to Mi-
chael Henderson or Giezelle Ben-
nett. US. EPA. Region IV, 345
Courtland St, Atlanta, Ga. 30365.
. '-.£-
Fire Forces
Residents of the Str-
second-floor patio *ov
equipment following a
200 residents were fat
about 40 minutes afr
eighth-floor room. TJ=€
and controlled In aboui
McElhaney. Cause "ot
Injuries were reported, i
the South Caldwel -
disabled. , .
TOMl
CERTIFIED s
IN-HOME-fclKr
-------
/".
lJ
'I::; k .:)(. , .
J), ,
James G. Martin, Governor
David T. Flaherty, Secretary
September 14, 1987
Ronald H. levine, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Director
Ms. Giezelle S. Bermett
Compliance Project Officer
IE EPA mRB/IC9
345 Courtland Stteet, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Record of Decision
Sodyeco EPA Site
O1arlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Bennett:
~
Per your request of September 8, 1987, ~ have. reviewed. the Record of Decision
for the Sodyeco NPL Site in O1arlotte, North Carolina.
'1his office concurs with the chosen remedy for the Sodyeco Site.
Sincerely,
~ ~< /-4;
Jerry Rhodes
Assistant Branch Head
Solid and Ha2ardous Waste Management Branch
Environmental Health Section
cc: June Swallow
Lee Crosby
JR/JS/mb/7256-3
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Division of EcD10gical Services
P.o. Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
September 16, 1987
Ms. Giezelle s. Bennett
u. S. Envirol'1l1elltal Protection Agency
345 Calrtland Street
Atlanta, GEorgia 30365
Dear Ms. Bennett:
'!he u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the draft Record of
Decision for the Sodyeco Site in Charlotte, North Carolina, dated
SeptE!!tll:2r 4, 1987. '!he Service ooncurs with the recommended remedy,
Alternative 9, for remediation of groundwater and soil oontamination.
Sincerely yours,
-
. ~~:~ ~ 7k?oc..ll..~
David H. Rackley
Acting Field SUpervisor
-------
#~o St4~.,
t~)
4L~
rate:
Subject:
Fran:
To:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30315
SEP 11 1917
Record of' Decis ion (ROD) for the Sodyeco Site,
O1arlotte, North carolina
James S. Kutzman, Chief ~
Ground-W!ter Protection Branch r~ ..
Jack Stonebraker, Chief
SUperfund Branch
J*
We concur with the reccmnended alternatives for remediation of ground-water and
soil contamination at the. Sodyeco Site presented in this ROD.
..
-------
08/20/87
Achinistrative Record - Docunent N~r Order
5OOYECO SITE
Page: 1
========..="""'."''''..'''''''''''''.''''''..''''.'''''--=.....az=.''..-===~.==.=..==.=a============================
- .
Document N~r: Firat - 500-001-0001
Lest - 500-001-0003
Att8Chnents: NONE
Parent: NONE'
Date: 08/30/85
Title: (LETTER RE: 5OOYECO INC NPL SITE CHARLOTTE, NC NOTIFYING ADDRESSEE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY
AND ENCOURAGING HIM TO PARTICIPATE IN VOLUNTARY CLEAN-UP. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DEVINE, THOMAS W: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Recipient: ECCLES, EJ: SANDOZ CHEMiCAlS CORP
Document N~r: Firat - SOO-OO1-0004
Leat - 500-001-0004
-------.....------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- .
Attecl!llents: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 02/05/85
TitLe: (LETTER RE: MARTIN-MARIETTA, 5OOYECO DIVISION SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE SUPE~FICIAl
IMPLEMENTATION GROUP REVIEW. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
A~ lor: PIETROSEWICZ, CHUCK: DEPT OF MEAlTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient: BENNETT, GIEZELlE S
.
Document N~r: First SOO-001-000S
last - Soo-001-0011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE-
Date: 01/18/84
TitLe: (lETTER RE: MARTIN-MARIETTA, SOOYECO DIVISION SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, COMMENTS ON
DATA OF SUBJECT SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: JONES, GEORGI A: DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient: PIETROSEWICZ, CHUCK: EPA
Document N~r: First - SOO-001-0012
last - Soo-001-0012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 11/01/85
Title: (lETTER RE: SANDOZ (SOOYECO) SITE CHARLOTTE, NC OFFE~ OF EPA TO CONDUCT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
AND FEASIBiliTY STUDY. )
.TyPe: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DEVINE, THOMAS W: WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Recipient: RANKIN, WILTON: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
-------
r----
08/20/87
AGainistretive Record - Doc:unent NUttIer Order
SODYECO SITE
Page: 2
- .......
--"".~""".A.
Doc:u.ent NU8ber: first - SOD-001-0013
L.st - SOD-001-00:5
......----.~Wtra8..........................-................===-=--==============
Attech8ents: PR 1 ATTACHMENT
Perent: NONE
Dete: 10/03/85
Titte: (LETTER RE: SANDOZ SITE CHARLOTTE NC, OffER BY COMPANY TO CONDUCT THE RJ/fS fOR THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED
SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: RANKIN, WILTON: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
Recipient: BENNm, GJEZELLE: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Doc:unent NUllber: fi rat - SOD-001 -Oa16
Last - 500-001-0016
. .
-----------------------------..--.-.---.-.-----.-.------------------------.-.---------.-.-------------------------------
Dete: 00/00/00
Titte: (CERTIFJED MAIL RECEIPT.)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NONE
Recipient: RANKIN, WILTON
Att8dlllents: NONE
'erent: SOD-001-oo13
-
Doc:unent Number: First - SOD-001-0017
Lest - SOD-001-0021
----------------------------------------------.-.--------------------.---.-----------------------------------------------
Date: 04/08/82
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Titte: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE SITE INSPECTION REPORT
Type: PLAN
Author: SMOAK, JT: EPA
Red pi ent : NONE
Doc:unent Number: First - SOD-001-0022
Lest - SOD-001-0022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------
Dete: 02110/83
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Title: TRANSMITTAL OF MARTIN MARIETTA CO - SODYECO DIVISION, HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: LAIR, NO
Recipi~t: SMITH, AL
Doc:unent Number: First - SOD-001-oon
Lest - 500-001-0092
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11/00/82
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Title: HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE INVESTIGATION MARTIN MARIETTA COMPANY SODYECO DIVISI~ CHARLOTTE, NORTH
CAROLINA
Type: PLAN
Author: NONE
Rec i pi ent: NONE
-------
Da/20/87
Administrative Record - Document Number Order
SOOYECO SITE
Page: 3
==8.........."'.....=---.....=-...."..."'..............................................~..=.....=====================
Document Number: First - 500-001-0093
last 500-001-0113
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 00/00/00
Title: (REPORY REGARDING MARTIN MARIETTA - SODYECO DIVISION CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROliNA)
Type: PLAN
Author: NONE
Recipient: NONE
----....--------.--------------.-.-----------------------------.---..-.--.-.-----.-------------.-------.-----.----------
Document Number: Firat -. SOD-001-011'
last - SOD-001-011'
Attach8enta: PR 2 ATTACHMENTS
Parent: NONE
Date: 06/26/87
Title: (lETTER RE: SODYECO RI/FS DRAFT RI REPORT)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: BENNETT, GIEZEllE S: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Recipient: ARCHER, Bill: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
~
--------------------------------------------~---------.-----------------------------------------------------------------
. Document Number: First - SOO-001-0115
last - 500-001-0128
Attachments: NONE
Parent: 500-001-0114
Date: 00/00/00
Title: (COMMENTS RE: DRAFT RI REPORT)
Type:
Author:
Recipient:
OTHER
NONE
NONE
---------------------------------------------------------------.----.------------.------------------------------.-.-----
Document Number: First - 500-001-0129
last - 500-001-0129
Attachments: NONE
Parent: 500-001-0114
Date: 06/26/87
Title: REVIEW OF SooYECO DRAFT RI REPORT
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: KANN, JOHN H
Recipient: BENNETT ,GIEZEllE: EPA
---.-----r--------.--..-------------.-----------------_.-------_.._-----~_._._--------~.---_._--------------------.-----
Document Number: First - 500-001-0131
last. 500-001-0386
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 05/00/87
Title: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 5OOYECO SITE MT HOllY, NORTH CAROLINA (VOLUME II APPENDICES C THROUGH
I)
Type:
Author:
"ecipient:
PLAN
ENGINEERING SCIENCE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
08/20/87
Acbinistratiye Record - Doc:uBent N~r Order
SCDYECO SITE
Page: 4
.=a=""".-~..& ~
.-------......_---~... -...- -..
... -~~...==-===========--===========.================
Docunent NUlCer: first - 500-001-0387
last - 500-001-0582
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 05/00/87
Title: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SOOYECO SITE MT HOLLY, NORTH CAROLINA (VOlLIfE I RI REPORT AND APPENDICES
A & B)
TYJIe: PlAN
Author: ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Recipient: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. . -
--..-------------------------".-----.-------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------.-.
Docunent NUlCer: first - 500-001-0583
last - 500-001-0778
Attachlllents: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 07/00/87
Title: FEASIBilITY STUDY SOOYECO SITE MT HOLLY, NORTH CAROLINA
Type: PLAN
Author: ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Recipier.c: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~
----------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------.-----.
Document Number: First - 500-001-0780
Last - soo-001-0780
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 02/10/86 .
Title: (LETTER CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT FOR SANDOZ (SOOYECO) SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: RAVAN, JACK E: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Recipient: RANKIN, WILTON: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
--------.--------.------------------------------__--eo----.----.-------------------------------------------------------.
Document Number: First - SOO-001-0781
Last - SCO-001-0794
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 00/00/00
Title: (ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT RE: SCOYECO SITE CHARLOTTE, NC. )
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: NONE
Recip!ent: NONE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------._-_...__.~-
Document Number: first - SOO-001-07'95
last - 500-001-07'95
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 03/24/87
Title: (LETTER CONCERNING PAYMENT Of MONEY INTO EPA SUPERFUND BY SCOYEeO SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: ARCHER, WILLIAM M: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
Recipient: BENNETT, GIEZELLE 5: US EPA
-------
08/20/87
Administrative Record - Document Number Order
SODYECO SITE
Page: 5
====."".""'..Z.....".".""'...:aa....===-==-_._================================-=...._=======..==================
Document Number: First - SOD-001-0796
last - SQD-001-0796
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE.
Date: 03/24/87
Title: (lETTER ACCOMPANYING CHECK FOR EPA OVERSIGHT COST ASSOCIATED WITH SODYECO SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: ARCHER. WilliAM M: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
Recipient: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Document NUllber: First - SQD-001-07'97
last - SOD-001-07'97
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttechMents: PR 4 ATTACHMENTS
Parent: NONE
Date: 02/25/87
Title: (lETTER CONCERNING REVISED ACCOUNTING OF THE RESPONSE AND OVERSIGHT COST WITH RESPECT TO SODYECO
SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: TOBIN. PATRICK M: WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Recipient: ARCHER. Bill: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
..
Document Number: First - 500-001-07'98
last - 500-001'07'98
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments: NONE
Parent: Soo-001-0797
Date: 02/10/86
Title: BREAKDOWN OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SooYECO. NC 860210-860930
Type: FiNANCIAL / TECHNICAL DAT
Author: . NONE
Recipient: NONE
Docunent Number: First - 500-001-0799
last - 500-001-0799
-----------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments: NONE
Parent: Soo-001-0797
Date: 02/26/87
Title: (REGISTERED MAil RECEIPT OF 870226 TO BIll ARCHER. )
Type: CGaRESPONDENCE
Author: IllEGIBLE
Recipient: ARCHER. Bill: SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP
Document Number: First - SOO-001-0800
last - Soo-001-0800
. .
-----.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments: NONE
Parent:. Soo-001-0797
Date: 00/00/00
Title: (RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAil TO Bill ARCHER. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NONE
Recipient: ARCHER. Bill
-------
08/20/87
Acbiniatratiw Record - Docunent NUltler Order
SOOYECO SITE
Page: 6
==-=-.....aa.........................................a:a==-aa..................-------..===_:t:s===================
Document Number: First - SOO-001-0801
Last - SOO-001-0801
Attachments: NONE
Parent: SOO-001-0797
Date: 02/25/00
liUe: (RECORD OF EXPRESS MAIL, NEXT DAY RECEIPT- )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NONE
Recipient: NONE
------------------.---------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------
DOC1IIIfInt Nuar: Firat - SOO-OO1-0803'
Last - SOO-OO1-0833
Attachlllents: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/00/86
Title: FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN FOR THE SOOYECO SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 860800
Type: PLAN
Author: EBASCO SERVICES INC
Recipient: US EPA
..
------------------.------------~._--------------------.----------------.-----.----.------------------------.----------.-
Document Number: First - SOO-001-0834
Last - SOO-001-0834
Attachments: NONE
P.arent: NONE
. Date: 08/21/86
Title: (LETTER RE: INFORMATION REPOSITORY SooEYCO NPL SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: BENNETT, GIEZELLE S: VINSON & ELKINS
Recipient: GUTHRIE, DOROTHY: MT HOLLY PUBLIC LIBRARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Number: First - $00-001-0835
Last - Soo-001-0835
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/21/86
Title: (LETTER RE:
INFORMATION REPOSITORY $OOYECO NPL SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: BENNETT, GIEZELLE S: VINSON & ELKINS
Recipient: CANNON, ROBERT: CHARLOTTE PUBLIC LIBRARY
--------------------------------------------------..--.----.------.-----..-------.---..--.----------------------------.-
Document Number: First - $00-001-0836
Last - Soo-001-0836
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/26/86
Title: (ARTICLE ENTITLED 'EPA TO TEST SOIL, WATER AT SOOYECO PLANT' )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE.
Author: HORAN, JACK: CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
Recipient: NONE
-------
08/20/81
Administrative Record - Document Number Order
5OOYECO SITE
Page: 7
====.............................................======_.====-.......===_:...e.:======._==========:======:=====:===:=:=:
Document Number: First - 500-001-0831
Last - 500-001-0838
Attachments: PR 2 ATTACHMENTS
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/00/86
Title: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY FACT SHEET 5OOYECO SITE MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA
Type: PLAN
Author: EPA
Recipient: IIONE
.------.---------------------------.-..----------.----.-.------..-------------------------------------------------------
Document Number: Ffrst - 5OO-oo1-CJ839
L.st - 500-001-0839
Attachments: NONE
Parent: 500-001-0831
Date: 00100/00
Title: (INFORMATION REPOSITORIES AND MAILING LIST ADDITIONS FORM)
Type: OTHER
Author: EPA
, Recipient: NONE
..
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------.---.------.
Document Number: First - 500-001-0840
Last - Soo-001-0840
Attachments: NONE
Parent: 500-001-0837
Date: 00/00/00
Title: SUPERFUND PROCESS EXHIBIT A
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: EPA
Rec:fpient: NONE
---------------------------------------------------------.----------.-.--..-.--.-..-.-..-.---.--------------------------
Document Number: First - 500-001-0841
Last - 500-001-0841
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 09109/86
Title: (lETTER RE: 5OOYECO REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY, CHARLOTTE NC)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: BENNETT, GIEZElLE S: VINSON & ELKINS
Recipient: BULLARD, EW: BULLARD INSURANCE & REALTY CO
------------------------------------------------..---.---------.-.--.-.--..-.----.--.---.----.-.------------------------
Document Number: First - 500-001-0842
Last - 500-001-0843
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 09/03/86
Title: (lETTER CONCERNING REPRINTING OF 860000 RI/FS FACT SHEET ON THE 5OOEYCO SUPERFUND SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: HENDERSON, RH: SUPERFUND COMMUNITY
Recipient: STJOHN, DIANE: EPLAY ASSOCIATES INC
-------
08/20/87
Adlinistrative Record - Docl.IIIent NUt'ber Order
SOOYECO SITE
Page: 8
~.- ...
~
'iii .~----....................==...=-=...==~..=-===.....===========.:--==-=====-=======::=========--====
Oocunent N~r: Ffrst - SOO-001-0844
last - SOO-OO1-0844
Attach8ents: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/26/86
Title: (lETTER RE: WATER TEST OF CATAWBA RIVER FROM WHICH BEllMaNT, NC GETS ITS DRINKING WATER)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: BUllARD, EW: BULlARD INSURANCE
Recipient: BENNETT, GIEZEllE M: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
------.--------------------.--.-----------------.--------------------.--------------------------------------------------
D~t NUllber: Ffrst - sao-001-0845
Lest - sao-001-0845
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 08/19/86
Title: (lETTER CONCERNING SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORP AND THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FEASIBiliTY STUDY.
)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DEHIHNS, lEE A
Recipient: OSMAR, JOHN J
~
.---------------------------------.---------------------------------~~._------------------------------------------------
Docl.IIIent Number: Ffrst - SOO-001-0841
last - SOO-001-0841
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Dete: 01/28/00
Title: (SANDOZ CHEMICAL CORP MAIL CONTROL SCHEDULE)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: ~R, JOHN J
Recipient: TOBIN
-----------------.------------------------------.-.------------.--.----..-...-.-...-...............---------------------
Document Number: Ff~st - 500-001-0848
lest - 500-001-0848
Attachments: PR 2 ATTACHMENTS
Parent: NONE
Date: 07/26/86
Title: (LETTER VOICING OPINION ABOUT SANDOZ fUNDING STUDY AND CONDUCTING THE RI/FS. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: OSMAR, .IOHN J .
Recip~ent: lAVAN, JACK E: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-....--.---------------------.-.---..-..----....--...-.............-...------.-.....--.....-..-.-.---..-.--..-----.---.-
Document Number: Ftrst - 500-001-0849
last - 500-001-0849
Attachmen~s: NONE
Parent: 500-001-0848
Date: 08/21/86
Title: (CERTFIED MAil RECEIPT FOR 860821 TO JOHN OSMAR)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Autho~: ILLEGIBLE
Recipient: OSMAR, JOHN
-------
PB/20/8T
Administrative Record - Docunent Nl.J1t)er Order
$OOVECO SITE
Page: 9
=-===aaas........-.=_===8ma888a_=.................=====..:_....ms=================-==========:===:===:===:======::====:=
Document Number: First - $00-001-0850
Last - $00-001-0850
Attachments: NONE
Parent: $00-001-0848
Oate: 00/00/00
Title: (RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL FOR JOHN OSMAR)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NONE
Recipient: OSMAR, JOHN J
-----------.------.----------.--------------------.---------.----------------.----------------------------------.-----.-
Document Number: First - $00-001-0851
Last - $00-001-0851
Attachments: NONE .
Parent: NONE
Date: 01/09/86
Title: (LETTER RE: $OOVECO I SANDOZ SITE CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, GENERAL EXPLANATION OF SITE
CLEAN-UP. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: RAVAN, JACK E
Recipient: OSMAR, JOHN J
..
------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---.---
Document Number: First - $00-001-0852
Last - Soo-001-0852
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 06/17/86
Title: (MAIL CONTROL SCHEDULE RE: INFO REQ CLEAN-UP $OOEYCO SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: OSMAR, JOHN J
Recipient: TOBIN
-------------------------------------------..------.-..-.--.----.--.---....-...----.-.---------......--.--....----------
Document Number: First - SOO-001-0853
Last - $00-001-0853
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 06/17/86
Title: (INQUIRY INTO SITUATION OF SCOYECO I SANDOZ SITE. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: OSMAR, JJ
Recipient: THOMAS, LEE M: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------.-.-----------------.---.---.--.----.---.-.--.-.-....---.-------------.--.-.-.----------------------------
Document Number: First - $00-001-0854
Last - SCO-001-0854
Attachments: NONE
Parent: NONE
Date: 04/15/87
Title: (REGARDING FREEDOM OF INFO ACT REQUEST FOR ROOS ON SANDOZ CHEM CORP. )
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: STONEBRAKER, RICHARD D
Recipient: LOW, MATTHEW A: TLI SYSTEMS
------- |