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
------- |