HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD003446721_19930601_Celeanse Corporation - Shelby Fiber_FRBCERCLA SPD_Fact Sheets 1987 - 1993-OCR_ .. : ;, .... •;,,\~~~-RFU ND FACT SHEET
·-~
HOECHST-CELANESE CORPORATION
STATUS OF LONG-TERM SITE REMEDIATION
June 1993
INTRODUCTION
E.P .A. is pleased to announce that all construction
activities concerning soil and groundwater remediation
have been completed. The equipment for the
groundwater pump-and-treat process is functioning
properly, achieving the remediation objectives
established, and is capable of continuous, automated
operations.
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The 469-acre plant facility is six miles south of Shelby,
North Carolina, on Highway 198. The facility has
produced polyester resin and filament yarn since 1960.
During the years of plant expansion and growth, waste
disposal usually consisted of burning plant wastes
including polyester and miscellaneous trash in burn
pits and placing the debris in trenches near the burn
pit areas. Glycol Recovery Unit (GRU) sludge and
plastic chips were also placed in the trenches.
Hoechst-Celanese conducted the first environmental
investigation of groundwater at the facility in October
1981. In 1986 EPA and Hoechst-Celanese signed a
Consent Order in which the company agreed to
conduct treatment activities of contamination at the
site. The EPA Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study completed in June 1987 identified contamination
in the disposal pits/trenches, stream sediments, and
groundwater aquifer.
Because of the potential for contaminated groundwater
to migrate off-site, EPA split the cleanup action into
two operable units. Operable Unit #1 was designed %
a long-term remedial action tG pump and treat the
contaminated groundwater as well as to control the off-
site migration of the groundwater plume.
• The Record of Decision for Operable Unit #1 was
signed on March 23, 1988;
Shelby, Cleveland County, North Carolina
• Remedial Design was approved by EPA on
October 20, 1988;
• Construction of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system began in October 1988;
The system began operating on August 1, 1989.
The groundwater treatment system has been operating
for almost 5 years. Monitoring data and laboratory
results indicate that the system has consistently
achieved 90% contaminant removal efficiency and the .
effluent meets the required discharge permit
requirements.
The second phase, Operable Unit #2, was designed to
remediate the waste products and contaminated soil
from the burn pits/trenches and streambeds.
• The Feasibility Study for Operable Unit #2
completed in March 1989;
Record of Decision signed un March 28, 1989;
• Remedial Design signed on September 24, 1990;
• Construction activities began on site in January
1991;
The incinerator operated from April through
December 1991.
Once the soil and waste products had been treated,
the area was backfilled, the Site was regraded and
revegetated. This treatment process was completed
in September 1992.
The streambed remediation began on May 2, 1991,
and continued until May 15, 1991.
ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDUL.R SI ;OMPLETION • The Remedial Action Report for Operable Unit #1 was submitted to EPA in January 1993. The following schedule
indicates future activities to be completed:
Statutory Five-Year Review
Long-term monitoring/completion and
cleanup verification
Final Close-out report
October 24, 1993
September 30, 2023
September 30, 2023
EPA
P RP Contractor
EPA/State
EPA
Operable Unit #1 eliminates the principal threat pcsed by the contaminated groundwater at the Site by pumping and
treating the contaminated groundwater to health-based levels, and by reducing the migration rate of contaminated
groundwater across the property line by creating a hydraulic barrier. Measurable improvements of the water quality
in the aquifer should be obtainable due to the removal of the source wastes from the Site in 1991.
The Remedial Action Report for Operable Unit #2 was submitted to EPA in December 1992. The following activities
will be completed according to the schedule described below:
Statutory Five-year Review October 24, 1993 EPA
Long-term monitoring/completion
and cleanup verification
Concurrent with Operable Unit #1
Monitoring
P RP Contractor
EPA/State
· Final Close-out Report September 30, 2023 (Concurrent with
completion of Operable Unit #1)
EPA
Operable Unit #2 eliminates the principal threat of
source wastes from migrating into the groundwater
and adjacent streambeds by excavating and treating
the GRU sludge, burn pit materials, plastic chips, and
stream sediment. The remediation levels of the
source remedy are provided in the Record of Decision
and 100% Remedial Design Report for Operable Unit
#2.
THE SITE TODAY
The source of contamination has been cleaned up at
the Hoechst-Celanese Corporation Site, effectively
reducing the risk to public health and the environment.
The area to the rear of the plant where the burn
pits/trenches were located now looks like a rolling,
green lawn with several ponds and a small building
housing the machinery that treats and will continue to
treat the groundwater until it is cleaned up.
For more information about the Site, please call or
write:
McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
or
Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: 1-800-435-9233
or (404) 347-7791
Offlclal Bu1/neu
•
U.S. Envlronm,ntal Prot1c11on Agency
345 Court~nd s•Nt, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Penalty for Private UH $300
North Superlund Ramtdlal Branch
Diane Bamtt, Community R1latlon1 Coord.
McKenzie Ma.Dary, Rtmtdlal Project Manager
S/f
Mk• dkUCE NlCHULS □N SUPEkfUN □ SECl!ON
NC OtPT. UF ENVlk □NMtNT,
~ NATU~AL ~iSOUKC~S
•
HEALTH
p. u. aux 27667
kALE!GH NC 276ll-76e7
II 'I , 11 · ,,,_,,/1,,1,: ,,!il,,,I 1,,l,ii,,,l,ii,,,,, _,,,Ii"'" ''"'
••
/s-"~''"c ·--~," SUPERFUND FACT SHEET UPDATE
/' .. .,qq?. --~\ HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION \i ,f1_, \\ 9 " i! Shelby, Cleveland County, North Carolina
\'\'.':1:0,,
0
,,,,~,,:j;f/ December 1992
BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION, HISTORY AND
ACTIVITIES TO DATE
The Hoechst Celanese Corporation Shelby plant
is located on 469 acres, approximately one mile
north of Earl, North Carolina on Highway 198 and
6 miles south of Shelby, North Carolina. The plant
facilities consist of the plant production area,
wastewater treatment area, former waste disposal
areas, former sludge landfarm area, polishing
ponds, two emergency spill ponds and an addi-
tional aeration basin, and recreation and wooded
areas.
Fiber Industries, Inc., a joint venture of Celanese
Corporation and Imperial Chemicals, Inc., was the
original owner of the plant and operated it from
1960 until 1983 when the Celanese Corporation
bought out Imperial Chemical's share of the
facility. Manufacturing at this location included the
production of polyester polymer resin and filament
yarn. The principal chemicals involved in polymer
production are dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene
glycol. ·
Normal plant wastes (primarily polyester and
miscellaneous trash) were disposed of in old
burning pits located just north of the aeration
basins. North and east of the burn pits, glycol
recovery unit sludge was buried in trenches during
the early 1960's. Two other areas of buried waste
were located to the north of the main plant.
Hoechst Celanese began an investigation of the
Site in October 1981 contracting with Westing-
house to install 23 groundwater monitoring wells
which were sampled and analyzed by a certified
1
laboratory. Westinghouse also conducted a
hydrogeologic evaluation of the Site.
In June 1986, the Site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Hoechst Celanese signed a
Order on Consent agreeing to conduct the Reme-
dial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) which
was finalized in July 1987.
The identified areas needing remediation were the
former glycol recovery unit waste pits, other
adjacent disposal pits and stream sediments, and
groundwater contaminated by the waste in those
pits. Due to the potential of the contaminated
groundwater moving off-site, EPA approved a two-
phased clean up. These two phases were identi-
fied as Operable Unit 1 (OU) which involves
pumping and treating the groundwater, and Oper-
able Unit 2 involved treating the sludge, soil and
sediment associated with the trenches, burn pit
areas, and contaminated streambeds.
The Feasibility Study for OU 1 was completed in
February 1988; the Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed on March 23, 1988; Hoechst Celanese
signed a partial Consent Decree on June 30,
1988, agreeing to conduct the Remedial Design/
Remedial Action (RD/RA) for OU 1; design and
construction of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system was completed in August 1989,
addressing a variety of volatile organic com-
pounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, inorgan-
ic compounds, and metals.
There are two tiers of extraction wells. The inner
tier extraction and treatment system consists of 9
extraction wells, .an equalization tank, a metals
•
treatment process, a sequencing batch reactor
with associated manual nutrient and chemical
feed, and sludge handling equipment, an air
stripping tower, and a granulated activated carbon
adsorption system, The outer tier extraction and
treatment system consists of 8 extraction wells, an
equalization tank, an air stripping tower, and a
granulated activated carbon adsorption system, It
is expected that this pump-and-treat system will
operate for the next 30 years,
The Feasibility Study for OU 2 was final in April
1989; the Record of Decision was signed in 1989
selecting incineration and solidification as the
remedy; Hoechst Celanese signed a Consent
Decree on June 19, 1989, agreeing to conduct the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) for OU
2; the RD/RA was completed and approved by
EPA in September 1990; development and imple-
mentation of the remedy began in January 1991
and was successfully completed in September
1992,
Based on the record of operations of the incinera-
tor, approximately 4,549 tons of sludge, stained
·•.•l'O.• ... ..,_
•• .....,. f'OC)
.. ,-11(911-111
•
soils and associated contaminated soils were
excavated and incinerated from the project site,
An additional 111 tons of clean soil were incinerat-
ed as part of the incineration optimization process,
Approximately 3,259 tons of burn pit materials and
plastic chips were excavated from the project site
and solidified, Approximately 8,690 cubic yards of
materials were solidified with cement and placed
into the excavated areas, covered with soil, grad-
ed and revegetated, The solidified materials
consisted of substances from the burn pit, plastic
chips, stream sediments, as well as the ash from
the incineration process,
It is considered that the above treatments have
eliminated the potential risk to human health and
the environment A Maintenance and Operation
phase will continue at the Site to monitor the
groundwater treatment system to ensure efficiency
of the operation until remediation of the contami-
nated groundwater has been completed,
Site maps designate the sludge disposal and burn
pit areas as well as extraction wells and ground-
water treatment facility,
',i
• I -":.:::.-:,.. I "~ '>
{, ~-u // 1 e--"'""'"""~ \ ,
//,v Iii"' I''"· !>~,:-_ " ' ,..._ /' JI!; !HU _::,~•\ '\ 11/
v /f =-~,1 •••• H ... , , ;~-?; \--\ 11; ~ I //r2~~')1 ···· .... :,,\-'~ ',.~" '• '\, I' L{ClHD ·+· • IHAIWl1J lU lIIJ.lCIQj -.il\
(Z] • callN!ltTO .. ,not flCUII
~ ,10.IIQ 1111,
/ "'-:::-·. , ~ '
/ "':::-~· · OT-4
Ii) ~~
0 L.uef:AT ~ ~ ~
0 ·,t l STE.. ')I 11'.
II • ' r ~'!!.' '"" II •• , •• -.... II ,,: .........
(') " .....
Documentation of the activities, studies, investiga-
tions, data from samples taken, reports and all
documents developed during this Superfund
process used to make a selection of the remedies
used at the Hoechst Celanese Corporation Site
are housed in the information repositories located
at:
Cleveland County Memorial Library
104 Howie Drive
Shelby, North Carolina 28038
Phone (704) 487-9069
and
EPA, Region 4 Record Center
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: (404) 347-0506
3
,. • '1QJD!&fll flOI
"'•Nl.is.,cNI
SP . Sl.t..OCoE POI-O
01-1
OT·U
0
K.u•ru1
We encourage the public to review this information
in order to obtain a better understanding of the
events that have transpired during this process. ·
For more information about the Site, past and
on-going activities, please call:
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
or
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: 1-800-435-9233
or (404) 347-7791
Region 4
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Counland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
•
; i, \. \., ·-' , , ! .. , .. ,;_.: I
North Superfund RemJqial Branch /:: .' ' ;\
Diane Barrett, Community-R~liltions.Coord, ·,
McKenzie Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
l,,1,ll,,,l,ll,,,,,ll,,,lll,,,lll,,,l,,l,l,,,1,,,111
. '
Superfund Remedial
Design Update Hoechst Celanese Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
======March 1991
lntrod uction
This update fact sheet is the most recent of
several that the Region IV Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pre-
pared to describe the Hoechst Celanese
(Celanese) Superfund site in Cleveland
County, North Carolina. EPA is directing
cleanup activities at the site under authority of
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA, or "Superfund"), as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
This fact sheet reports the status of the reme-
dial activities under way at the site's second
major cleanup unit, Operable Unit Two (OU
Two). OU Two deals with the source material
contaminating ground water, which currently
is being treated under Operable Unit One, and
the associated contaminated soils and stream
sediments present at the Celanese site.
After providing a brief summary of the back-
ground and history of the site, this fact sheet
describes key elements of the OU Two reme-
dial design and notes a tentative time frame for
the completion of remedial activities. Previ-
ous fact sheets described he Remedial Inves-
tigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process and
the findings that led to EPA's preferred alter-
native for addressing the OU Two source
contamination.
Site fact sheets, the OU Two FS report, and
other pertinent site documents are on file in
two community information repositories,
which are listed at the end of this fact sheet.
Site Background and History
The Celanese site is a 466-acre property lo-
cated one mile north of Earl, North Carolina,
and six miles south of Shelby, along North
Carolina's Highway 198. Since 1960, the
Celanese plant has produced polyester chip
and filament thread. Polyester chip is used for
a wide range of molded products, such as
typewriter keys and automotive parts. Syn-
thetic chemicals, such as dimethyl tereptha-
late and ethylene glycol, are combined to
produce polyester chip. Until about 1972, an
ethylene glycol recovery unit (GAU) was part
of the manufacturing process. Solid residues
from this recovery unit were buried in shallow
trenches on the site.
Since 1972, GAU residues have been sent to
another plant for further recovery processing.
The terrace area containing the residue
trenches has been seeded and is maintained
as a lawn. The terrace lawn also covers former
burn pit areas, which were open, shallow
. .
holes used to burn plant waste, such as off-
specification resins and yarns, oils, laboratory
solvents, and chemicals ..
Following negotiations with EPA, Celanese
signed an Administrative Consent Order in March 1986. In the Consent Order, Celanese
agreed to address contamination resulting
• Construction of the OU One extraction and
treatment system began in the Fall of 1988 with the installation of 17 extraction wells. The
actual extraction/treatment process began in August 1989 and is expected to continue for at least several years. EPA will monitor ongoing
testing of the treated ground water to ensure
the adequacy of the treatment and to deter-
HOECHST CELANESE SITE SUPERFUND PROCESS
Completed To Be Completed -~--:,
RcmcdiaJ onitoring &
Action EvaluaLiori
--;;;.J Community relations activities occur throughout the Superfund process.
from the former waste disposal processes at
the site. In June 1986, EPA added the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous
waste sites; NPL sites are eligible for federal . cleanup-funds:Celanese,.through its contrac-
tor, S&ME, Inc., (now known as Westinghouse
Environmental and Geotechnical Services,
Inc.) conducted the RI/FS at the site under
EPA supervision. This activity was performed
to analyze the nature and extent of any haz-
ardous waste contamination on, or originating
from, the Celanese site, and to evaluate po-tential cleanup alternatives. The RI was
completed in June 1987. It determined that
site contamination existed in two components:
1) the lawn area containing former GAU waste
pits and burn pits along with stream sediments
that became contaminated by run-off from this area and 2) ground water contaminated by the
wastes in these pits.
EPA approved a two-phased cleanup action,
identifying OU One as focusing on contami-
nated ground water and OU Two on the soils,
stream sediments, and sludges associated
with the former GAU trenches and burn pit
areas on the site.
mine when ground water cleanup has been completed.
OU Two: Several Integrated Components
for Source Control
To arrive at a remedy for source material at the site, S&ME undertook several activities in-
cluding:
_2.
• Chemical analyses on soil,
ground water, surface water
and sediment samples
• Additional sampling rounds
to assess the extent and
placement of the various
types of buried materials
• Chemical characterization
studies of the waste materials
to determine how they could
be best handled
• Screening fourteen treatment
technologies and performing
detailed evaluations of the
• mained viable after the screen-
ing process, and
must be considered for all Superfuod remedial actions and they must be weighed together. They include: • Studying each alternative
according to selection criteria • established by the Superfund
program.
The viable treatment alternatives for the bur-ied materials, which survived the screening • process, included:
• On-site incineration with off-
site disposal of residuals
(residue from the incineration
process)
• Off-site incineration
• On-site incineration with
chemical fixation of residuals
• Wet air oxidation
•
•
Composting (static pile or
windrow methods), and
Landfilling off-site.
•
•
•
S&ME also considered the alternative of tak-• ing no action at the site, as required by the Superfund process, to provide a baseline assessment of what is needed at a site. The no action alternative also provides a standard • of comparison for evaluating other alterna-tives.
Site Selection Evaluation Criteria •
Overall protection of human health
and the environment --adequate
elimination, reduction, or control of all potential risks posed by the site
Compliance with applicable or rele-
vant and appropriate Federal or State public health or environmental stan-
dards, unless a waiver is warranted
where protection is ensured
Long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence of the remedy
Reduction of the toxicity (harmful-
ness), mobility (potential and ten-
dency to move), or volume of hazard-
ous substances or contaminants
Short-term effectiveness of.the rem-edy, or in other words, the impacts
the remedy might have on the com-
munity, workers, or the environment
during its actual implementation
Implementability, or the capability for a selected remedy to work at a spe-
cific site
Cost-effectiveness of construction,
operation, and maintenance of the al-ternative over the life of the project,
Acceptance by the State, and
• Acceptance by the community.
S&ME applied the following nine selection criteria to each alternative. These criteria
-3
The nine criteria for selecting an alternative will vary in importance depending on site-specific conditions.
EPA's Selected Alternative page five of this fact sheet)
The Remedial Design
In carrying ·out the remedy, contractors will
perform several integrated activities under
EPA supervision. They will:
When considering each alternative, EPA
weighed all of the criteria together and con-
cluded that on-site incineration, in combina-
tion with chemical fixation, provides the best
overall protection of human health and the
environment. This treatment combination
destroys contaminants and renders them inert •
at the location in which they are found.
EPA proposed the remedy to the public
through a number of public outreach mecha-
nisms including a fact sheet, a display notice
in The Shelby Star. a February 16, 1989 public
information meeting, and a 21-day public •
comment period which concludedon March 9,
1989. EPA received no comments from the
public that presented evidence to alter the
remedy decision, therefore, the Agency is-
sued a Record of Decision (ROD) confirming •
the remedy selection on March 28, 1989.
Further detail on the screening and evaluation
of the clean-up alternatives for OU T\·10, in-
cluding the reasons for rejecting an alterna-•
tive, can be reviewed in the ROD and in the FS,
which are housed in the two site information
repositories: In addition, detailed information
' on incineration technology has been placed in •
the repositories for interested citizens. (See
Secondary ---....
.---,
Pugmlll
;
Dumar ~ .. C c .g
~ 0 0
Use backhoes to excavate approxi-
mately 1,500 cubic yards (cy) of GRU
· sludges, 600 cy of plastic chips, 1,200
cy of burn pit residuals, 11 o cy of
stream sediments, and 500 cy of
underlying soils
Incinerate approximately 2,000 cy
of contaminated soils and GRU
sludges on-site in a rotary kiln incin-
erate (See diagram below)
Chemically-fixate or solidify incinera-
tor ash, plastic chips, burn pit resid-
uals and stream sediments
Dispose of the inert, solidified mater-
ial on-site in the original excavated
locations
Regrade and cover the excavated
areas with topsoil, re-seed them, and
Packed
olumn
MOBILE ROTARY INCINERATOR
4 -
• Monitor the environmental conditions at the site for a period potentially up to 30 years ..
The following two paragraphs briefly describe the two major technologies to be employed at the site during Operable Unit Two.
Rotary kiln incineration is a process in which solid and liquid hazardous wastes are fed into a rotating chamber where they are exposed to temperatures ranging from 1500 to 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat reduces or-ganic (carbon-containing) compounds into their basic atomic elements, for example, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. In combina-tion with oxygen, these form stable com-pounds such as water, carbon dioxide and
nitrogen oxides.
In chemical fixation, a fixating material like cement or coal fly ash is mixed with the wastes. A chemical reaction occurs between this fixating agent and the chemical contami-nants in the waste. The result: formation of strong chemical bonds which immobilize the contaminants. Once chemically bonded, the contaminants do not leach into the soil or ground water.
Construction activities for Operable Unit Two began in the fall of 1990. The excavation and incineration of waste and the solidification process will begin in March 1991. The planned completion date for Operable Unit Two is November 1991.
I ::::al For more information contact: •
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager · U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Cou.rtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-n91
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-n91
Information Repositories
Site Information is housed in the site community at the two information repositories listed below. The Cleveland County Library repository is also the designated location for EPA's Administra-tive Record for the site, that is, all the studies and reports EPA used when selecting the remedy.
Cleveland County Memorial Library
104 Howie Drive
Shelby, North Carolina 28038
Attn: Carol Wilson
(704)487-9069
--5
Lavender Residence
Highway 198-South and Cemetery Street Earl, North Carolina 28038
Attn: Ms. Jackie Lavender
(704) 428-4624
-----•--------•-----
Superfund Update
Celanese Fibers Operations Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
February 1989
Introduction
This fact sheet is the most recent of several that have
been prepared by the Region IV Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to describe the
Celanese Fibers Operations (CFO) Supertund site in
Cleveland County, North Carolina. EPA is overseeing
activities at the CFO site under authority of the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or "Supertund"), as
amended by the Supertund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
The purpose of this fact sheet is to inform interested
citizens and local officials of the nature and status of
EPA's activtties at the CFO site. Specifically, the fact
sheet provides a brief background and site history. In
addition, tt describes current cleanup actions and stud-
ies being conducted at the site as part of the remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) process set
forth under the Supertund program.
The fact sheet focuses on a second component of the RI/
FS, referred to as operable untt two (OU Two), which
deals wtth the source contamination at the site. The fact
sheet describes the OU Two FS findings and EPA's
preferred alternative for addressing this contamination.
lntormatior. on OU One was presented in EPA fact
sheets distributed in January and August 1988. On
January 27, 1989, EPA distributed the OU Two FS
preI;;;iinary draft report to the site communit/s ·two
information reposttories so that area citizens could have
an ~pwrtuntty to review the information. Additional op··
portu.~1ies !or public i11voIvement are discussed under
the Next Steps r:,v,fa:n of this fact sheet.
Site Background and History
The CFO site is a 466-acre property located one mile
north of Earl, North Caroii;·,a, and six miles south of
Shelby, along North ca,olina's Highway 198. Since
1960, the CFO plant ha,. produced polyester chip and
filament thread. Poiyester chip is used for a wide range
of molded products, such as typewriter keys and auto-
motive parts. Synthetic chemicals, such as dimethyl
terephthalate and ethylene glycol, are combined to
produce polyester chip. Until about 1972, an ethylene
glycol recovery unit (GRU) was part of the manufacturing
process. Solid residues from this recovery unit were
buried in shallow trenches on the site.
Since 1972, GRU residues have been sent to another
plant for further recovery processing. The terrace area
containing the residue trenches has been seeded and is
maintained as a lawn. The terrace lawn also covers
former burn pit areas, which were open, shallow holes
used to burn plant waste: such as off-specification ·resins
and yarns, oils, laboratory solvents, and chemicals.
Following negotiations with EPA, CFO signed an Admin-
istrative Consent Order in March 1986. In the Consent
Order, CFO agreed to address contamination resulting
from the former waste disposal practices at the site. In
June 1986, EPA added the site to the National Priorities
List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites; NPL sites are
eligible for federal cleanup funds. CFO, through its
contractor, S&ME, Inc., conducted a remedial investiga-
tion and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site under EPA
supervision. This activity was pertormed to analyze the
nature and extent of any hazardous waste contamina-
tion on, or originating from, the CFO site, and to evaluate
potential cleanup alternatives. The RI was completed in
June 1987. It determined that site contamination oxi;;ied
in two components: 1) the lawn area cont~ir,ir,g iormer
GRU waste pits and burn pits along wi:i1 stream sedi-
ments that became contaminated by run-off from this
area and 2) qround water contaminc1.ted by the wastes in
these pits.
Two.-Phased Cleanup: OU One and OU Two
EPA approved a two-phased cleanup action, idenlifying
the two phases as operable unit one (OU One) and
operable unit two (OU Two). OU One focuses on the
contaminated ground water and OU Two focuses on the
Page 1
~
soils, stream sediments, an.dges associated with
the former GRU trenches and burn pit areas on the site.
In August 1988, EPA distributed a fact sheet describing
the elements of the ground-water extraction and treat-
ment system in OU One. Construction of this system
has begun with the installation of 17 extraction wells.
This fact sheet focuses on the FS for OU Two and EPA's
preferred alternative for cleaning up the contaminated
soils, sludges, and sediments. S&ME submitted the
preliminary draft FS report to EPA in December 1988.
OU Two
In order to recommend a permanent, protective, and
cost-effective remedy for OU Two, S&ME first conducted
additional sampling rounds to assess the extent and
placement of the various types of buried materials. In ad-
dition, chemical characterization studies of the waste
materials were performed to determine how they could
be best handled. After drilling an additional 115 soil
borings, constructing test trenches to inspect the mate-
rials, and extracting samples of the wastes, S&ME
estimated that a total of 3600 cubic yards (cy) of source
materials are present. This includes 1800 cy of GRU
wastes, 1200 cyof burn pit materials and 600 cy of plastic
chips and solids. The materials vary in consistency from
liquids to a paste-like substance and cinder-like par-
ticles.
In conjunction with the waste characterization studies,
S&ME screened fourteen technologies for addressing
contaminated soils and sludges. These ranged from
placing a cap over the lawn area or grading it, to exca-
vating and thermally destroying the wastes. S&ME then
narrowed the selection process by further evaluating
technologies that appeared to have the most potential to
permanently destroy or detox tty waste. Firms specializ-
ing in the selected technologies were contracted to
perform small-scale tests on handling and treating the
wastes. The technologies that demonstrated the best
treatment were tested on larger scale systems to prop-
erly and adequately evaluate their full-scale perform-
ance.
The screening and testing effort demonstrated several
viable treatment atternatives for the buried materials .
These are:
On-site incineration with off-site disposal of residu-
als (residue from the
incineration process)
Off-site incineration
On-site incineration with
Page 2
cheneixaHon of residuals
Wet air oxidation
Composting (static pile or
windrow methods)
Landfill off-site.
Four of the six alternatives involve some type of ther,nal
treatment of wastes. Two of these entailed on-site
incineration in a rotary kiln incinerator but with different
methods to handle the residues from the incineration
process. In one, residues would be transported for dis-
posal in a landfill permitted and monitored under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
other alternative would use chemical fixation of the
residues on-site.
A third form of thermal treatment consisted of wet air
oxidation and the fourth, excavation and transport of the
wastes to an off-site incinerator. The report did not spec-
ify the off-site incinerator technology.
In addition to thermal treatment methods, the FS deter-
mined that composting and disposal of wastes in an off.
stte RCRA-permitted landfill are viable remedies. A
question remains, however, as to whether the Federal
ban on land disposal of certain hazardous wastes would
apply to the CFO site wastes. The box on page 3
presents capsule descriptions of the alternatives men-
tioned above.
S&ME also considered the alternative of taking no action
at the site. The Superfund process requires EPA and
PRPs who conduct the RI/FS to evaluate potential-
threats to human health and the environment if no action
were taken to clean up site contamination. Evaluation of
the "no action" alternative provides a baseline assess-
ment of what is needed at a site. It also provides a
standard of comparison for evaluating other alternatives.
OU Two Selection Criteria
S&ME studied each alternative according to several
selection criteria established by the Superfund program.
All of the criteria must be weighed together.
One of the major criteria is the technical feaslblity of the
remedy, such as its ease of construction, demonstrated
effectiveness, and suitability to specttic site character-
istics. In addition, feasibility is measured according to
the useful ttte (permanence) of the remedy, operation
and maintenance requirements involved, and pcssible
failures that could occur.
A second major criterion is activeness of public
health. Public health-related concerns include, for ex-
ample, how well the remedy permanently reduces the
toxicity or mobility of contaminants or eliminates expo-
sure pathways by which populations could come in
contact with contamination. Secondary effects of a
particular treatment method also are considered; for
example, whether the primary treatment could release
contaminants to the atmosphere. Risks to workers
during the construction of the remedy also are evalu-
ated.
Institutional factors are a third selection criterion. These
include, for example, whether and how a particular
remedy meets applicable local, State, and Federal
permitting regulations or whether a remedy is accept-
able to the community.
A fourth key criterion for each alternative is cost. Accord-
ing to CERCLA and EPA policy, cost is a consideration
in selection of a remedy, but not more important than
protection of human health and the environment.
Based on an analysis of the alternatives using these
criteria, the "no action" alternative was rejected. Table I
in Appendix A summarizes the technical, public health,
and institutional considerations of each alternative and
lists its cost. Further detail on the screening and
evaluation of the clean-up alternatives for OU Two,
including the reasons for rejecting an alternative, is pre-
sented in the FS. The FS, along with other key site
documents, is available for review in the two site informa-
Rotary kiln Incineration is a process in which
solid and liquid hazardous wastes are fed into a
rotating chamber where they are exposed totem-
peratures ranging from 1500 to 3000 Fahrenheit.
The heat reduces organic (carbon-containing)
compounds into their basic atomic elements, for
example, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. In
combination with oxygen, these form stable·com-
pounds such as water, carbon dioxide and nitro-
gen oxides.
In chemical fixation, a fixating material like ce-
ment or coal fly ash is mixed with the wastes. A
chemical reaction occurs between .this fixating
agent and the chemical contaminants in the waste.
This results in the formation of strong chemical
bonds that immobilize the contaminants. Once
chemically bonded. they do not leach into the soil
or ground water.
lion reposiiorie.ee page 4 of this fact sheet_)
EPA's Preferred Alternative
EPA recognized that thermal destruction of the source
materials offered a permanent, technically feasible treat-
ment method for the CFO site. On-site incineration
offers the added benefit of reducing transportation costs
and elimin-ating possible chemical releases from trans-
portation mishaps. Based on these considerations, and
weighing all the selection criteria, EPA selected on-site
incineration with chemical fixation of residuals as its
preferred alternative for remediation of source contami-
nation at the CFO site.
Next Steps
On February 16, 1989, EPA WIii initiate a 21-day
public comment period on the proposed alterna-
tive. In addition, the Agency will host a pub lie
information meeting, on Thursday, February 16,
1989 at 7:00 p.m. at the Cleveland County Office
Building In Shelby to hear questions or com-
ments from site area residents.
After evaluating comments and questions or concerns
expressed by the public, EPA will prepare a Record of
Decision (ROD) for OU Two. The ROD will describe the
selected remedy and the reasons for choosing it. This
document also will be placed in the site information
repositories after it has been reviewed and approved by
the EPA Regional Administrator.
Wet air oxidation is a technology that uses llame-
less combustion at temperatures of 350-to-680
degrees Fahrenheit. It destroys or significantly
reduces the concentrations of toxics or heal resis-
tant compounds in wastewater and can deslroy
sludge. It is a sealed process that eliminates air
pollution problems.
Composting is a process in which was!e is either
stacked and covered as in the static pile method
or placed outdoors in linear piies as in the wind-
row method, tt1en exposed to air (aerated) for
three to six weeks. Bacteria or other biological
micro-organisms digest or break down the or-
ganic matter in the waste. For some non-hazard-
ous, domestic wastes, the resulting decomposed
material can be used for fertilizer. Technical
experts and researchers are still investigating
similar applications for hazardous waste.
Page 3
• • The Cleveland County Library information repository is For Further Information, contact: he designated location of EPA's Administrative Record
Michelle Glenn
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-7791_
Michael Henderson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3004
for the site, .is, all the studies and reports used by EPA in its selection of a remedy. EPA will publish a newspaper notice of the availability of these documents as well as a notice·of the public meeting.
Information Repositories
Information repositories have been established at two locations near the site:
Cleveland County Memorial Library
104 Howie Drive
Shelby, North Carolina 28038
Attn: Carol Wilson
(704) 487-9069
Lavender Residence
Highway 198-South and Cemetery Street Earl, North Carolina 28038
Attn: Ms. Jackie Lavender
(704) 428-4624
,------------------------------------7
I MAILING LIST ADDITIONS I I To be placed on the mailing list to receive information on the I I CFO Site, I I please fill out and mail this form to: I I Michelle Glenn, Supertund Branch, U.S. EPA -Region IV, I I 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30365 I I
I I Name ________________________ I I
I I Address ________________________ I I
I / Affiliation -------------------------
/ I Phone -----------------------I I
I ·-------
-
----
-
-
---
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
---___,
Page 4
• •
Superfund Update
Celanese Fibers Operations Site
&i EPA Cleveland County, North Carolina
RegionfV. _______________ ·December 1988
OPERABLE UNIT TWO FACT SHEET.
Introduction
This fact sheet on the Celanese Fibers Op-
erations (CFO) Superfund site in Cleveland
County, North Carolina, has been prepared by
the Region IV Office of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is overseeing
activities at the CFO site under the authority of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA, or "Superfund"), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-
zation Act of 1986 (SARA). The purpose of
this fact sheet is to inform interested citizens
and local officials of the nature and status of
EPA's activities at the CFO site. Specifically,
the fact sheet provides a brief background and
site history, and describes current cleanup
actions and studies being conducted at the
site as part of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) process set forth under
the Superfund program. Opportunities for
public involvement are also discussed.
Site Background and History
The CFO site is a 466 acre property located
one mile north of Earl, North Carolina, and six
miles south of Shelby, along North Carolina's
Highway 198. Since 1960, the CFO plant has
produced polyester chip and filament thread.
Polyester chip is used for a wide range of
molded products, such as typewriter keys and
automotive parts. Synthetic chemicals, such
as dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol,
are combined to produce polyester chip. Until
about 1972, an ethylene glycol recovery unit
was part of the manufacturing process. Solid
residues from this recovery unit were buried in
shallow trenches on the site. Since 1972 . . '
residues from the recovery unit have been
sent to another plant for further recovery proc-
essing. The area containing the residue
trenches has been seeded and is maintained
as a lawn. The lawn also covers former burn
pit areas, which were open, shallow holes
used to burn plant waste, such as off-specifi-
cation resins and yarns, oils, laboratory sol-
vents, arid chemicals.
Following negotiations with EPA from 1984 to
1986, CFO signed an Administrative Consent
Order in March 1986. Through the Consent
Order, CFO agreed to address contamination
left from former manufacturing lprocesses at
the site. In June 1986, the EPA added the site
to the National Priorities List (NPL) of hazard-
ous waste sites. NPL sites are eligible for
Page 1
• federal cleanup funds. CFO, through its con-
tractor, SME, Inc., conducted an RI/FS at the
site under EPA supervision. The RI was
completed in June 1987 and determined that
two areas of the site need to be addressed:
former glycol recovery unit waste pits and
groundwater contaminated by the wastes in
these pits.
Due to the groundwater contamination and
the potential for it to move off-site, EPA
approved SME's proposal for a two-phased
cleanup action. These two phases are iden-
tified as operable unit one (OU One), which
focuses on the contaminated groundwater
and operable unit two (OU Two), which fo-
cuses on the soils and sludges associated
with the former glycol recovery unit trenches
and burn pit areas. In March 1988, EPA
signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU
One I, which describes EPA's choice of
cleanup measures. The Record of Decision
for OU Two is scheduled to be signed in
March 1989 ..
Two Phases: OU One and OU Two
In OU One groundwater will be pumped and
treated using two sets, or tiers, of extraction
wells and a series of treatment techniques.
These techniques include biological treat-
ment (bacteria or other microorganisms break
down organic compounds into non-hazard-
ous compounds like carbon dioxide), airstrip-
ping (air and contaminated water are forced
through a column, causing certain volatile
organic compounds to evaporate), and car-
bon adsorption (carbon granules attract the
molecules of hazardous chemicals that were
not evaporated by air stripping). Each tech-
nique has been selected to handle specific
. concentrations and types of contamination.
The system design includes nine wells con-
structed close to the source of the groundwa-
Page 2
• ter contamination and a second set of eight
wells placed at the perimeter of the site prop-
erty. The purpose of the second tier of extrac-
tion wells is to remove contaminated ground-
waterthat might escape the inner tier of wells.
SME's preliminary tests of the inner tier of
wells indicated that the contaminated.
groundwater has high concentrations of
iron. The iron interferred with the ability of
microorganisms to break down the chemical
compounds in the testing apparatus for the
treatment system. SME revised the system
by adding an initial treatment to remove the
iron from the groundwater before treatment.
Construction of extraction wells for the
treatment system began in October 1988
and construction of the treatment system
itself is targeted for February or March of
1989. Operation of the pumping and treat-
ment system is scheduled to begin in the
. Spring and will continue until the contami-
nation has been removed. The entire effort
could take several years.
OU Two will address the contqmination of the
soil/sludge found in the glycol recovery unit
pits. In order to recommend a permanent,
protective, and cost-effective remedy, how-
ever, SME must determine how the mixture of
buried materials can best be handled. The
make-up of the materials varies, ranging from
a paste-like substance to liquids and cinder-
like particles. SME evaluated several techni-
cal approaches and contracted with firms
specializing in these technologies to perform
pilottests on handling and treating ttie wastes.
Among the technologies being tested are:
• Solidification -a process through which
certain types of hazardous wastes can be
solidified through the addition of a fixating
material like cement or coal fly ash. A
chemie;al reaction occurs between the
waste or contaminants and the fixating
agent which results in the formation of
• strong chemical bonds that immobilize
the contaminants. Once solidified, the
waste can more easily be transported to
a hazardous waste disposal facility.
• Biodegradation -a process by which
waste is placed into a large, lined basin
and exposed to air (aerated) for several
hours. Bacteria or other biological micro-
organisms digest or breakdown (degrade)
the organic matter in the waste.
• Wet air oxidation -a technology that
uses flameless combustion to destroy or
significantly reduce the concentrations of
toxics or heat resistant compounds in
wastewater and can destroy sludge. It is
a sealed process that eliminates air pollu-
tion problems.
• Rotary kiln incineration -a process
through which solid and liquid hazardous
wastes are fed into a rotating chamber in
which temperatures ranging from 1800 to
2500 F break down organic (carbon con-
tainlng) compounds into their basic atomic
elements, for example, hydrogen, nitro-
gen, and carbon. In combination with
oxygen, these form stable compounds
such as water, carbon dioxide and nitro-
gen oxides
SME will complete its analyses of the various
handling methods in December 1988. It will
submit the draft feasibility study for OU Two
to EPA the same month. This report will
describe and evaluate all the alternatives
considered for removing and treating the
source material wastes. EPA, in turn, will
evaluate the report and prepare its proposed
cleanup plan (Proposed Plan) for this oper-
able unit.
Community Involvement
EPA will make the OU Two draft feasibility
• study and EPA's Proposed Plan for cleanup of
the source material available to the public in
early 1989. The Agency then will hold a public
information meeting to answer questions from
citizens and officials in the site community. In
addition, EPA will hold a public comment pe-
riod on the FS and Proposed Plan prior to
selecting the remedy. After evaluating com-
ments and questions or concerns expressed
by the public, EPA will prepare a ROD for OU
Two. The ROD will describe the selected
remedy and the reasons for choosing it. As
with OU One, the RI/FS, ROD, and other major
reports on the second operable unit will be
placed in the site information repositories listed
below. The Cleveland County Library informa-
tion repository also will house a copy of all
studies and reports used by EPA in its selec-
tion of a remedy. These documents comprise
EPA's Administrative Record for the site. EPA
will publish a newspaper notice of the availabil-
ity of these documents as well as a notice of the
public meeting.
For more information contact:
Michelle Glenn
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3402
Michael Henderson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-5254
Page 3
• Information Repositories have been
established at these two locations near the site:
Cleveland County Memorial Library
1 04 Howie Drive
Shelby, North Carolina 28150
Attn: Carol H. Wilson
(7 04 )487 -9069
Lavender Residence
Highway 198-South and Cemetery Street
Earl, North Carolina 28038
Attn: Ms. Jackie Lavender
(704) 428-4624
•
•
FACTSH[E[El
CFO SUPERFUND SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Celanese Fibers Operations Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
'
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet has been prepared by Region IV of
the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
part of EPA's Superfund public outreach efforts. A
Superfund cleanup effort is now under way at the
Celanese Fibers Operations (CFO) site. Contamina-
tion of ground water in certain areas of the site property
was confirmed in 1983 by Soil and Material Engineers,
Inc. (SME), the finn hired by CFO to perform ground-
water monitoring tests. In 1984, the site was proposed
for the National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous
waste sites identified for cleanup under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). From that point, EPA and
company representatives proceeded with discussions
regarding steps to clean up the site. In 1986, the site's
addition to the NPL became final. Under an Adminis-
trative Order on Consent signed the same year by EPA
and CFO, the company conducted a rernedial investiga-
tion (RI) to determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation found at the site. The RI was performed by SME
under EPA 's supervision, assisted by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc. (CDM), a finn contracted by the Agency
for oversight responsibilities. As oversight contractor,
CDM'srole was to monitor and report on all work plans
and procedures, and to assess the adequacy of RI
findings. The results of the RI were presented at a
public meeting July 21, 1987, in Shelby, North Caro-
lina. In addition, the RI findings were summarized in
a site fact sheet that was presented to interested citizens
and local officials. Proceedings of the public meeting,
including comments expressed by members of the
public, were recorded and will be incorporated in
EPA's Responsiveness Summary and Administrative
Record. The Responsiveness Summary is EPA's sum-
mary of comments received during public comment
periods, and the Agency's response to th~se comments.
It is included in EPA's Record of Decision, which
describes the remedy chosen and documents the proc-
•
~,1i~O Sr,i~ ,~~~,EPA
'<'~I~/ REGION IV
l. PRO"I
January 1988 . ,
ess and justification for iL~ selection. The Administra-
tive Record is the entire compilation of technical re-
ports, regulatory documents, and public comments
used as EPA's basis for selecting the site remedy.
Based on the RI findings, SME performed a feasi-
bility study (FS) to review and evaluate alternatives for
addressing the contamination problem. Included in the
feasibility study was a public health evaluation of the
risk involved if no action were to be taken at the site.
The draft feasibility study report was completed and
submitted to EPA in November 1987.
This fact sheet briefly summarizes the findings of
the RI as they relate to the FS. It also describes the
feasibility study process and conclusions, and notes the
next steps in the cleanup process.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND NATURE OF
CONTAMINATION PROBLEM
The CFO site is a 450-acre property located one
mile north of Earl, North Carolina, and six miles south
of Shelby, along NorLfi Carolina Highway 198. Since
1960, the CFO plant (formerly Fiber Industries) has
produced polyester filament yam and polyester chip.
Polyester chip is used for a wide range of molded
products, such as typewriter key caps and automotive
components. Chip is also melted and stretched into
filament threads or yams then woven into fabric for
apparel,· home furnishings, and industrial products.
Synthetic chemicals such as dimethyl terephthalate and
ethylene glycol arc combined to produce the polyester
chip.
Until about 1972 an ethylcn~ glycol recovery unit
was part of the manufacturing process. Solid residues
from this recovery unit were buried in shallow trenches
in an area cast of the manufacturing buildings. Since
Page 1
• 1972, residues from the recovery unit have been sent to
another plant for further recovery processing. The area
containing the residue trenches was since seeded and
maintained as a lawn. In addition to the residue
trenches, the lawn overlays fonner pit burn areas where
open bunkers were used to burn plant wastes, such as
off-specification resins and yarns, oils, and laboratory
solvents and chemicals.
Several hundred drums of various wastes had also
been stored in the vicinity east of the manufacturing
buildings from the early 1970's until 1978, when they
were removed for appropriate waste disposal.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
DETERMINATIONS
The testingperfonned under the scope of the RI de-
tennined that the western terrace portion of the lawn
was the primary contaminant source area of the site.
Well monitoring at on-site and off-site stations and soil
core samples taken from on and off-site locations
demonstrated that the highest concentrations of or-
.• ,·· \-"''.fl.",;•-,~-.,,,..~,c,·•· {•::•'',,->j_•t .,.-,
!'.•;What i~:ii'R.en1ediaHnyestigaJiori?, . ; . . . . :~ f: /~~r '.:t,:!~;-_.;.-.~i·1::·:;~_ . _: :~l~1 .. -·~~\~-it:•; ... \.~ .... _.-·,.. .
'.·:1}?,erijtdi.\l:1:,!~Y~~tiga![d?•~)?~· ~fi11tfilivf st_udy
;-;o,f:a'Superfimd'-slte.'; •Jti1s:cam<:!l',ouy by, a .team of·
tne,alth ~p\rivironmenial!spe,c_ialis~·:such as hydro-..
"'ge_ologisis;:engineers aild,biologists to determine the
. existerice and. exai:t nature of any hazardous waste
;; contam'fi:iatfoii', iihd ~~fbciunctaiies•or ·exteiihif:any
l•tciritruri"inati6fr i'o~ndToii;thf sitl'. ; · ,' ': . · ·
t;}~. ::.:. :.:~:;·i·:~~{.-: ... , .-., ,: .. /-:t~----~< .. · :~t, .. -~ . _: . . .
1•~ypically~an1RFi-epoit,describes'.the,type;and extent· · .. ·,· .;.1:..;..i-,,,'ll-'l',.;.•1--.••-··_ ;, ':'.r..,:.1.•.·:::.,;,~:•.:·i•-·,,;:;-. .1-' -::..., • , ,,of ons1te,andJoffs1tetcontammat10n,.effects·:of,con-·
;1'i'!uninatibn\',ffoifacei~~te'i•:iill:!,gi6/i~o<water;.aild'.::
i ihefoe'g'rdi:orFcbritamifiitio~;.'iri; ilie, s~il~,To achieve" :-:·~.\" : .. ,, : .-,,_.. ·'. i• .-·• . ';,.,.'-_'._ ~ •. ' ·,,. -• ' '·~-•) • ' -~-• ,·. . -trese fihd_ings:1.contrac\ofs_i*ed·.by tlje poterytially ·
.;;~sponiib/ ti'P.~rti.es (P_~s) '·ta]c!i'.~jmp_les · of:sciil ·and ..
ciwatcr:afvarious locatioils;at/a'site·and'review,records'
:'c6m pil~ci\f rmin,learli~risamplirig:-, •:Ft1:qtie~tl }'.; the::
C•s°~inpJirig;rpfocess;; inc!:i'dP;~,}i11SUlllini inon.iforin{,
"-' ' • • • ' J . .,,... -.J • • ' •• :::w~us ay~c,~~e. EPAoyersees,<!11 \1/0rk performed:• ·
·~----·.ti;"•.t\~::~.-.=tit·:...!:,:' ~-.. :,:t"'ft; ~:~~(.":.:.Y~~~l'.;'/•~-----··· ~ ··.,
.;Sainples;·are sent to laboratories meetirig. EPA stan°· ·•
'.;4~rcis',tci,be ~~yzed'fo(viiiiou'i/c£)hti!E'iiri~ts:. The • \;;• o-• ,, -\;' '"••••· ,.C••l-. 4' ,.,.,. • 1_ • • ~-site is also•,studied w:detennirie'whethei',or:not the ·
:· c:i5~t'arii lhhcits' are' rt! o❖ i;g. tiifofr gh: th~'. land : o'r \\iater ''
~-~fi&(~i'.J{ey"E_rrii~tlt·gSi'ana;~iiiii:de'ri1iiive!ireas:.they:·
~i)_igh!l~·a~~fr(·~.;~:·;,:? ~~J.¥:~~~:Jttf:~~~·~~tf·})?'f.{ :; ~<: r~ r ·~-1
Page 2
• ganic (carbon containing) and inorganic compounds
were located in the soils and ground water in the site
vicinity. These compounds included such synthesized
chemicals as acetone, ketones, phthalates, benzene,
and ethenes. Metals like lead, chromium, and anti-
mony were also detected. The RI concluded that
secondary source areas (other ground-water areas on
the site and streams having.lower concentrations of the
same chemicals) received chemical contaminants by
means of filtration and transport from the primary
areas. The RI also concluded that organic chemicals in
ground water at the site had not moved off the site.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FINDINGS
The CFO feasibility study evaluated remedial al-
ternative options to address contaminants in the pri-
mary and secondary source areas. The FS included a
public health evaluation. These steps are described in
the following two sections.
Public Health Evaluation
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) requires health assessments, also
referred to as endangennent assessments, for all Super-
fund sites. These evaluate the threat to public health if
no remedial action were to be taken at the site. The CFO
public health evaluation conservatively assumed that:
Chemicals at the site could be transported off the
site in grourid water and be consumed by persons
within a one-mile radius.
Off-site concentrations of indicator chemicals
would equal the average concentration of those
chemicals at the site.
Total daily intake of water containing indicator
chemicals was two liters per day for adults and one
liter per day for children.
A numberofcompounds were found at the site. li'l
order to efficiently study potential risk from these
chemicals, the public health evaluation focused on five
tlrnt best represented hazards that could be associated
with exposure. These were benzene, trichlorethylenc
(TCE), bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, lead, and chro-
mium. Known as "indicator chemicals," they were
selected based on frequency of occurrence at the site,
relative toxicity and concentration, and their environ-
• What is a Feasibility Study? . .
Once an RI is completed, the infonnation gathered is
used to· dcvclop.a°Feasibility Study (FS): In a Feasi-
• . ','~, ' !~'/ , • , • I •-. l ' •, .bi!ity Study, environmental engineers and othertech-
nical staff consider; describe and evaluate options for ;} ,·~1• ' f"' ),_' _ I,: T ,,' ~ ' ~ · • . ' , ~ ' 'cleaning up:tti'e:siie. Feasible alternatives are those
.' that:. · · . · ·' '--·, •· · ' " · ·
. ~ Meet applicable o"r.rele'vant and appropriate state
and federal public health ·or environnic~tal stan-
dards.
I.
• ·Exceed applicable and/or relevant federal public
health ·o_·,(_ep_'.\,iroriinental standards . . . .
1:('; ;-•. ' '.-f; •· .: ., ~ t '. ' ', .
,.. ·. R~_4uq: any_present or, potential threa,t from haz-
::ardb'us'sutista1ces'or contaminants wi tliout meet-
ingappli~abl~ or relevant public health or envi-
...
'
ronmental standards. · . . '
hivolve'ciff~i¥ treatment or disposal. -
'. file FS prcs~~~-itll the alternatives and how they rate ~,., l")-'-._,""'i: :':_•;·I . ; , ~ •,. ,-,,_, ''\-•.1,:.,,·_.,.
; according to'these and other. criteria:.' Insom·e·cases,
;th~•.Fs~~i11J~Jiiiii'inend thai nb'a2iion· 1i:ii;ce1sary., 1,•;,·,J,-f--.,•.'-,~.-~--•~~;,.:<; .. -. -•,.-,•-, .l'~•,,_·.; ,~;;•, .•, ..
~nevaluation of-the im-actiim alternative wili'deter' •, ' .. ,. ,_. ••~•'!:•~• · -~~-\ ,1,,·+,~ >• • • -, l .. ·._;T" _ ~~\;., :, ".•-~-'
r..mi11~·thc i:isk tg;imbli~ h~al11rapct, µie·envi,r,opi,i:ie,nt.
; 'fhe;FS 'ni'ayialso recommend 'a· 'single ·or. _several
aitematives as:the best solution. · ·. · ·. · · ' .
mental fate and transport, or how the chemical behaves
and moves in the environment.
The FS examined and evaluated all the possible
routes or paths by which persons could be exposed to
chemicals from the site. These included possible
contact through air, soil, surface water, and ground
water. It concluded !hat, of these, ground water was !he
most likely possible path for exposure. RI findings
detcnnincd that, with two exceptions, no contaminants
were detected in off-site ground water. Trace amounts
of arsenic we're found in one test well and trichloroeth-
ylcne (TCE) was detected in another The arsenic is a
naturally-occuring clement. EPA is evaluating poten-
tial remedial action for the TCE.
The RI further concluded that processes such as
dilution, biological transfonnation, or dispersion were
likely to increasingly reduce concentrations of any
contaminants leaving !he site as the distance from the
contamination source increased. These findings dem-
onstrated that the conservative assumptions used for
• !he public health evaluation were unlikely to occur.
Nevertheless, the. scenario assumptions presented il-
lustrated that if no steps were taken to clean up the
primary contamination sources, potential existed for
human exposure to contaminants at levels exceeding
EPA's limits for maximum protection. The FS, lhere-
fore, ruled out the no action alternative for the site.
Feasible Alternatives
SARA also requires !hat site remedies are to be
selected based on an evaluation of each alternative's:
Reliability
Implementability
Effectiveness in protecting public health and the
environment
Cost effectiveness.
Using these criteria, the FS reviewed and screened
numerous remedial technologies for soils, ground
water, and surface water and sediments. These tech-
nologies were evaluated for the two areas identified as
primary targets for cleanup: the soils and buried
sludges associated with the fonnerburied glycol recov-
ery sludges operation and bum pits, and ground water
beneath and near these areas.
The FS concluded, however, that before the best
cleanup remedy for the site soils and sludges could be
assessed, more infonnation was needed on how these
materials could best be handled and treated. The con-
sistency of the sludges varies from a tooth-paste-like
substance to a coarser-grained consistency similar to
dry spackling compound.
TWO-PHASED SITE REMEDY ,\PPROACH
EPA and SME agreed that the site remedy should
be appmachcd in two phases focusing first on grourn:
water, and second on soil and sludges. TI1is approach
will allow the cleanup to be initiated while a thorough
analysis of the remedy for soils and sludges is con-
ducted.
TI1c Ground-Water Remedy proposed forthe site
consists of removing the ground water_ through two
tiers of extraction wells then treating the water through
combined techniques. This two-tiered process would
include:
Page 3
• Tier I - A series of 12 wells installed near the
eastern perimeter of the site property to extract
ground water with lower concentrations of con-
taminants. Treatment of this ground water will
include:
Air stripping. a process in which a tower device
is used to force a mixture of air and the water
containing volatile organic compounds, like
acetone, through a column causing the com-
pounds to volatilize (evaporate);
Carbon adsorption, a process in which the
pores in carbon granules attract remaining
molecules of hazardous chemicals. These
molecules become bound or "adsorbed" to the
carbon, thereby removing the hazard they
would present in an unbound state.
Tier II -Four extraction wells placed in the area of
highest contaminant concentration. After pump-
ing, this ground water will be treated by:
Removal of suspended solids in an equaliza-
tion/sedimentation tank
Air stripping
Biological treatment
Carbon adsorption, if necessary.
Effluent from these ground-water treatment processes
will be discharged directly to the environment if the
quality meets permit standards. If additional treatment
is needed, the effluent will be discharged to the
facility's wastewater treatment plant. This treatment
will include chemical precipitation of any metals, such
as chromium, if unallowablc levels arc detected.
TI1e estimated cost for ground-water extraction and
treatment is approximately $2,100,000. This amount,
estimated in 1987 dollars, is projected to cover:
Pumping tests
Well installation for tests and the extraction pro-
cess (maximum of 16 wells)
Health and safety monitoring and measures, and
protective gear
Engineering studies for pumping tests and actual
extraction
Page 4
• Trenching for electrical lines
Permit costs
Operation and maintenance for a 30-year period.
The extraction-treatment process is a readily available
technology and can begin operation once approved.
For the Soils and Sludges, the FS proposes that the
materials handling investigation will:.
Sample and analyze the materials
Match characteristics of the materials with treat-
ment technologies that can handle (dc-toxify) them
Perform pilot tests of technologies that match the
materials.
This investigation will evaluate a number of
specific processes that fall under four main types of
technology:
Thermal destruction. which consists of controlled
high tcmperat_ure cnvironmenL, used to degrade
waste compounds. The rotary kiln, multiple
hearth, fluidized bed, and liquid injection incinera-
tors, and wet air oxidation will be evaluated for
CFO wastes.
Biorcclamation. in which contaminants are broken
down through the action of microbes
Excavation-and Disposal. in which wastes are ex-
tracted from the site and disposed of in permitted
facilities
Other Methods for supplementary remedial activ-
ity, which may include any ofanumbcrofactivities
like surface water treatment. air stripping, or re-
vcgctation.
This invcstigatic:-: is expected t_o ·takc approxi-
mately three months. occurring between January and
March 1988, at a cost between $85,000 and $125,000.
Thereafter, il is projected that one year will be required
to test, evaluate, and report the technologies. Estimated
cosL, for the pilot treatment study investigations arc
between $500,000 and $1,500,000, depending c;pon
the number of technologies eventually tested.
The remedial approach proposed in the FS is based
on the determination that any potential threat posed by
• contamination at the site will be alleviated through
removal of the primary sources of contamination, and
the ground water affected by these sources.
NEXT STEPS
A public comment period on the completed reme-
dial investigation/ feasibility ~tudy reports will begin
February 3, 1988. Interested citizens and local officials
can review the documents at the local information
repositories listed below. Written questions or com-
ments can be addressed to the site project manager
listed below.
EPA will also conduct a public meeting to receive
oral comments on February 3, 1988. Anyone wishing
to be included on the mailing list for the site or wishing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Glenn
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-3402
Michael Henderson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3004
• to request information regarding the site is encouraged
to complete the coupon below and mail it to the address
listed.
Following a review of the RI/FS and public com-
ments, EPA Region IV will make a determination on
the proposed two-phased site remedy process. A
Record of Decision (ROD) will be published that will
be available to the public at the information reposito-
ries. A public notice of the RO D's availability will be
issued when EPA releases the document.
Prior to the start of the actual remedial design or
construction activities, EPA will assess public infor-
mation needs and community concerns about the site,
and will carry out community relations activities to
provide for public involvement.
INFORMATION REPOSITORY:
Information repositories have been established at two
locations near the site:
Oeveland County Memorial Library
104 Howie Drive
Shelby, NC 28038
Attn: Doug Perry
(704) 487-9069
Lavender Residence
Highway I 98-South and Cemetery Street
Earl, NC 28038
Attn: Ms. Jackie Lavender
(704) 428-4624
,-----------------------------------7
I MAILING LIST ADDITIONS I
I I I To be placed on the mailing list to receive information on the Celanese Fibers Operations Site, I
I please complete this form and mail to: I
I Michael Henderson, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA -Region IV, I
I 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365 I
I I
I Name'--------------·-------I I Address _____________ .;_______ I
I Affiliation_____________________ I
I Phone____________________ I
L-----------------------------------~
Page 5
' Superfundzr•·am Information Shee. EP . ..\ Update Superfund Technical Assistance Grants September 1987 I. BACKGROUND The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Ac: of 1986 (SARA) section l l 7(e) provides that technical assistance grants be made available to "any group of individuals which may be affected by a release or threatened release at any facility which is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)." The grants "may be used to obtain technical assistance in interpreting information with regard to the nature of the hazard, remedial investigation and feasibility study, record of decision, remedial design, selection and construction of remedial action, operation and maintenance, or removal action at such facility." Not more than one technical assistance grant may be provided to a single NPL site. The grant may not exceed 550,000 over the course of the cleanup effort. Each -• community is required to contribute at least 20 percent of the total cost of the technical assistance. There are provisions, however, for waiving the 20 perc:nt match and the 550,000 ceiling when necessary. II. STATUS OF GRANT PROGRAM EPA has been charged by Congress to create procedur:il regulations for the technical assistance grant program. The first step in the proc:ss was the public:ition of an Advanr:e Notice of Rulemaking (ANRM) in the F:d:ral Register on June 10, 1987. The ANRM presented the major issues wh;~h need to be resolved before the regulations can be written. A 45 day public comment period was held .during which EPA rec:ived comments from citizen groups, States, municipalities, -environment:il organizations, business interests, and many other interested parties. The commenters offered opinions on a wide rang: of issu:s rel1ted to :iw:irdi:ig t:chni::il :issist:ince grants. These comments are being carefully considered by the Agency during the n~xt step of the regulation process: public:ition of the Interim Fin:il Rule (!FR). The !FR will describe the process for obt:iining :ind m:in:iging :i technic:il assist:inc: gr:int. It will be published in .the Feder:il Register in e:irly .1988. At that time, EPA will immediately begin to accept gr:int applic:itions. On:: the !FR is published, EPA will hold a public comment period for 90 days :ind will then synthesize the public comments and Agency experi:nce in the t"ormul:ition oi 1 Fin:il Rule for this program. III. Fl.'RTHER INFOR\IATION Groups·of individuals int:::sc:d in learning more :ibout Techni::il Assist:in:e Grants should :ont:ict their R:gic~:il EP.-\ Office ind ask to be ;:l~::d on the r:nili~g list for this progrJm. Inceresre,j p:irti::s who m:iy wish to :i;:-;,\y Cor J gr:int rr::iy begin pr::paring for the process by r:::iding EPA's gr:int :ind ;,ro-.:ur:ment r:g~lltions in the Code of Fed:::il Rqul:ir:or.s (-10 CFR 30 :ind 33') :iv:i:i:iblc in loc:il litr:iri:s or on interlibrary loan. These regul:itions :ilong with the regul:itions being developed will govern this progr:im. '
• • /
[FACT SH[E[Elr ft EPA ~a
FINDINGS OF THE REGION IV
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Celanese Fibers Operations Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
\.
Introduction
This fact sheet provides information on the Remedial
Investigation (RI) conducted at the Celanese Fibers
Operations (CFO) Supcrfund hazardous waste site in
Cleveland County, N.C. It further outlines future Superfund
site activities that will be carried out under supervision of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The RI report upon which this fact sheet was based explains
the activities undertaken to determine the presence, nature
and extent of contamination at the site. Recommendations
made as a result of these activities, and steps to_be taken to
determine the best cleanup remedy for the site are also pro-
vided in the RI report.
Site Description and History
The CFO site is a 450-acre property occupied by a polyester
raw-material production facility and areas used for waste
management and disposal. The site is located in south-
central Cleveland County on North Carolina Highway 198.
It is apprbximatcly one mile north of Earl, N.C. and six miles
south of Shelby. The nearest major city is Charlotte, N.C., 35
miles east of Shelby. Fiber Industries, Inc., a joint venture of
Celanese Corporation and Imperial Chemicals, Inc., was the
original owner of the ,.:ant and operated it from 1960 until
1983 when the Celanese Corporation bought out the facility.
The Celanese Corporation now operates itas Celanese Fibers
Operations.
The plant produces polyester filament thread, similar to
sewing thread, which is sold to other plants to weave or knit
into fabric. The production of filament thread involves the
use of chemicals such as dimethyl terephthalate, and ethyl-
ene glycol. When combined, these chemicals form plastic
pellets which arc melted and stretched into filament thread.
July 1987
Waste treatment has been handled in different ways through-
out the history of plant operations. For the first few years of
production, chemical wastes from the plant were disposed of
into a drainage ditch that extended in a northeasterly direc-
tion from the plant and trenches were used to bury sludge
wastes from the recycling of glycol, an important compound
in polyester production. In the mid-1960's, the plant was
expanded and the drainage ditch and trenches replaced by a
biological wastewater treatment system. In addition, a pit
was used to bum trash, fiber waste, and some chemical
wastes for several years until about 1970. Between 1970 and
1978, an open field near the bum pit was used for temporary
storage of an estimated 2000 to 3000 drums of chemical and
solvent wastes which were later properly disposed of.
In 1981, the company hired Soil and Material Engineers, Inc.
(SME) to test ground wateron the site. The results of various
testing between 1981 and 1984 showed evidence of ground-
water contamination on the site by organic compounds (com-
pounds which contain carbon).
In 1984 the CFO site was proposed for EPA's National
Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites identified for
cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CER-
CLA). At that time, the company began discussions with
EPA about what steps should.be taken to clean up the site.
The site's addition to the NPL was finalized in June 1986.
The Superfund Enforcement Process
With the passage of CERCLA {commonly known as Supcr-
fund) in 1980, Congress gave EPA tile authority to compel
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to clean up hazardous
waste sites lhat may endanger public health or the
environment through actual or threatened releases of hazard-
ous substances. PRPs may be:
Page 1
• Generators of the wastes (those who produced the
wastes)
Any party who contracted for treatment, transport
or disposal of the ·wastes
Past or present owners or operators of the site.
Wherever possible, in order to make the best use of Supcr-
f und, EPA attempts to have the PRPs conduct the site studies,
called the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/
FS) and, if needed, perform the actual cleanup of the site. The
actions that EPA takes to compel the PRPs to study or clean
up a site arc collectively called the enforcement process.
Hazardous waste sites with conditions serious enough to be
ranked for inclusion on theNPLaregivcn priority by EPA for
pursuing enforcement actions and may also qualify for
federal funds for cleanup.
The CFO Consent Order
EPA and CFO's negotiations led to the signing of an Admin-
istrative Order on Consent (Consent Order) forthe site which
became effective on March 10, 1986. It was signed by EPA
Page 2
• and the Celanese Corporation which was named as a PRP in
accordance with CERCLA. The Consent Order identifies the
responsibilities of the company in conducting the RI/FS.
While the company is responsible for conducting the actual
RI/FS, EPA oversees and reviews all studies and work
performed. Under this process, the CFO Remedial Investi-
gation (RI) was completed for the site in June 1987.
The CFO Remedial Investigation
The RI was conducted for Ll1e Celanese Corporation by Soil
and Material Engineers, Inc. (SME), under the supervision of
EPA. Studies of soil, surface water, and ground water carried
out during the CFO Remedial Investigation showed that:
Soil, ground water and surface water in the vicinity
of the waste handling area on the CFO site were
contaminated by organic compounds
Contaminants most frequently found in the soil and
ground waler are volatile organic compounds
(organic compounds that readily vaporize or tum
into gases) such as benzene, kctones, phenols,
ethcncs and ethanes
Where it exists, the presence of contaminants in sur-
face water resulted from soil and ground-water con-
tamination
The primary sources of soil and ground:water
contamination appear to be the old bum pits and the
glycol recycling sludge pits
A demolition landfill (used to bury construction
wastes such as cinder blocks and wood) is another
source of potential contamination, but the data is
limited and inconclusive
The trace amounts of trichloroethenc (TCE), a
volatile organic compound, detected in one private
well near the site were not traceable to plant
operations.
Based on these findings the Remedial lnYcstigation recom-
mends that a feasibility Study (FS) be performed ?o deter-
mine whether Ll1e site poses any health risk and to identify
alternatives for cleanup.
Next Steps
The next step in assessing the appropriat,, method and level
of cleanup involves performing the FS. As a resull of the
• • finding of the FS, an appropriate remedy for cleanup will be
chosen. EPA will negotiate with the Celanese Corporation to
conduct the cleanup once the chosen remedy is presented in
a document called a Record of Decision (ROD). Once the FS
is completed, a fact sheet detailing its objectives and findings
will be prepared. Opportunities for public involvement will
be provided throughout the FS and site cleanup process.
The CFO Feasibility Study
The CFO Feasibility Study (FS) will address questions such
as:
Does the site pose a risk to human health or the
environment?
Whal alternatives exist to clean up the site?
What is the best alternative for this site?
To answer these questions environmental engineers and
other technical staff will consider the findings of the Reme-
dial Investigation, any new data from testing during the FS,
community c·onccrns, and the latest technology available for
waste management and disposal. An FS work plan, approved
by EPA, will detail the procedures for conducting the FS.
Page 3
• INFORMATION REPOSITORY
Information repositories have been established at two
locations near the site:
Cleveland·County Memorial Library
104 Howie Drive
Shelby, N.C. 28038
Attn: Doug Perry
(704) 487-9069
Lavender Residence
Highway 198-South and Cemetery Street
Earl, N.C. 28038
Attn: Ms. Jackie Lavender
(704) 428-4624
• FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle G lcnn ·
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365
(404) 347-3402
Michael Henderson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365
(404) 347-3004
,-----------------------------------7
I MAILING LIST ADDITIONS I
I I \ To be placed on the mailing list to receive information on the Celanese Fibers Operations Site, I
please fill out and mail this form to: I
Michael Henderson, Office of Public Affairs; U.S. EPA-Region IV, l
345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365 I Name_____________________ \
Address _____________________ _
Affiliation --------------~------I
Phone______________________ I
I I
L-----------------------------------~
Page 4