Loading...
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