United States Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED PLAN for the AMENDED RECORD OF DECISION Martin Marietta/ Sodyeco Superfund Site Site Name: CERCLA ID #: Site Location: Martin Marietta/Sodyeco Superfund Site NCD001 810365 11701 Mount Hollv Road Support Agency: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Lead Agency: EPA, Region 4 I. Introduction This Proposed Plan documents the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's or Agency's) decision to modify the remedial action selected in 1987 for the Martin Marietta/ Sodyeco Superfund Site (Site), located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site is located on Highway 27, approximately 10 miles west of Charlotte. The property, including the Site, is currently owned by the Clariant Corporation, (Clariant). The entire property, including the Superfund areas (Areas A through E), is subject to current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Management and Post-Closure Permit, NCD 001 810 365-R1, issued by the State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (now known as North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources or NCDEHNR) in 1996. Clariant has applied for a renewal of this permit, which contains corrective action provisions. The draft permit renewal, which also contains corrective action provisions, is expected to be issued for public comment in April 2011. The Clariant facility, including the Superfund Site, consists of approximately 1,500 acres, extending more than 2000 feet north of State Highway 27. south past Long Creek, more than 500 feet east of Belmeade Drive, and west to the Catawba River. The City of Mount Holly is located across the Catawba River ( Figure 1). Of the approximately 1,500 acres, only 150 acres were occupied by production units and an operating waste water treatment facility. The majority of the remaining acreage is undeveloped woodland and grassed areas. Of the 150 acres that comprised the operating area of the facility, five discrete areas, are designated as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Areas A through E ( Figure _2J. These surface areas and groundwater are being addressed by CERCLA, pursuant to the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by EPA in September 1987 and modified by two Explanation of Significant Differences (ESDs) issued in September 1994 and October 1998. EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 300.430(0(2) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA, in consultation with the NCDEHNR, may modify this proposed action or select another action presented in this Plan based on new information or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment on all the alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan. This Proposed Plan summarizes information contained in ------- the Administrative Record for the Martin Marietta/ Sodyeco Superfund Site. The Administrative Record is available for review at the Mount Holly Branch Library 245 West Catawba Avenue Mount Holly, NC 28120 704 827-3581 Hours 10:00 am - 6:00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday 10:00am-2:00pm Friday & Saturday and at U.S. EPA Region 4. I Ith Floor Library, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. II. Statement of Purpose EPA issues a ROD Amendment for a Site when it determines that it is necessary to modify a remedy selected in a ROD that fundamentally alters the remedy's scope, performance, or cost. At this Site EPA has concluded that I) risks posed by ground water contamination no longer need to be addressed under CERCLA authority; and 2) institutional controls for the soil component of the 1987 remedy are needed to ensure long-term protect! veness. Once the ROD Amendment is issued and the institutional controls restricting land use of the CERCLA areas are implemented, all risks warranting a CERCLA response at the Site will be addressed. As such, no further CERCLA actions will be necessary or appropriate to protect human health and the environment. Hi. Site History and Contamination Site History DyeStuff Company began its operations at the Site in 1936. Initially, the plant produced liquid sulfur dyes from purchased raw materials. American Marietta, which became Martin Marietta in 1961, purchased the Site in 1958. Martin Marietta's product lines included vat dyes; disperse dyes; and specialty chemical products for the agrochemical, electronic, lithographic, pigment, plastic, rubber and general chemical industries. Sodyeco Inc., a subsidiary of Sandoz U.S.A., purchased the plant from Martin Marietta in 1983. Sodyeco's early operation wastes consisted of low volume, aqueous acidic or alkaline streams containing inorganic salts which were discharged untreated to the Catawba River. Later, Sodyeco's operation wastes expanded to include organic solvents. Among the materials buried at the Site were residual distillation tars from solvent recovery operations, empty drums and cartons, discarded chemicals, off-specification products, general plant wastes and construction debris. The majority of the solid waste disposed at the Site was diatomaceous earth filter cake which consisted of water, diatomaceous filter cells and residual dye containing sulfide. Sodyeco employed several pre-treatment methods, settling ponds for suspended solids, neutralization of wastes streams, and equalization /aeration. The resulting contamination was primarily volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the soils and groundwater, which included chlorobenzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene. The initial indication of potential contamination at the Site was the discovery of organic solvents in Martin Marietta's potable water well in September 1980. In June 1982, EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD) conducted a hazardous waste site investigation. Surface water, ground-water and sediment samples were collected. The results indicated the presence of metals and organic contaminants in groundwater. Non-quantifiable amounts of organic compounds were found in the sediment samples taken from Long Creek. In February of 1983, EPA sampled eleven potable water wells. All wells were off-site to the north and east of the plant boundaries. All samples met primary and secondary drinking water standards. The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in December 1982. Sodyeco conducted a response, which included a hydro-geologic study to determine the source and extent of contamination. The company took corrective actions, including installing carbon fillers ------- on five private wells adjacent to the plant, drilling a new well at another adjacent convenience store property, converting the plant water supply from ground water to surface water (the Catawba River intake), and excavating and off-site disposal of buried waste. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study In February 1986, Sandoz Chemicals Corporation entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA, agreeing to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RL/FS) to evaluate the extent of the contamination present in the ground water and the threat to public health and the environment. Results of the RI showed that groundwater in the CERCLA areas were contaminated with toluene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, 0- dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. Levels of contaminants in groundwater presented an unacceptable carcinogenic risk to humans through ingeslion of groundwater. Although the groundwater is not currently being used for drinking purposes, the aquifer is classified as a Class IIA aquifer, a current source of drinking water. Contaminant concentrations in the soil posed an unacceptable carcinogenic risk to human health as a result of exposure through inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact with soil for the potential future use scenario. In addition, the RI also considered risks posed to local waterfowl and small mammals that may frequent the contaminated areas. These animals may receive exposure through ingestion or dermal contact with soils and sediments and residents may potentially be exposed if they consume these animals. The RI concluded that the probability of pathway completion through this route was low and difficult to quantify. IV. 1987 Selected Remedy Based on the risks discussed above EPA selected a remedy for the Site in a ROD issued on September 30, I987. The remedial action objectives for the remedy were as follows: • Protect human health and the environment from exposure to contaminated soils through inhalation or direct contact; • Restore contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human health and the environment. The selected remedy for the contaminated groundwaler involves extraction through recovery wells, treatment in the onsite RCRA wastewater treatment facility, and discharge into the Catawba River, as regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The soil remedies selected included: installation of an asphalt cap for Area B; excavation and off-site incineration for Area D, and implementation of treatability studies for Area C. The selected remedy did not address contaminated soils in Areas A and E. Only groundwater risks were addressed in those areas. Pursuant to the ROD, four treatment options were selected to be implemented as treatability studies to aid in making the final selection of treatment option for Area C. The four treatability studies were flushing, soil washing, thermal processing and in- situ steam stripping. In September 1994, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), choosing in situ flushing, and then capturing and treating the flushing water in the existing groundwater treatment system. The ESD further provided for the continuation of a pilot study that utilized vacuum extraction to treat the stock- piled soil resulting from the implementation of the treatability studies soils in Area C. In November 1998, a second ESD addressing the stock- piled soils in Area C was issued. Since vacuum extraction of the stock-piled soils proved ineffective, the ESD called for the stock- piled soils in Area C to be addressed in the same manner as the contaminated soils in Area D, which was off-site treatment and disposal. The ROD stated that the Remedial Design and Remedial Action would be conducted under an amendment to the facility's March 31, 1987 RCRA Part B Permit, Number NCD0011810365, and further that personnel in EPA's RCRA program would oversee the work to be performed. ------- Implementation of the Remedy All soil components of the remedy outlined in the ROD. as modified by the subsequent ESDs, have been implemented and are currently in long term operation and maintenance. The groundwater component of the remedy has been constructed and the treatment system is fully operational and functional, and is considered a long term response action until groundwater cleanup levels, identified in the ROD, are achieved. The Site accomplished construction complete, a CERCLA milestone, on September 9, 1999. Groundwater continues to be extracted through recovery welts and discharged into the plant's sewer system. The contaminated groundwater continues to be treated in the RCRA-rcgulated on-site wastewater treatment facility, along with the contaminated groundwater from the RCRA- regulated portions of the facility. Five Year Reviews Under Section 12 He) of CERCLA and 40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), a remedy selected by the President under CERCLA 121, which leaves waste on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, must be reviewed no less than five years from the start of remedial action. The remedy for this Site leaves waste in place in a manner that does not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, five year reviews or equivalent reviews are required at this Site. EPA has conducted three five-year reviews, the most recent completed in 2007. The three five year review documents are available in the Superfund Document Management System (SDMS) and in the Administrative Record for the Site. V. Description of Differences and Basis for the AROD As stated in Section II (Statement and Purpose), this document proposes two changes to the original ROD, as modified by the two ESDs. These two changes are: * Risks posed by groundwater contamination in CERCLA Areas A-E no longer needs to be addressed using CERCLA response authority. At the time the Site was listed on the NPL, the RCRA hazardous Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) provisions had not been promulgated, and it was necessary to use CERCLA response authority to address the contamination at the Site outside of the regulated RCRA units. Since the facility's RCRA permit has been used to implement the groundwater cleanup and the HSWA provided the legal authority necessary to continue the treatment until cleanup levels are achieved in the CERCLA Areas outside of the RCRA- regulated units; EPA has concluded that the groundwater risks originally identified in the 1987 ROD no longer need to be addressed by CERCLA authority. As a result, this plan proposes to modify the 1987 ROD, as amended by the ESDs, to select no further CERCLA action for groundwater. A CERCLA action can be deferred when an equivalent cleanup will be conducted in its place. EPA has concluded that cleanups under RCRA are equivalent to CERCLA cleanups. In addition, the facility's RCRA permit incorporates the groundwater remediation goals and cleanup levels established in the 1987 ROD, and shall require ICs limiting the use of the groundwater from aquifers impacted by Site contaminants. These groundwater restrictions shall further prohibit drilling and/or installing any groundwater wells or extracting groundwater impacted by Site contaminants. • Institutional controls for the soil component of the CERCLA remedy shall be implemented to ensure long-term protect! veness of the soil remedy. This requirement is necessary because the 1987 ROD and its related ESDs selected a soil remedy that resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. More specifically the remedy capped soil in place in CERCLA Area B, as well as left contaminated soils covered by clean soils in place in Area D. Also in operation of the facility over the years. Area A, a former landfill was covered by asphalt and buildings. The impermeable barriers that cover CERCLA Area A are considered a capped Area. ICs are needed ------- to prevent disturbance of the caps and preclude direct contact with any onsite soils that were impacted by Site contaminants. The ICs shall preclude any future activities that disturb the caps, or any contaminated soils without first conducting a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) to ensure that waste is handled and disposed of in a safe and appropriate manner. The action proposed in this Plan, if selected in a ROD Amendment, shall be evaluated with the other remedial components in future five year reviews for the Site to ensure the land use restriction are being implemented, monitored and enforced. Should the five year review report find that the ICs have not been implemented, the remedial action may need to be re-evaluated to ensure long term protection of human health and the environment Once the ROD Amendment is issued and institutional controls for soil are implemented, the Site can be considered for deletion as outlined in 40 CFR Section 300.425(e). VI. Evaluation of Alternatives As slated previously in Sections II and V, this Plan proposes to amend the remedy selected in the 1987 ROD subsequent ESDs, by adding institutional controls to the soil component of the remedy and by determining that CERCLA response action is no longer warranted for the groundwater contamination. Since groundwater risks will not be addressed under CERCLA, a nine criteria evaluation is not applicable. For soil areas (CERCLA areas A,B and D) the alternatives to be evaluated are no action and implementation of institutional controls. Soil Alternative I - NO ACTION Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0 Estimated O&M Costs: $0 Consistent with the NCP, a "no action" alternative is being evaluated to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action (beyond the action provided in the 1987 ROD and subsequent ESDs) at CERCLA Areas A , B, and D. Alternative 2 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS - Environmental Covenant for Land Use Restrictions Estimated Capital Cost: $ 8,300.00 Estimated O&M Costs: $ 150.00 Under this alternative, institutional controls, documented in the form of an environmental covenant, would be placed on the capped CERCLA Areas A and B, as well as CERCLA Area D to supplement the remedy selected in the 1987 ROD, as modified by the ESDs. The environmental covenant shall preclude any future activities that disturb the caps, or any contaminated soils without first conducting a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) to ensure that waste is handled and disposed of in a safe and appropriate manner; and prevent direct contact with contaminated soil. The NCP provides that nine criteria are used to evaluate the different remediation alternatives individually and against each other in order to select a remedy. The following provides an evaluation of the relative performance of these two alternatives considered against the nine criteria and each other. /. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Alternative 1, no action, is not protective of human health and the environment since no additional measures at the CERCLA areas are being taken to preclude future exposure to contaminated soils. Alternative 2, institutional controls, will provide land use restrictions to help prevent human exposure to contaminated soil in CERCLA Areas A, B and D. 2. Compliance with Applicant or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARARs) There are no ARARs associated with the two alternatives. ------- 3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence Alternative 1, no action, does not provide for long term effectiveness and permanence. No additional actions would be taken to prevent exposure to contaminated soil. Alternative 2, institutional controls, as long as they are enforced and monitored, normally are effective in preventing exposure to contaminated soil. At this Site the land use restrictions would be in the form of an environmental covenant, which would also be required under the facility's RCRA corrective action permit. 4. Reduction ofToxicity. Mobility, or Volume oj Contaminants through Treatment Neither alternative reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants through treatment. 5. Short-term Effectiveness Once implemented, Alternative 2 is effective in the short and long term, as long as it is monitored and enforced. This criterion is not applicable to Alternative 1. 6. Implementability Both alternatives are easily implementable. 7. Cost There are no costs associated with Alternative I, no action. Alternative 2, institutional controls, will cost approximately S_8.300.00 . 8. State/Support Agency Acceptance The State of North Carolina supports Alternative 2. 9. Community Acceptance The community concerns shall be evaluated during the proposed plan process and be documented in the forth coming AROD. VII. Selected Remedy Based on the evaluation above, EPA has determined that Alternative 2, institutional controls implemented through an environmental covenant, is being proposed as the preferred alternative to supplement and help maintain the integrity of the remedy provided for in the 1987 ROD and the subsequent ESDs. Implementing and maintaining the land use restrictions in the form of an environmental covenant implemented at the CERCLA Areas A, B and D will help ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment by preventing disturbance, removal, or damage of any cap, engineered or otherwise; and preventing direct contact with contaminated soil. VIII. Support Agency Comments NC DENR supports the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, Institutional Controls. IX. Statutory Determinations EPA has determined that the changes proposed in this Proposed Plan comply with the statutory requirements established in CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. Section 9621, including that they are protective of human health and the environment, comply with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because the remedial actions selected for this Site in the ROD, the ESDs, and the Preferred Alternative in the Plan ROD Amendment will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,, as required by CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. Section 9621, five year reviews will continue to be conducted no less often than five years from the date of the previous five year review report to ensure that the remedy is, protective of human health and the environment. Since, the ROD, subsequent ESDs and the proposed action in the Plan will be incorporated into the Facility's RCRA Permit an equivalent review is acceptable. X. Public Participation The public participation requirements for ROD Amendments set out in 40 CFR Section 300.435(c)(2)(ii), include issuing a notice describing the proposed plan in a local newspaper; scheduling a public meeting; and providing a thirty- day period for the public to comment on the ------- proposed changes. Provided in the ROD Amendment will be a brief explanation of the amendment and the responses to each of the significant comments received in reference to the amendment. A public meeting to discuss this matter shall be held at the Mount Holly City Hall located at 400 East Central Avenue, Mount Holly, NC on May 12th at 6:30 p.m. Figure 1 ------- Figure 2 ------- 3A invites YOU to a Public Meeting, May 12, 2011 at Mount Holly City Hall located at 400 East Central Avenue, Mount Holly, NC on May 12th at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this Proposed Plan, next steps, and to address the issues and concerns of the Mount Holly community. If you are unable to attend this meeting and would like additional information or have questions about the Proposed Plan for the Martin Marietta/Sodyeco Superfund Site, please contact the EPA representatives via telephone or email listed below. Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager (404) 562-8813 or (877) 718-3752 Or Stephanie Yvette Brown, Community Involvement Coordinator (404) 562-8450 or (877) 718-3752 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch 61 Forsyth Street, SW -11* Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attn: Michael Townsend Official Business Penally for Private Use 5300 ------- |