NCD095458527_19960809_FCX Inc. (Statesville)_FRBCERCLA PM CI_Public Meetings 1989 - 1996-OCR

,.
{ • . .• A I-:: aQUaTerras CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: ..... ~
,~ POST OfflCE BOX 37579 • RALEIGH, NC• 27627-7579 • (919l 859-9987 • FAX [phone]
A GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
August 9, 1996
Ms. Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Supcrfund Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Reference: Comments on the Proposed Site Clean Up Plan
FCX-Statesville Superfund Site OU 3
Statesville, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job No. 3107709
Dear Ms. Barrett:
Aquaterra is submitting the following comments on behalf of the OU-3 Site Group. This
correspondence has three key objectives: to address air emissions concerns raised by the
public during the July 25, 1996, public hearing, to clarify cost inaccuracies in the Fact
Sheet EPA distributed before the hearing, and to reiterate the importance of allowing the
OU-3 Group to review the proposed OU-I remedy.
1. Issues Raised During the July 25, 1996, Public Hearing
During the public hearing, several citizens indicated their concern regarding potential air
emissions associated with the remedy selected for the OU-3 site. We believe that
providing citizens with additional information concerning air sparging and vapor
extraction technologies as well as how they will be implemented at the site may minimize
their concerns. The OU-3 Group believes it would be helpful for the public to be
informed that the air emissions from the proposed clean up alternatives for OU 3 will be
regulated by existing State and Federal laws. The emissions are required to be less than
established health based standards at the property boundary. If air emission amounts are
below the level set by the State of North Carolina, an air permit is not required. If air
emission amounts are above the level set by the State, air modeling must be performed to
determine projected air emission levels at the site property boundary. If modeling
predicts emissions levels higher than established health based standards, air emission
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
• Ms. Diane Barrett~FC~eanup Plan Comments
August 9, I 996
page 2 of 3
controls will be added to the remedial action system. Providing this information may
enable the public to understand the extent to which public health and environmental
protection are considering in identifying and implementing remediation.
2. Proposed July 1996 Plan Fact Sheet
The July 1996 Proposed Plan Fact Sheet contains present worth costs for remediation
alternatives that are different from those calculated for the Final Feasibility Study (FS).
The Fact Sheet costs were taken from a draft copy of the FS for OU 3, and the projected
costs were modified before the Final FS was issued. The cost estimates for ground water
and soil alternatives are located in Tables 4-12 and 4-15 of the Final FS. As shown in
these tables, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for No Action and Limited Action
soil alternatives are included in the O&M costs for No Action and Limited Action ground
water alternatives.
3. OU-1 Remedy Design
The OU-3 Site Group repeats its previous request to review the proposed design for the
OU-I remedy as soon as possible. As you know, the OU-I Record of decision (ROD)
calls for the installation of several ground water extraction wells to minimize the
migration of the VOC contaminant plume. Based on additional OU-3 assessment
activities, the Group intends to remove the source of that contamination. The design and
effectiveness of this remedy could be significantly impacted by the extraction wells
planned for OU-I. Therefore, the OU-3 Site Group requires early access to the OU-I
design. The Group appreciates that EPA typically does not provide information
concerning draft remedial designs. However, in this situation, providing the information
will enable the most effective remediation plan for the site to be successfully identified
and implemented.
• Ms. Diane Barrett-FC.leanup Plan Comments
August 9, 1996
page 3 of3
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Ms. Nancy Prince
of El Paso Natural Gas at 915.541.2839 or Mr. Theodore LeJeune of Burlington
Industries, Inc. at 910.379.2943.
Sincerely,
AQUA TERRA. INC. J/J ~ a, )1tj,Vl~
Sharon A. Myers, P.G.
Remedial Investigation Team Leader
610645/SAM/suz
cc: N. Testerman-NCDEHNR
T. Lejeune-Burlington
T. Hutchins-EPNG
B. Hatcher-Burlington
D. Sparrow-Beaunit Fabrics Corp.
J. Porter-Andrews & Kurth
B. Trexler-Aquaterra
G. House-BPMH & L
J. Brothers-Philip
H. Mitchell, Jr., Beaunit Corp.
•
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 office in Atlanta, Georgia
announces a public meeting on the FCX, Inc. Superfund Site, Statesville., North
Carolina. The meeting will be held on September 14, 1995, in the N. B. Mills
. Elementary School auditorium, 1410 Pearl Street, Statesville, from 7:00 PM until
9:00 PM. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the public with an update of
on-going activities for Operable Units l (groundwater) and 2 (soils) at the FCX
facility, and provide information obtained from the Remedial Investigation at the
Burlington facility which is Operable Unit #3.
An announcement of this meeting will also appear in the Statesville Record &
Landmark newspaper on September 6, 1995.
We encourage all interested citizens to attend this meeting.
For more information, please contact:
. McKenzie Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
or, Diane Barrett, Community Relations Specialist
North Superfund Remedial Branch
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E
Atlanta, GA 30365 ·
. .
Phone: [phone] ext. 2073. . ,
9-1,.95 .i,•
I
1
ft U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~345 Courtland Stree~ N.E.
~Atlanta, Georgia 30365
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord.
McKenize Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
. Region•
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Kl::vt:
SEP 111995
------,--------_ __ _ _ --'SUP~RFUND SECTION
C··S/F , · FCXS01~7 '
1'pu~L1c·1N~ORMATION"OIRECTOR
~-N~C. SUPERFl.JND SECTION
\ NC DEP~. OF ENVIRON~ENT, HEAL!H
I . ,.· t NATUR~L., RESOUR,CES
p. O. BOX 2768,1... : .
l-~~-~EIGH ~·~t_}:_~01,""768_7 _ _J
IHI !Hi
:,. . , . . '. ,.. ,;. . . ·,. . . . . . ·~. ' .
! "! d-1,, ,I; II.di 11 ll I dl!11, I, II,, I,, I, I, II I, II;; I
• •
August 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
Public Meeting Summary and Remedial Overview
FCX Statesville, NPL Site
NCD 095 458 527
Statesville, Iredell county, NC
On 11 July 1994, representatives of the NC Superfund Section
provided overview of the Remedial Investigation field work being
performed at the FCX Statesville, Operable Unit 3, all
contaminated media at the Burlington property.
Additional monitoring wells were being installed in the
upper aquifer at this time. A shallow well installed to a depth
of approximately 60 feet below ground surface was underway when I
arrived on-site at 2:30 PM. The shallow well included a 15 foot
screened section with the water level at 47 feet below ground·
surface. A sand pack was placed around the well screen to a
depth 2.0 feet above the screen. Only one drill-rig was being
operated by Groundwater Protection at this time. Their plan was
to complete the shallow wells and then the deep wells. The well
installations are scheduled for completion in mid August.
After the drilling operations were completed for the day, I
attended a Proposed Plan Public Meeting at the N.B. Mills
Elementary School near the FCX Statesville Site to represent the
State position on the Proposed Plan for the soils remedy at the
FCX Statesville, NPL Site for Operable Unit 2.
The primary questions asked and a brief summary of EPA
answers during the meeting are listed below:
What is the decibel level of the thermal treatment unit? To
be determined
What is the volume of waste water involved during thermal
treatment & how it will be treatea..__gr disposed? A small
amount; to be disposed off-site. -., ·
When will the BCD/thermal treatment start?~. What duration
will the thermal treatment process be on-site? ...... Excavation
and treatment on-site is projected for october through
November of 1995 at the earliest. ·•.
A brief 8 minute video of the on-site Koppers NPL site pilot
scale BCD treatment treatability study was shown. The
question was asked if the Koppers site is cleaned-up now and
/ /
Memo
8-11-94
Page 2
• •
did the BCD technology work there? The site has not been
cleaned-up. Koppers is presently in the remedial design
phase. The BCD process was successful in reducing the
primary contaminants of concern at the Koppers site to the
clean-up standards on a pilot scale.
Is the public made aware of the results of the 5 year review
and are they allowed to participate? The RPM for the site
is going to answer this question in the responsiveness
summary of the record of decision (ROD).
If the burial pit is discovered during the demolition and
clean-up, how will this change the remedy? An Explanation
of Significant Difference (ESD) or amendment to the ROD
would probably be required.
Soil clean-up is proposed to a depth of approximately 7.0
feet below ground surface. How deep does contamination
extend and will remaining contamination below 7.0 feet
continue to contaminate the groundwater? Contamination
extends to groundwater in some areas. The EPA feels that
the soil clean-up standards presented during the Proposed
Plan along with the pump and treat remedy for groundwater
will be protective of groundwater.
Modeling which EPA performed is inconclusive in determining
what levels may remain in the soils and still be protective
of groundwater. The State has some questions about the
remaining soil concentrations and if the groundwater is not
cleaned-up in a reasonable time period the site may have to
be revisited and additional evaluations performed. The
State agrees with EPA that we are doing the best clean-up
that we can within the superfund budget or for a reasonable
cost. We are not promising a miracle cure. We hope that
this work will be sufficient to provide protection from risk
based contact and provide clean groundwater.
I have never done a clean-up of groundwater using pump and
treat technology but from what I have read from those who
have, it takes a long time to clean-up pesticides in
groundwater; treatment can go on for 30, 50 or even hundreds
of years without attaining levels which are below
groundwater standards. This is a difficult clean-up
operation.
Who is presently the owner of the FCX property and are they
bankrupt? The owner is presently FCX Inc. and they are in
bankruptcy court at this time.
cc: Jack Butler, NC Superfund Section
c}Jv-~~ 5~v1L(<~;i:;RITEi,-l, e ANNOUNCEMENT ~/Ji Sofid/','8S/e'()
FROM EPA REGION 4 ~ 1 19 1994
~ ""'&oo\)~-
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The purpose of th~ notic~ is to inform citizens that the public comment period has been
extended an additional 30 days for EPA to receive comments on the Proposed Plan for treating
.·. ------contaminated soil/or Operable Unit #2 at the FCX, Inc . .§!!:perfun(1~Site in Statesville, No}!!JJ
Carolina. Therefore, the final day for submitting comments to EPA is now
midnight September 3, 1994.
The original 30-day comment period began on July 5, 1994 and ended on August 4, 1994.
During the July 11th public meeting a 30-day extension was requested, and granted. The
Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study and Risk Assessment for Operable Unit #2 as well-as
all other documents for the FCX Site are available for public review in the information
repository. This provides everyone with an opportunity to review these documents and provide
comments to the Agency on the proposed plan for cleaning up I treating contamination at the
Site.
The repository is located at:
Iredell County Public Library
135 East Water Street
Statesville, North Carolina
For more information about this action or the Site, please contact:
Ken Mallary, Remedial Project Manager, or
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
Phone No. 1-800-435-9233
July 15, 1994
,·
[A notice will appear as a·di°'sp1;;~<i'i~ Th; Statii'svill~'Iiec~rd an:d Landmark on August 1st
and in the Iredell County News on August 4th announcing the 30-day extension to the public
comment period.]
/'\\,.""' .. ,.., -lU:';l"UJUW .. t ft
~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
North supertuoo~llif erarici, : \·
Dlane/Bamittl 'Comrri1111fty\Reialkins.Cci8rd: \: , , .., C ¥ t AUanta, Georgia 30365
Rog/on 4
Official Business
Penalty for Pl1vate Use $300
Ken Mallary, Remedial P.roject Manager .. '-,,.__ .§_~;,,',. 6C9lfi~u 1 .----------
FCXS0152 S/F MR ■ WILLIAM MEYER, DIRECTOR S0LIO WASTE MANAG~MENT DIVISION NC DEPT ■ OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH I G NATURAL RESOURCES
~
P.O. b0X 27687 RALEIGH NC 27611-76B7
~ ---
1111 1111
FCX, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
Statesville, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
OPERABLE UNIT #2
AGENDA
July 11, 1994
N. B. Mills Elementary School
1410 Peart Street
Statesville, North Carolina
AGENDA:
Welcome and Introduction Curt Fehn, Chief
North Carolina Superfund Section
Community Relations in Superfund Diane Barrett
Brief History, Presentation
of Alternatives
Community Relations Specialist
McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
Video of EPA's Preferred Alternative (3-5 minutes)
Question and Answer Period
Closing Remarks
,I /11,
I 1..__,I/
'
I,
'f\
• NOTES
!
•ePA Facts About
Therma/Desorpllon
What is thermal desorption'!
Thermal desorption is a low-temperature heat line
separation process designed to remove organic
contaminants from soils and s/111/i;es.
Contaminated soils arc heated at relatively low
temperatures (200°F to 900°F) so that only those
contaminants with low boiling points will vaporize
by turning into a gas. These vaporized
contaminants removed from the soils or liquids arc
collected and treated. Thermal desorption is not
an incinerator system, and no hazardous
combustion by-products arc formed. Thermal
desorption technology is useful in treating organic
contaminants that become gases at relatively low
temperatures. These contaminants include volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinatcd
biphenyls (PCBs), and some polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (P AHs).
How does thermal desorption technology work?
Thermal desorption is a three step process: first, the soil
is heated to vaporize the contaminants; next, the
vaporized contaminants arc treated; and, finally, the
treated soil is tested. The contaminated soil is heated at
temperatures between 200° F and 900° F to reduce the
chance that the organic contaminants will ignite. Four
different methods of heating the soil arc available. Each
method is described below:
(I) In-place steam extrac'..ion (Figure I): The
contaminated soil is left in place while steam is pumped
through the ground. The con,amiriants vaporize to a gas
form, move through the air spaces in the soil. anrJ the
gases are collected by a vacuum. SincG steam, and not_ a
flame, is used to vaporize the contnminants, there is no
risk that the urganic contaminants wi!I ignite and form
hazardous combustion by-products. ·
(?.) Direct heating: This heating method is like healing
with a gas oven in your home. A disadvantage of this
heating method is that the flame is in direct contact with
the contaminants, and therefore, increases the chances
that the contaminants will hurn and form hazardous
combustion by-products.
June 1992
(3) lndircd heating: The contarninatcd soil is placed in
a kiln-type furnace. The outside of the kiln is heated
using fuel oil, and the heat is transferred through the
kiln's metai surface to the s6il. Since the soil is enclosed
in the kiln, the fuel's comhustion by-products and the
vaporized contaminants do not mix.
( 4) Oxygen free heating: The soil is placed in a
container which is scaled to avoid any contact between
the soil and oxygen in the air. The outside of the
container is heated using a burner system, and the
contaminants vaporize. Without air, the risk of forming
comhustion by-products is virtually eliminated.
What happens once the contaminants are
vaporized?
Once vaporized, the contaminants can be treated
in the same manner regardless of which heating
method is used. 1bc vaporized contaminants may
be cooled and condensed into a liquid, which is
then placed in drums for treatment or disposal.
The· vaporized contaminats may also he treated
using a carbon filtration system to meet applicable
federal, state, and local air emission standards.
Once thermal desorption is completed using one
of the four heating methods described ahove, the
soil is tested to verify that all contaminants have
hccn removed. The moisture content is adjusted
to eliminate dust particles ~nd r.,roduce a s_ulid that
is ready to he placed aod compacted in its original
location. The orgar1ic contaminants and water
vapor driven fn~m the solids arc transported out of
the dryer by :! nonreactive nitrogen gas. The inert
gas flows thrcrngh J. d:ict !c the gas treatment
sys.tern, where organic vt1por::., water vapors, and
dusi. particles arc removed from the gas. Thi~ gas 1
treatment system is made up of a high-energy
scruhher in which Just particic$ and IO to 30
percent of the organic coulaminants arr remove,~.
The gases then pass through two hcai cxcl::tngcrs)
where they arc cooled to below 40°F. Most of the
remaining water and organic vapors arc condensed
to liquids in the heat exchangers. The cleaned soils
and sludges can he returned to the site as backfill.
• Why consider thermal desorption'?
Thermal desorption has a high success rate in removing
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOC, arc
chemicals which tend to. vaporize easily into the air,
creating an exposure hazard by inhalation. Existing
equipment is capahle of treating up to 10 tons of
contaminated soil per hour. In addition, since thermal
desorption operates at low temperatures, the risk nf
voes and other organic contaminants burning and,
consequently, forming ha1ardous gaseous emissions is
reduced .. Finally, the low temperatures require less fuel
than other treatment technologies, and so this method is
less costly.
What kinds of waste can he treated by thermal
desorption?
This technology was developed primarily for on-site
remediation (clean-up) of soils contaminated with
organic contaminants. The process can remove and
collect volatiles, semi-volatiles, and PCBs, and has been
demonstrated on a variety of soils ranging from sand to
very heavy clays. Filter cakes from water treatment
processes and pond sludges have also heen successfully
processed. In most cases, volatile organics arc reduced to
below 1 part per million (ppm) and frequently to below
the levels which the laboratory can detect.
Thermal desorption cannot be used to treat heavy
metals, with the exception of mercury. Tars and heavy
pitches cannot be processed using this technology
because they create materials handling problems.
•
•··•·L••·······•< {ic;LQSSAR.Yt·•··•·2····
\::· .
dhJmJ~~ Ji~·•··••i~I;;dd•·••
· t:~tl~ ~~itl~i.~il\~~f?!~fiit[~t~~t~r:
; •filters 6hcc11t.ri(liga!sctuiibci~) to.trap ·polluta1its
iii gaseousi,in,ssioris. t / ...... .
~\tl~&clirbiii1ii.~,~r4f ~l1Ji~!~:.·.· if Lratcd .
For more information about Thermal Desorption,
please contact EPA at the following address:
....
U.S. Environmental Prutcction A.i;cncy
S11pcrfund Program
Community Rdatinns Coordinator
345 Co11r1/a11d Street, NE.
Atlanta. GA 30365
El ? tctte COHOENSOfl mu.no ... _
CONT1'0l
jFunhef tremMtll o, dtpOMf)
000. TUTU)
l'OA
CONT AMHNCld
./ ~-· C QO ~'IIOIANT TR.!A TM 9fT
flit£ ~ ' o.i CdPOOAL ,.,
, ..
~----~==;;-----~~ ION.fCDU'OCirG
Figure 1: Thermal Desorption Process Following Soil Excav~tion
The information contained in !his fact sheet was compiled from A Citizt:n's Guide: Thcrm;:il Desorption, a p11hlic.c1tion of the U.S. Environmental
Prot_ccticm Agency, November, 1991.
lJn1ted State:s
~nvlrormental Protection
~ency
Off I.Research and
Oeve t
C1nc1nnat1, Ott 45268
BCD: AN EPA-PATENTED
PROCESS :,FOR DETOX! FYI NG CHLORINATED WASTES
WHWTRD 1993 FACT SHEET
Problem of Chlorinated Wastes
• Many chlorinated organic products of commerce are toxic, and because of past industrial practices, these compounds are found at toxic levels in the environ-ment. While pollution prevention measures will greatly diminish chances of future contamination, cost-effective and efficient treatment technologies are badly needed to remove risk to health and eco-systems from the exposure of these compounds. Incineration is an option, but is very expensive for most applications, and does not enjoy public· support.
• An estimated 1 billion tons of soil in the U.S. are contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds. Of these toxic compounds, the most frequently found are polychlorinated bipheny1s (PCBs), used as a dielectric in transformers, and polychlorinated phenols PCPs, used as a wood preserving substance. ·
• Sediments in lakes, harbors and rivers all across the country are also contaminated with chlorinated organic wastes.
• Many obsolete pesticide formulations, such as the materials stored in warehouses contain toxic chlorinated organics, and must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The BCD Process, an EPA Invention
• Charles.Rogers and coworkers at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory have been working on detoxifying chlorinated organics for over ten years. They focused their efforts on contaminated soils,· and developed several chemical treatment processes that are described as base-catalyzed dechlorination (BCD) processes. Unlike the earlier versions that use polyethylene glycol (PEG), the latest version of this technology uses hydrogen from hydrogen donor, a~d repres~,nts new chemistry for dech 1 ori nation. This new mechanism is a breakthrough in treatment technology, and provides.clean and ir1expensive reaction.
• Unltk~ incineration, BCD processes offer lower cost of decontamination, reduced air pollution risk, and greater public acceptance.·
• The process embodies the following steps: mixing the chemicals with the contaminated matrix (such as excavated soil or sediment, or liquids, containing these toxic compounds), heating the mixture at 340°C for one-two hours. The off-gases are .treated before releasing to the atmosphere. The treated remains of ·the reactor are non-h~zardous, can be either disposed of -according to standard methods, or further processed for separating components for reuse.
' ,.
Chemicals
Excavation Screening
\ G~og I
_..._, Gases C=::J r---t----L:::J
Contaminated Soil
Clean Soil
Returned to Site
Large-Scale Application of BCD Process
• 40,000 cu.yds. of PCB contaminated soil (100-600 ppm) treated on a.Suprfund Site, Brant, NY (1991-1992)
• PCB-Contaminated sediments treated at Waukegan Harbor, Waukegan, IL in 10 tph system_achieving·99.9999% destruction (1992)
• Two liquid treatment systems (2000 liters) were placed into operation in Australia (1992)
• The U.S. Navy's 1-tph/soil treatment system is scheduled to treat 5000 tons PCB contaminated soil (25-6500 ppm) starting February 1993
• Wright State University Brehm Laboratory under a contract from the U.S. Department of Energy employed BCD in 1992 to destroy PCP Pellets (95%), and the co-contaminants chlorinated dioxins and furans congeners.
• A 1-tph treatment system is scheduled to ~o into operation in Spain in early 1993 to destroy 5000 tons of lindane-(80-90%) and to treat contaminated soil.
Status of BCD Technology
• New applications are being sought in treating mixed wastes (organics mixed with radioactive materials), in collaboration with the Department of Energy.
• Engineering research is being conducted for process optimization and scale-up.
• The technology is available through licensing for commercial use.
CONTACT: Charles J. Rogers (513/569-7626)
------•I-----~•,__ ____ _ CONTAMINATED
MATERIALS
OR SCREENED SOILS
FEED
HOPPER
SCREW CONVEYOR
MEDUIM TEMP. THERMAL
DESORPTION UNIT
(MTTD)
COOLING WATER
VAPOR DISCHARGES
WATER SPRAY
COOLl~G SCREW
CONVEYOR
,-----V:..A.:.:P_c:OR RECOVERY SYSTE"'-M"-----,
TO
ATMOSPHERE
CARBON
POLISHER
AQUEOUS
CONDENSATE
STORAGE
CARBON
ADSORPT10
OL WATER
SCRlWERS SCRUBBERS
CONDENSOR
UNIT
DECHLORINATION
~-''--,OIL ADDITIVE REAGENTS
OILY
CONDENSATEf------._
STORAGE
TREATED
WATER
ON-SIT~~ACKFILL ----~
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL ~
DECONTAMINATED SOLIDS
CONTAINER OIL'HC
Figure 1: BCD Technology and .<;AREX" THERM-0-DEfOX"'' System
'rECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The BCD technology is an EPA-patented process to remed.iate soil
and sludge cont.antin.1ted with chlorimted c,rganic compounds.
Based on the process requirements of the BCD technology, ETG
and SRS have developed the SAREX' T!-!ERM-0-DETOX"'
system in cooperation \\;th EPA to evaloate the effectiveness of
this process under real-time conditions in the field.
1l1e SAREX'Tl-!ERM-0-DETOX"'system is based on a proven
indirect-heat medium temperature thcnnal desorption (MTfD)
unit. The unit is equipped with a multiple-shaft agitator for high
heat transfer efficiency and excellent local mixing action.
1l1e BCD physical/chemical process detoxifies and chemically
decomposes contaminants by removing chlorine atoms. Com-
pounds that tl1e BCD process can decompose include polychlori-
nate<l biphenyls (PCB), PCP, chlorinate<l dibenzodioxii;\s and
furans, insecticides, and herbicides.
The process begins by mixing an inorganic reagent ,vitl1 the
contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge. The mixture is heated in
tl1e l\HTD unit for about 1 hour at 650 °F to 800 °F. Some of the
chlorinated contaminants are decomposed during this step. The
rc,naining organic contaminants arc tl1ennally desorbed and re-
moved witl1 the off-gas.
Clean soil exiting the solid reactor can be rctume<l to the site. The
remaining contaminants from the vapJr condensate and residual
dust are captured and treate<l for 2 t,1 4 hours at approximately
650 °F in a liquid-tank reactor (L TR). The L TR uses a high-
boiling-point hydrocarbon, a proprietary catalyst, and sodium
hydroxide. Nitrogen is purged through the L TR to contr,,I oxygen
levels, preventing the tank contents from oxidizing or igniting
Oily residuals remaining in tl1e L TR contain dust and sludge and
are combustible. They can be burned in an oil-fire<l power plant,
a cement kiln, or treated and reclaimed by waste oil recyclers. 1l1e
aqueous condensate from the process can be discharged to a
publicly--0\\'!1ed treatment works after being polished through ,m
activated carbon treatment process. Dccontaminate<l sludge can
be disposed of in the same manner as municipal sludge. Spent
carbon from the water polishing can also be treated in tl1is process.
The only by-products produced by the BCD process are biphcnyl,
low-boiling olefinics, and sodium chloride.
SITE DESCRIPTION
1l1c Koppers Company site is located in the Shii0h community,
several miles north of]\fomsville, North Carolina. llle site covers
approximately 52 acres at tl1e intersection of Highway 54 and
Koppers Road (sec Figure 2).
• •
SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1 sm
DISCOVERY
I
CIHNUP PU"'1)--4i►..f
DESIGN
7
LONG-TEAii
CLEANUP
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IN 198D, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPONSE, COMPENSATION. AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
-SUPERFUND". TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT(SARA). THE ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO RESPOND TO
RELEASES OR THREATENED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR
WELFARE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE 1982 SUPERFUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP), REVISED IN 1988,
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBIT PROVIDES A SIMP\.IFIED EXPLANATION
OF HOW A LONG-TERM SUPERFUND RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SITE 15 DISCOVERED. IT 15 INVESTIGATED. USUALLY BY
THE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE THEN RANKS THE SITE
USING THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS), WHICH TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT:
'POSSIBLE HEAL TH RISKS TO THE HUMAN POPULATION
-POTENTIAL HAZARDS (E.G.,FROM DIRECT CONT ACT,
INHALATION, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SITE
•POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO POLLUTE
OR OTHERWISE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE PROBLEMS AT A SITE ARE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE
ST ATE AND THE EPA. THE SITE WILL BE LISTED ON THE NATIONAi. .
PRIORfTIES LIST (NPL), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAi. SUPERFUND
MONEY.
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT
TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AT ANYTIME, EPA MAY
CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
3. NEXT, EPA USUALLY CONDUCTS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(RI). THE RI ASSESSES HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONTAMINANTS ARE PRESENT, AND
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS
PART OF THE RI, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AT THE SITE
AND THE POTENTIAL HEAL TH AND ENVIRONMENT AL
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SITE.
4. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE RI. EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PUBLIC HEAL TH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS),
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, AND COST. THE FINDINGS ARE
PRESENTED IN A DRAFT FS REPORT.
5. FOLLOWING COMPI.ETION OF THE DRAFT FS REPORT, EPA
HOC.OS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECEIVE CrTIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES. CITIZENS
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS EITHER ORALLY AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO EPA..
6. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, EPA
RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS IN THE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WHICH
IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC CLEANUP PLAN.
7. ONCE THE DESIGN IS FINISHED, THE ACTUAL REMEDIAL
ACTIVrTIES OR CLEANUP OF THE SITE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WITH EVERY SITE. IN GENERAi., AN RVFS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP Pl.AN MAY TAKE
SIX MONTHS AND IMPI.EMENTING THE REMEDY· THE ACTUAL
CONTAINMENT OR REMOVAL OF THE WASTE· MAY TAKE FROM
ONE TO THREE YEARS. IF GROUNDWATER IS INVOLVED, THE
FINAL CLEANUP MAY TA.KE MANY MORE YEARS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED AND TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROUGHOUT THE SUPERFUND PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EPA'S COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW ANO COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES.
FCX, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
Statesville, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA
FOR OPERABLE UNIT #3
April 25, 1994
N. B. Elementary School
1410 Pearl Street
Statesville, North Carolina
• •
AGENDA:
Welcome and Introduction Curtis Fehn, Chief
North Carolina Section
Superfund Process and
Community Relations
Enforcement History
Brief Site History,
Overview of Findings to
Date and Future Plans
Diane Barrett
North Carolina Superfund Section
Community Relations Coordinator
Seth Bruckner, Attorney
Office of Regional Council
McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
Question and Answer Period
Closing Remarks
• •
NOTES
i ' ,,. :., \\' /
. J.,J,:!/) .,;,; /~j
I
(
--.. -• .. ------------------------------
• •
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA REGION IV, ATLANTA
ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC MEETING FOR
. OPERABLE UNIT #3 AT THE FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a public meeting
to inform citizens of planned activities for the Operable Unit #3 Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site. The meeting will be held
Monday nigh~ April 25, 1994, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the N. B. Mills Elementary
·School, 141 O Pearl Street, Statesville. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.
The Site is divided into three operable units. Operable Unit #1 addresses contaminated
groundwater migrating south from the FCX property. Operable Unit #2 addresses soil
contamination on the FCX property. Operable Unit #3 will address all contamination
associated with the property currently owned by Burlington Industries.
'
The FCX-Statesville Superfund Site occupies approximately five acres at 1620 West
Front Street in Statesville. From 1940 through 1985, FCX repackaged and distributed
agricultural chemicals .. The Site was placed on the National Priorities List of hazardous
waste sites in February 1990. During the investigation of the Site it was discovered
that contamination was flowing from groundwater beneath the adjacent property owned
by Burlington Industries and mixing with groundwater in the aquifer below the FCX
Site.
For additional information contact: .
McKenzie Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
or Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
APR 15 l994
ft
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Stree~ N.E.
North Superlund Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord.
McKenzie Mallary, Remedlal Project Manager Atianta, Georgia 30365
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
1 S/F FCXS0009
I BRUCE NICHOLSON, ENVR, ENGR. SUPERFUND SECTION
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
& NATURAL RESOURCES
401 OBERLIN RD., P.O. BOX 27687 RALEIGH NC 27611
,,-•,,,.._ •. .,,id.-..:.
_,..--. U.S. OFFICiAL MAI:...:
/,;\.A \I~ 1' r P"S'AGE I r"'r' «II./ PENA~iV. J.~. Ll l ,• ' -,. • APP. I 8134 PRrv:,:rc I 1 · . ___ -~ ,,.1 ~ ,.._ ,-. "' ~ h1 -·---.. I ..
~------·--· ---------------·--··)
! !Hi j ! l ii! i 1 ii! ;1 i ! i I; i ! l iii 1 ! ! ; 11 l Ii l i 1 l ! ii; l ! l i ! ! ; 1 l: ! ii;! l ! i l i !
• • l'./'. I t:L. (919) 833•2079 JOURNAL WiNSToN..sAtfM, N. C. OCT 27 93 '-C"f-CX=S~~ S_efkh.J,c_Jiieef;ng5 ~ (~k~f Waste-Martagement Plan Put~11. ~leanup of Pesticide Dump on Hold · ' II Statesville awaits EPA decision before federal aid given for site By Terry Martin JOURNAL RALEIGH BUREAU Federai officials say they're almost ready to begin a $4.l million cleanup of a former pesticide clump in western Statesville. But the cleanup ·might not start because North Carolina is barred from accepting the money. The catch is · that ½ith ThermalKEM Inc. 's an-nouncement last month that it is giving up on builct-J 'ir1-g a$ 70 million hazardous-waste incinerator, North Carolina's ,vastc-managernent plans remain in flux. Before money from the federal Supcrfund cleanup program can be allocated to a state. the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency must rule that the state has an adequate plan to en.sure that treatment is a\·ailablc for all toxic, reactiYe, ignitable or caustiC waste produced by its industries. But North Carolina hasn't had an endorsement from EPA -or a Superfund· check -in the past three years as people battled plans for the Thermal-KEI\'1 incinerator in lawsuits and public hearings ' across the state. STATESVILLE IS one of five Supcrfuncl sites in N01th Carolina where cleanup plans arc in place or are being developed, and an additional seven sites arc being evaluated. The lack of an approved waste-management plan has stalled the cleanups, said Dia1te Barrett, a spokes-man for the Supcrfund program in Atlanta. "We can proceed up tu the point of actual con-stiuction of ,the system, but no further until that is resolved,'' Barrett said. ~ Michael L. Kelly, the deputy director of the N.C Division of Solid \Vaste Management., said, ··Things are kind of in limbo right now. "\Ve submitted our 1991 (waste-management) plan, and that was never approved or disapproved. It's sort of been hanging there while EPA looks at the question nationally." Kelly said that state officials expect to see nationhl policy revised in the current session of Congress · during.,deliberation on the whole Superfund program. '·\vc're very anxious to hear what comes out of that," Kelly said. EPA is notifying residents of Statesville this week that it \Vi.ll follow their suggestions t6 have a carbon-filtered water-treatment system· installed on the grounds of a former pesticide packaging plant. The plant was run by the now-defunct FCX Inc. on West Front Street for almost 50 years. SINCE 1986, tests of the soil and water beneath the plant have turned up nine different pesticides, including DDT and chlordane, toxic arsenic and be-1yllium1 dioxin and other hazardous chemicals. The EPA regional office in Atlanta proposed last May to use an "air-stripping" process to remove the contaminants after pumping tainted ground water from the plant grounds. -But residents and environmental groups argued that the proposal would mean releasing toxic dioxin and other chemical compounds into the neighbor-hood, which is zoned for both industrial and residen-tial use. Barrett said yesterday: ''The citizens said they dicln't ,vant any more emissions going out into the air. · 'The alternative ,..,ill: take longer and be costlier than ai_r stripping, but it's their comrnuni~y and they: . 1 have to live there." · ~~".:.-.
• •
FCX, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
StatesviHe, North Carolina
OPERABLE UNIT #1
PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA
May 20, 1993
N. B. Mills Elementary School
141 O Pearl Street
Statesville, North Carolina
• •
AGENDA:
Welcome and Introduction
Community Relations
Curtis Fehn, Chief
North Carolina Section
Diane Barrett
North Carolina Superfund Section
Community Relations Coordinator
Brief Site History,
Results of Remedial Investigation,
Feasibility Study, Alternatives
Under Consideration and
EPA's Preferred Alternative
McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial Branch •
Other Panelist: Seth Bruckner (Legal Counsel)
Question and Answer Period
Closing Remarks
•
NOTES
• • SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
FOR OPERABLE UNIT ONE
FCX-STATESVILLE SITE Region 4 STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
April 1993
This fact sheet is one in a series designed to inform residents and local officials of the ongoing cleanup efforts at the FCX-Statesville
Superfund Site. Terms appearing in bold print are defined in the glossary at the end of this publication.
INTRODUCTION: This Proposed Plan Fact Sheet for Operable Unit One al the FCX-Statesville Site (the Site) in Statesville, Iredell
County, North Carolina has been prepared by the Region IV office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the fact
sheet is lo propose a clean-up plan, referred to as a preferred alternative, to address contamination at the Site. As the lead agency of
remedial activities during the Remedial lnvestlgadon/Feasfblllty Study process, EPA has worked in conjunction with the Superfund Section
of the North Carolina Department of Environmen~ Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Through this support role, NCDEHNR has
reviewed this preferred alternative and concurs with EPA's recommendations. In accordance with Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Llablllty Act (CERCLA), EPA is publishing this Proposed Plan to provide an opportunity
for public review and comment on all clean-up options, known as remedial alternatives, under consideration for the Site.
This document summarizes information that is explained in greater detail in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study reports and other
documents in the lnformadon Reposltory/Admlnlstradve Record for this Site. EPA and the State encourage the public to review these
documents to better understand the Site and the Superfund activities that have been conducted. The Administrative Record is available for
public review locally al the Iredell County Library, 135 East Water Street, Statesville, North Carolina.
EPA, in consultation with NCDEHNR, may modify the preferred alternative or select another response action presented in this Plan and the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Reports based on new information and/or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged
to review and comment on the alternatives identified in this publication.
The purposes of this Proposed Plan are to:
1. Provide a brief Site Description/History;
2. Summarize the sampling results of the phase I and II
Remedial lnvesdgadon {RI);
3. Summarize the Risk Assessment;
4. · Describe the remedial alternatives considered in detail in the
Feaslblllty Study (FS) Report;
5. Describe the remedial alternatives for remedial action at the
Site and explain the reasons for the preference;
6. Solicit public review of, and comment on, all the remedial
alternatives described; and
7. Provide a description of community relations and how the
public can be involved in the remedy selection process.
PUBLIC IIIEETING
Date: llay 20, 1993
Time: 7:00 pm • 9:00 pm
Location: N. B. llills Elementary School
1410 Pearl Street
Statesville, North carolina
30-DAY COIIIIENT PERIOD:
IIAY 6, 1993-JUNE 5, 1993
' + ' + ' BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES / ~~+ CARN A TJON MILK COMPANY , j I , j '01,i,Q "" FCX B 0 l!J:-s~' I,"-~ ~=◊ ◊ ""' -' RESIDENTIAL AREA FIGURE 1 SITE DIAGRAM (SHO'MNG ON-SITE MONITORING 'M:LLS) FCX-STA TES VILLE STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA sr, .. ,.. ..,. ~ . ; l"" ,J' ... -~ " '< '2 • GATE~ 0,:f-....:: ~,,. :i: ' . Q ... ~ i,;:3:: ® O if' +. 125 I APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 I r~~ __, ( IN FEET ) 1 ineh ~ 125 ft. 62.5 I m i . :""',a: S,'.'." ;_.;. • I OFFICE ◊◊ KE:! @) -f.let-llT~ING 'Ml.LS ~EPA ~
Sl11: DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The FCX property occupies about 5.5 acres at the intersection of
Phoenix Street and West Front Street in Statesville, Iredell
County, North Carolina (see Figure 1). FCX or Farmers
Cooperative Exchange began operations as an agricultural supply
distribution center in about 1940, and continued to operate the
Site until bankruptcy in 1986. The main activities taking place at
the Site from 1940-86 included the formulation, repackaging, and
warehousing of pesticides and fertilizers. Seed grains were also
cleaned and treated in the early years of operation. Many kinds
of pesticides were repackaged on-site. The repackaging of liquid
pesticides was terminated in 1966, and the repackaging of dust
pesticides was terminated in 1969.
The FCX property has undergone several structural changes
since 1950. The western half of the original building used tor
pesticide storage/clending was demolished and the upper
warehouse was constructed. The remainder of the buildings used
for teed milling and bagging operations on the eastern half of the
FCX property were later demolished. The lower warehouse was
constructed onto the eastern end of the upper warehouse in
1982. The majority of the FCX property, except for approximately
1.2 acres on the eastern halt, is covered by the two warehouses,
asphalt parking lots, or concrete loading pads.
Approximately five to ten thousand (5,000-10,000) pounds of
DDT, TOE, and possibly liquid chlordane were reportedly buried
on-site prior to the construction of the upper portion of the
warehouse in 1969. These pesticide compounds were allegedly
buried in a pit approximately 10 feet deep in an unidentified
location now covered by the upper warehouse.
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., retained by Southern States to
perform a pre-purchase environmental evaluation of the FCX
property, conducted soil and groundwater sampling on February
8-10, 1986. Surface soil sample results revealed the presence of
nine (9) pesticides, including chlordane and DDT. Pesticides and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the
groundwater samples, including the BHC compounds,
tetrachloroethylene, and trichlorofluoromethane.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources (now
known as the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, or NCDEHNR) performed a Site
Assessment at the Site in May 1986. Contaminants identified in
both the soil and groundwater included gamma-BHC (lindane),
chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, ODE, coal tar distillates, and volatile
organic compounds. Caprolactum was also detected in all of the
monitoring well samples.
Three follow-up investigations were conducted by EPA
Emergency Response in January 1989, August 1989, and
January 1990. The purpose of the January 1989 investigation
3
• was to locate the pesticide burial pit beneath the warehouse.
Approximately thirty (30) exploratory boreholes drilled beneath the
upper warehouse did not locate the buried pesticides. During the
August 1989 investigation, four additional monitoring wells were
installed; these four wells were sampled along with the tour
existing wells. With the exception of well MW-65, all of the on-
site wells revealed the presence of both pesticides and
halogenated solvents. Each of the eight welis was resampled
during the January 1990 sampling investigation; most of the wells
indicated the presence of pesticides and volatile organic
compounds.
The FCX-Statesville Site was evaluated using the EPA Hazard
Ranking System. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Prtorlties List (NPL) on June 24, 1988, and was
finalized on the list in February 1990.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SAMPLING ACTIVITlES
The primary purpose ct the Remedial Investigation was to
investigate the nature and extent ct waste constituents at the Site
and to determine the nature and extent of the threat to public
health and welfare, or the environment, caused by the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances from the Site. Due
to the complexity of the Site and the immense amount of work
proposed, the Remedial Investigation was conducted in several
phases. Phase One was conducted in June 1991 and Phase Two
was conducted in June 1992. Additional sampling was conducted
in October 1992 to investigate the presence of dioxin in the soil
and to perform air monitoring in the existing warehouses. A
detailed discussion of the Remedial Investigation results can be
found in the Phase One and Phase Two Remedial Investigation
Reports, and the Addendum to the Phase Two Report available
as part of the Administrative Record at the Site repository. The
principal results ct the Phase One Report include the following:
1. A total of one hundred eighty-seven (187) environmental
samples were collected and analyzed for the on-site surface
and subsurface soil. Both organic and inorganic
constituents of concern were identified in the various media
at the Site. The chemicals ot primary concern in the soil
include: the metals arsenic and beryllium; the pesticides
DDT, ODD, ODE, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane,
dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, alpha-BHC,
beta-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), and aldrin; the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, dibenzo
(a,h)tluoranthene; as well as pentachlorophenol and dioxin.
In addition to the soil samples collected tor analysis,
numerous exploratory boreholes were drilled beneath the
warehouse floor in order to locate the alleged pesticide pit;
however, the alleged burial pit was not located.
NORTH
t I I ARNAT 10 I MILK C 0. -I I r I
'~ ' ' '
0 ~~ jG(I
, --92 •-•-"PORT,
19 !'HAS[ II ~I AP /DH1[1347l ' E 2 sou•cE, '"
51
rr" FIGUR -E AND voe
PESTICID LOCATION OF CONTAMINATION
GROUNDWATER STATESVILLE ROLINA FCX NORTH CA STATESVILLE. OP_.t.WN BY J.C.
LEGEND
PESTICIDE PLUME = voe PLUME
,,,
<I
2. A total of twelve groundwater samples were collected from
on-site monitoring wells. The results indicate the presence.
of both on-site and off-site pesticide and volatile organic
compound contamination from the shallow water table down
into bedrock (See Figure :!). The pesticide groundwater
contamination extends 200 to 300 feet south of the Site; the
source of this contamination appears to be the soil
contamination located primarily beneath the warehouses.
The volatile organic compound groundwater contamination
also extends approximately 200 to 300 feet south of the
Site; further investigations will be conducted to determine
the source(s) of this contamination.
3. A total of three drinking water samples were collected and
analyzed from three nearby private wells. One of the three
wells indicated the presence of chlordane and heptachlor
epoxide at levels below the State and federal regulatory
levels.
4. Eleven sediment samples were collected from locations on
or adjacent to the Site; two samples collected near the Site
contained pesticides, including DDT, ODD, DOE, dieldrin,
and several chlordane-related compounds. One sample
collected from the residential pond north of the Site
contained PCB-1254. Volatile organic compounds were
also identified at several of the sediment sample locations.
5. Eleven surface water samples were collected on or adjacent
to the Site; metals, pesticides, volatile organic compounds
were identified in at least one of the samples.
In an effort to further define the nature and extent of
contamination present at the S~e. EPA conducted a Phase Two
Remedial Investigation. The objectives of Phase Two were to: 1)
delineate the extent of off-site groundwater contamination, and 2)
to drill additional exploratory boreholes to locate the alleged
pesticide burial pit. Field activities were conducted in June t 992.
A summary of the Phase Two Report is as follows:
1. Nine soil samples were collected and analyzed; three
samples contained the pesticides DDT, DOD, DOE, alpha-
chlordane, and gamma-chlordane. The pesticide burial pit
was not located.
2. The twelve on-site monitoring wells were resampled and
analyzed; pesticides, metals, and volatile organic
compounds were identified. The most notable pesticides
were lindane, beta-BHC, alpha-BHC, endrin ketone, delta-
BHC, and chlordane, while the most notable volatile organic
compounds were tetrachloroethene, 1, 1, 1-trichloroethene,
1, 1-dichloroethene, 1, 1-dichloroethane, chloroform, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, and trichloroethane.
5
• Seven shallow, temporary wells and one deep, permanent
monitoring well were also installed. No metals were
identified in any of the wells at significant concentrations.
Three of the five on-site wells indicated the presence of
pesticides; lindane was detected in one off-site monitoring
well located approximately 200 feet south of West Front
Street Two temporary off-site wells and the permanent off-
site well indicated the presence of volatile organic
compounds.
3. Two additional sediment samples were collected at locations
adjacent to the Site and along the railroad tracks. A •0tal of
nine polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and metal arsenic
were detected.
SUIIIIARY OF SrTc RISKS
An analysis was conducted to estimate the human health or
environmental problems that could result if the contamination
identified at the Site is not cleaned up. This analysis, known as
the Baseline Risk Assessment, focused on the potential health
affects from long-term (30 years) direct exposure as a result of
ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact with the contaminated soil,
surface water/sediment, groundwater, and air which are
contaminated with carcinogenic chemicals. The Baseline Risk
Assessment also focused on the adverse health effects that could
result from short term (5 years) and tong term (30 years)
exposure to non-carcinogenic chemicals.
In calculating risks to a population if no remedial action is taken,
EPA evaluates the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (AME)
levels for both currenl and future exposure scenarios to Site
contaminants. Scenarios were developed for children and adults
currently living near the Site or trespassing onto the Site. EPA
also evaluated children and adults living on the Site in the future
as well as future on-site workers.
EPA has concluded that the major future risk to human health
and the environment at the Site would result lrom:
future residents, workers, or trespassers coming into direct
contact with soil contaminated with arsenic, beryllium,
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, benzo(b,k)
fluoranthene, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin.
or from the future ingestion of groundwater contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, inorganics, and pesticides.
There is not a current risk because no one is currently living
on Site drinking contaminated groundwater, nor have any
off-site drinking wells shown unacceptable levels of
contamination. However, tt a hypothetical future resident
were to use the contaminated groundwater as a source of
drinking water, there would be long-term risks to human
health.
• ; ._; \: A qualitative ecological assessment was also perfonned at
· the Site during tile Remedial Investigation. No unique or
sensitive habitats were identified at or near the Site, and
vegetation did not appear to be stressed due to Site
contamination. One likely patllway for Site contaminants to
migrate off-site is via surface water runoff into nearby
streams. Two pesticides, dieldrin and alpha-thlordane,
were identified in nearby stream sediment at values which
exceed both North Carolina Surface Water Standards and
EPA Region IV screening values. Lead was also identified
in at least one surface water sample at a level exceeding
the State surface water standards and tile EPA Region IV
Screening Value. Anotller likely patllway for Site
contaminants to migrate off-site is via groundwater
discharge into nearby streams. Tetrachloroethene was
identified in at least one surface water sam pie at a level
which exceeded both the State surface water standards and
the EPA Region IV screening value. Therefore, tile
pctential exists for adverse effects on tile aquatic biota.
Additional sampling of surface water and sediment is
needed in order to detennine if any remedial action is
warranted.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from tllis
Site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of tile
other active measures considered, may present a pctential
current or future tllreat to the public health, welfare, or tile
environment.
ROLE AND SCOPE OF OPERABLE UNIT ONE
EPA currently believes that tile remediation of the Site will be
accomplished most effectively by implementing tllree phases of
cleanup, or Operable Units. Altllough it has been determined that
the elevated levels of pesticides in the shallow to intermediate
depth soils pcse one of the primary hazards at tile Site, EPA
feels that further sampling beneath tile warehouses al deep
depths is needed in order to fully characterize the extent of soil
contamination.
Additionally, the source(s) of tile volatile organic compcund
contamination at the Site have not been identified, and EPA is
currently negotiating witll several adjacent property owners to
conduct additional investigations to fully characterize the extent
of tllis contamination at the Site.
As a result, tile Operable Unit One Remedial Action will address
the pesticide and volatile organic compcund groundwater
contamination identified at tile FCX property and soutll of tile
FCX property. Following further characterization of the soil
contamination on the FCX property in the Summer of 1993, EPA
will implement the Operable UnitTwo Remedial Action to address
the soil contamination at the Site, along witll any additional
characterization needed due to ecological concerns, The
6
• Operable Unit Three Remedial Action will address all site-related
contamination not characterized during Operable Units One and
Two.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the four alternatives
developed in the Feasibility Study Repcrt to address tile
groundwater contamination at tile FCX-Statesville Site. The
primary objective of tile Feasibility Study was to determine and
evaluate alternatives for the appropriate extent of remedial action
to prevent or mitigate tile migration of hazardous substances from
the Site.
The following descriptions of remedial alternatives are
summarizations. The total present worth (PW) costs of an
alternative is tile amount of capital required to be depcsited at tile
present time at a given interest rate to yield the total amount
necessary to pay for initial construction costs and future
expenditures, including Operation & Maintenance {O&M) and
future replacement of capitol equipment. The Feasibility Study
Repcrt contains a more detailed evaluation of each alternative
and is available for review in the information repcsitories.
ALTERNATIVE 1 • NO ACTION
Total PW Co~t: None
By law, EPA is required to evaluate a No Action Alternative to i
serve as a basis against which otller alternatives can be ,,
compared. Under the No Action Alternative, no remedial ·
respcnse would be perfonned on tile groundwater at tile Site.
The No Action Alternative does not reduce tile risk calculated bY: ·
the Baseline Risk Assessment. Since no restrictions would be
impcsed on tile future use of groundwater at or near tile Site, tile
pctential would remain for expcsure to contaminated
groundwater.
ALTERNATIVE 2 • UM/TED ACTION
Capital Costs: $ 7,500
PW O&M Costs: $1,100,446
Total PW Costs: $1,107,946
As with tile No Action Alternative, no active remedial action would
be conducted under the Limited Action Alternative; however,
institutional measures would be taken to prevent expcsure to
contaminated groundwater. These institutional measures include
deed restrictions and groundwater monitoring.
Deed restrictions would require amending the property deed to
forbid tile use of groundwater as a pctable water source both on-
site and downgradient of tile Site where the plume extends or
may extend in tile future. These restrictions would remain in
place until the groundwater quality improved enough to allow for
unrestricted use.
• Groundwater would be monitored semi-annually for 30 years.
Groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed for voes
(EPA Method 8240), pesticides (EPA Method 8080), and metals
(EPA Method 6010). A phthalate scan (EPA Method 8270) will
also be conducted to evaluate the concentrations on bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate.
The Limited Action Alternative would not remediate groundwater
to either State Standards or Federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs}. Potential risk to human health and the
environment would be mitigated only by restricting private well
installation and usage in those areas where the groundwater
quality does not meet the drinking water standards.
ALTERNATIVE 3. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND
TREATMENT WITH CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION/
FILTRATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION
Capital Costs: $ 745,975
PW O&M Costs: $3,415,550
Total PW Costs: $4,161,525
Implementation: Est. 30 years
Alternative 3 would have two main objectives. One objective
would be to prevent any off-site migration of contaminated
groundwater from reaching potential private well users located
near the Site. Another objective of Alternative 3 would be to
reduce contaminant levels to meet the State Drinking Water,
Groundwater, and Surface Water Quality Standards as well as
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels.
Extraction wells would be used to pump contaminated
groundwater from the shallow and deep aquifer, through a piping
system, to a building used to house the treatment equipment.
The initial type ol treatment, Chemical Precipitation/Filtration,
would be used for reducing the levels of metals (e.g., beryllium,
chromium, copper, manganese, mercury, and zinc} in the
groundwater to meet State Drinking Water, Groundwater, and
Surface Water Quality Standards and Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels. Reducing the levels of metals would also
help to prevent inorganic fouling of the Granular Activated Carbon
(GAC} System. The Granular Activated Carbon System would be
used to reduce the levels of organic compounds in the
groundwater to meet State Standards stated above and Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels.
Once the treated groundwater met all treatment and discharge
requirements, it would be discharged to either the local publicly
owned treatment works (POTW} or a nearby surface water
pathway.
Following the installation ol the extraction system, aquifer tests
would be needed to evaluate the system's effectiveness in
controlling the off-site migration of the contaminants.
Groundwater quality would be monitored before and after
7
• treatment to ensure that the treatment system was reducing
contaminants to the required levels. Oeed restrictions would also
be used to prohibit the use of the contaminated groundwater in
the area known to be affected.
ALTERNATIVE 4 • GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND
TREATMENT WITH CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION/
FILTRATION, AIR STRIPPING, AND CARBON
ADSORPTION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 766,265
$3,307,783
$4,074,048
Est. 30 years
The objectives of Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative
3. These include preventing the off-site migration of
contaminated groundwater from reaching private well users, and
reducing the levels of contaminants to meet groundwater ARARs
referenced for Alternative 3.
Extraction wells would be used to pump the contaminated
groundwater from the shallow and deep aquifer, through a piping
system, to a building used to house the treatment equipment.
Chemical Precipitation/ Filtration would be used to reduce the
levels of metals to meet an State Standards previously mentioned
and Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels, thereby preventing-
inorganic fouling of the Granular Activated Carbon system. Air
stripping and Carbon Adsorption would be used to reduce the
levels of organic compounds to meet all State Standards
previously mentioned and Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels.
Once the treated groundwater met all treatment and discharge
requirements, it would be discharged to either the local POTW or
to a nearby surface water pathway. Groundwater quality would
be monitored before and after treatment to ensure the treatment
system was reducing contaminants to the required levels. Oeed
restrictions would also be used to prohibit the use of
contaminated groundwater in the area known to be affected.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup alternatives for the FCX-
Statesville Site, as described in this Proposed Plan, is the result
of a comprehensive evaluation and screening process. The
Feasibility Study for the Site was conducted to identify and
analyze the alternatives considered for addressing contamination.
The Feasibility Study and other documents for the Site describe,
in detail, the alternatives considered, as well as the process and
criteria EPA used to narrow the list to potential remedial
alternatives to address contamination at the Site. EPA always
uses the following nine criteria to evaluate alternatives identified
in the Feasibility Study. While overall protection of human health
and the environment is the primary objective of the remedial
• action, the remedial alternative selected for the Site must achieve
the best balance among the evaluation criteria considering the
scope and relative degree of the contamination at the Site.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment:
EPA assesses the degree to which each alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and
the environment through treatment, engineering methods, or
institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): The alternatives are evaluated for
compliance with all state and federal environmental and
public health laws and requirements that apply or are
relevant and appropriate to Site conditions (e.g., for
groundwaterlederal-Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
or North Carolina Drinking Water, Groundwater, and Surface
Water Quality Standards).
3. Short-tenn effectiveness: The length of time needed to
implement each alternative is considered, and EPA
assesses the risks that may be posed to workers and
nearby residents during construction and implementation.
4. Long-tenn effectiveness: The alternatives are evaluated
based on their ability to maintain reliable protection of public
health and the environment over time once the cleanup
levels have been met
5. Reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume:
EPA evaluates each alternative based on how it reduces (1)
the harmful nature of the contaminants, (2) their ability to
move through the environment and (3) the volume or
amount of contamination at the Site.
6. Implementability: EPA considers the technical feasibility
(e.g., how difficult the alternative is to construct and
operate) and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of
coordination with other government agencies that is needed)
of a remedy, including the availability of necessary materials
and services.
7. Cost: The benefits of implementing a particular remedial
alternative are weighed against the estimated cost of
implementation. Costs include the estimated capital (up-
front) cost of implementing an alternative over the long tenn,
and the net estimated present worth of both capital and
operation and maintenance costs.
a. State Acceptance: EPA requests state comments on the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports, as well
as the Proposed Plan, and must take into consideration
whether the State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative.
8
• 9. Community Acceptance: To ensure that the public has an
adequate opportunity to provide input EPA holds a public
comment period and considers and responds to all written
comments received from the community prior to the final
selection of a remedial action.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNA11VES
The following summary profiles the perfonnance of the preferred
alternatives in tenns of the nine evaluation criteria noting how it
compares to the other alternatives under consideration. The
following comparative analysis is provided for the groundwater
remediation alternatives.
OPERABLE UNIT ONE GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Altemattve 1: No Action
Altemattve 2: Umifed Action -Deed Restrictions and Long-term
Groundwater Monitoring
Altemattve 3: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment With
Chemical Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon
Adsorption, and Discharge
Altemattve 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment With
Chemical Precipitation/Filtration, Air Stripping, ,.
Carbon Adsorption, and Discharge
Overall' Protection of human health and the environment
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health and the
environment since no restrictions would be placed on future land
use at the Site; therefore, the potential risks associated with the
contaminated soil and groundwater would not be mitigated.
Alternative 2 would be protective of human health and the
environmant only tt the institutional controls were effectively
implemented. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be protective of human
health and the environment by reducing levels of all site-related
contaminants to meet all appropriate State and federal
requirements.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce contaminant levels;
therefore, they would not meet the ARARs (i.e., the State of North
Carolina's Water Quality Standards). Alternatives 3 and 4 would
meet both Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels and North
Carolina Drinking Water, Groundwater, and Surface Water Quality
Standards.
Short-tenn Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce site-related contamination
on a short-tenn basis. Alternatives 3 and 4 could be implemented
without significant risks to on-site workers or the community, and
without adverse environmental impacts.
·'
• long-Term Effectiveness and Pem1anence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no effect on the contaminant
concentrations contributing to the risks identified in the Baseline
Risk Assessment. Therefore, any reduction in contaminant
concentrations in the long-term would be due to natural
dispersion, attenuation, and degradation processes. It is
questionable whether remedial action objectives can be met
through natural processes in the foreseeable future.
Groundwater contamination would continue to migrate off-site;
therefore, it is not considered to be a pem1anent or effective
remedial solution.
Contaminants would be pem1anenHy reduced through
groundwater extraction and treatment in Alternatives 3 and 4. Air
stripping and Carbon Adsorption are beth proven technologies for
the removal of organic compcunds in groundwater. Metals would
also be pem1anenHy reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4 with the use
of chemical precipitation/filtration. EPA would conduct five-year
reviews of any remedial alternative selected to detem1ine whether
complete aquifer restoration is feasible and to ensure that the
surface water and sediment in nearby streams do not contain
unacceptable levels of site-related contaminants.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Since Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no active treatment process.
contaminants would degrade only by passive, natural processes.
Toxicity and mobility of the contaminated material may remain at
current levels for extended periods of time.
Continued extraction and treatment of the aquifer in Alternatives
3 and 4 would effectively reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume
of the contaminant plume.
9
• Implementability
No implementation of Alternative 1 is needed. Alternatives 2. 3.
and 4 would require extensive coordination between State and
local agencies in order to implement the institutional controls
effectively. Alternatives 3 and 4 are technically feasible, but
following installation of the system, would require a treatability
study. This study would include aquifer tests and monitoring of
the influent and effluent to determine the effectiveness of the
system.
Cost
Estimated total present worth costs for the four groundwater
alternatives are presented below:
Altemauve 1:
AltemaUve 2:
Altemauve 3:
AltemaUve 4:
State Acceptance
none
$1,107,946
$4,161,525
$4,074,048
The NCDEHNR has reviewed and provided EPA-Region IV with
comments on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
repcrts. The NCDEHNR also reviewed this Propcsed Plan and
EPA's preferred alternative and concurs with EPA's selection.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
evaluated alter the comment period ends and a respcnse to each
comment will be included in a Responsiveness Summary which
will be part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site.
,.
• •
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
After conducting a detailed analysis of the feasible cleanup alternatives based on the criteria described in the
preceding section, EPA is proposing a multi-component cleanup plan to address groundwater contamination
at the Site. The preferred alternative for Operable Unit One is:
ALTERNATIVE 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with Chemical Precipitation/Filtratior,
Air Stripping, Carbon Adsorption, and Discharge
ESTIMATED TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST: $4,074,048
The preferred remedy for Operable Unit One will involve some testing to verify that the cleanup levels can
be reached.
Based on current information, this alternative appears to provide the best balance of trade-offs with respect
to the nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluate alternatives. EPA believes the preferred alternative will satisfy
the statutory requirements of Section 121 (b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (b), which provides that the
selected alternative be protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, be cost
effective, and utilize permanent solutions and treatments to the maximum extent practicable. The selection
of the above alternative is preliminary and could change in response to public comments.
10
C0MMUNITYPARTIOPATI0N
----
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated.by Congress under Superfund to respond to citizen's concerns and needs
for information, and to enable residents and public officials to participate in the decision-making process. Public involvement activities
undertaken at Superfund sites consist of interviews with local residents and elected officials, a community relations plan for each site, fact
sheets, availability sessions, public meetings, public comment periods, newspaper advertisements, site visits, and Technical Assistance
Grants, and any other actions needed to keep the community informed and involved.
EPA is conducting a 30-day pubttc comment period from May 6, 1993 to June 5, 1993, to provide an opportunity for public involvement
in selecting the final cleanup method for this Sits: Public input on all alternatives, and on the information that supports the alternatives is
an important contribution to the remedy selection process. During this comment period, the public is invited to attend a public meeting on
May 20, 1993, at the N. B. Mills Elementary School, 1410 Pearl Street, Statesville, North Carolina beginning at 7:00 p.m. at which EPA will
present the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan describing the preferred alternative fortreatmentof the contaminated
groundwater at the FCX. Inc. Statesville Superfund Site and to answer any questions. Because this Proposed Plan Fact Sheet provides only
a summary description of the cleanup alternatives being considered, the public is encouraged to consult the infonnation repository for a more
detailed explanation.
During this 30.<Jay period, the public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the information repository located at the Iredell
County Library, Corner 2nd and Gladden Streets, Statesville, North Carolina and offer comments to EPA either orally at the public meeting
which will be recorded by a court reporter or in written form during this time period. The actual remedial action could be different from the
preferred alternative, depending upon new infonnation_or statements EPA may receive as a result of public comments. If you prefer to submit
written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight June 5, 1993 to:
Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A,, Region 4
North Remedial Supertund Branch
345 Courtland Stree~ NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
All comments will be reviewed and a response prepared in making the final determination of the most appropriate alternative for
cleanup/treatment of the Site. EPA's final choice of a remedy will be issued in a Record of Decision (ROD). A document called a
Responsiveness Summary summarizing EPA's response to all public comments will also be issued with the ROD. Once the ROD is signed
by the Regional Administrator it will become part of the Administrative Record (located at the Library) which contains all documents used
by EPA in making a final determination of the best cleanup/treatment for the Site. Once the ROD has been approved, EPA plans to conduct
the remedial activity using Superfund Trust monies.
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides affected communities by a Superfund site with the opportunity to apply for a Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG). This grant of up to $50,000 has been awarded to the Ci~zens for a Clean Environment and has enabled the group
to hire a technical advisor or consultant to assist them in interpreting or commenting on site findings and proposed remedial action plans.
If interested in participating in the TAG group,
please contact:
Mr. Abshire, President
Citizens for a Clean Environment
1600 Melvfney Street
Statesvllle, NC 28677
Phone: [phone]
11
For more infonnation concerning this grant program, please
contact:
Ms. Rosemary Patton, Coordinator
NC Technlcat Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division
U.S,E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Stree~ .NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
• •
0 ~
INFORMATION REPOSITORY LOCATION:
Iredell County Library
Comer 2nd and Gladden Streets
Statesville, North Carolina 28677
Phone: [phone]
Hours: llonday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. -9:00 pm.
Saturday 9:00 am. -6:00 pm.
r I
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOlIT SITE ACTIVmES, PLEASE CONTACT:
llr. McKenzie llallary, Remedial Project llanager or
11s. Diane Barrett, NC Communtty Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste llanagement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Ga 30365
Toll Free No.: 1-800-435-9233
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells and
springs.
Administrative Record: A file which is maintained and contains all information used by the lead agency to make its decision on the selection
of a method to be utilized to clean up/treat contamination at a Superfund site. This file is held in the information repcsitory for public review.
Appl/cable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): The federal and state requirements that a selected remedy must attain.
These requirements may vary among sites and various alternatives.
Basel/ne Risk Assessment: A means of estimating the amount of damage a Superfund site could cause to human heath and the
environment. Objectives of a risk assessment are to: help determine the need for action; help determine the levels of chemicals that can
remain on the site after cleanup and still protect health and the environment; and provide a basis for comparing different cleanup methods.
Carcinogenic: Any substance that can cause or contribute to the production of cancer: cancer-producing.
12
• • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and L/ab/1/ty Act (CERCLAJ: A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in
1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA}. The Acts created a special tax paid by producers of various chemicals
and oil products that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund. These Acts give EPA the authority to investigate and clean
up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites utilizing money from the Superfund Trust or by taking legal action to force parties
responsible for the contamination to pay for and clean up the site.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between materials such as sand, soil, or gravel (usually in aquifers}
which is often used for supplying wells and springs. Because groundwater is a major source of drinking water there is growing concern over
areas where agricultural and industrial pollutants or substances are getting into groundwater.
Information Repository: A file containing accurate up-to-date information, technical reports, reference documents, information about the
Technical Assistance Grant, and any other materials pertinent to the site. This file is usually located in a public building such as a library,
city hall or school, that is accessible for local residents.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs/: The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water delivered to any user of a public water
system. MCLs are enforceable standards.
· Natlonal Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible
long-term remedial action under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action. The list
is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to update the NPL at least once
a year.
Plume: A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given point of origin into either air or water.
Polynuclear Aromatic HydrocartJons (PAHs): A group of chemicals formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, refuse, or other
organic substances. As pure chemicals, PAHs generally exist as colorless, white or pale yellow-green solids.
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RMEJ: Calculation of the highest exposure to all contaminants at a site that an individual would be
expected to receive under current and future land-use conditions.
Remedla/ lnvestlgatlon/Feaslb/1/ty Study {Rl!FS): The Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive sampling and analytical study to
gather data necessary to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; to establish criteria for cleaning up the she;
a description and analysis of the potential cleanup alternatives for remedial actions; and support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives. The Feasibility study also usually recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative.
Record of Decision (ROD/: A public document that announces and explains which method has been selected by the Agency to be used
at a Superfund site to clean up the contamination.
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and written public comments received by EPA during a public comment period and EPA's
responses to those comments. The responsiveness summary is a key part of the Record of Decision.
Vo/at/le Organic Compounds (VOCS/: Any organic compound that evaporates readily into the air at room temperature.
13
Region 4
• • r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, ·• I I I I I
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
If you are not already on our malllng 11st and would llke to be placed on the 11st to receive future Information on the FCX, Inc. Statesvllle SUperfund Site, please complete this form and return to Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator at the above address:
NAME-·----------------------------------
ADDRESS·~--------------------------------
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: ____________________________ _
PHONE NUMBER-· ____________________________ _
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland StrNI, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
North Super1und Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Comorunily Relation• Coord.·
McKenzie Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
Officiai Busineu
Penany for Private Uoa $300
14
PA Facts About
Air Stripping
June 1992
What is air stripping?
Air stripping is a process used to rcmm-'c volalile
or cen~lin SL'mi-vol~Hik org;.rnic compounds from
cont:.1min:llcd groundwater or surface water.
Organic compoumls ;_irc those that contain carhon
and arc usually associated with life processes.
Vo13tik organic compounds. or VOCs as they arc
c:1llcd, ,ire chemicals which tend to vaporize
rapidly when heated or disturbed in any way. An
example would he the gasoline fumes that you
smell as you fill the tank on your car. In air
stripping, thl'sc vapors arc transferred from the
water in which they were dissolved into a passing
air stream. This air stream can be further tn.::itt:d
to allow for the rin:d collection and re-use or
destruction of the VOC-;.
How does air stripping work?
Air stripping is used to remediate (clean up)
groundwater or surn1cc water that has been contamin:Hed
by VOCs. This method of remediation is often
accomplished in a packed tower that is attached 10 an air
blower. This "packed tower" is simply a large metal
cylinder that is packed with material. The water stream
is pumped into the top and the air stream is pumped
into the bottom. The material in the tower is designed
to force the water stream to trickle down through
various channels and air spaces. Meanwhile, the air
stream is being forced into the bottom and nows upward,
exiting at the top. This is called "counter-current" now.
As the t,wi streams now past each other, the voes tend
to v~qmrize out of the disturbed water stream and arc
collected in the air stream.
Figure 1 presents a diagram of the air stripping process.
The contaminated surface water or groundwater is
pumped from its source and is collected in large pre-
treatment storage tanks. The water is then pumped into
the top of the tower and leaves from the bottom, It is
collected and sent on to be treated further if this is
necessary. The air stream is also collected and treated to
remove or destroy the voes.
The air stripper is an example of a liquid-gas contactor.
The mosr efficient type of liquid-gas contactor is the
packed tower. Inside the packed tower, the p:icking
material provides more surface area for the water stream
to form a thin film on, This allows much more of the
air stream to come into contact with 1he water stream.
Selecting packing material that maximizes this wetted
surface area will improve the efficiency of the air
stripper. Smaller packing material sizes generally·
increase the area available for stripping and improves the
transfer process. Once the packing material has been
selected, it can be packed in two different wavs. First, it
could simply be dumped into the top of the tower 10 fill
it up. This is called random packing. In the second
method, the packing material is arranged on travs
attached at certain levels inside the tower~ These tra;.,
arc made of metal gauze, sheet metal, or plastic. This ·is
called structured packing. Random packing is generally
less expensive, but the structured packing allows for
easier maintenance.
There are several variations of the packed tower. In one,
the "cross-flow tower", the water stream flows down
through the packing in the same way as the counter-
currenl tower. The air stream, however, is pulled across
the water by a fan, instead of being forced upward
through the tower. The "coke tray aerator" is a simple,
low maintenance process that doesn't use a blower for
the air stream. 'f!le water stream is simply allowed to
trickle through several layers of trays. This produces a
large surface area in contact with the surrounding air.
Another method, "diffused aeration stripping", uses
basins instead of a tower. The water stream nows either
from the top to bottom of the basin or from one side 10
the other while air is dispersed from the bottom of the
basin and allowed to "bubble-up" through the water.
These fine bubbles tend to disturb the liquid and carry
some of the VOCs away when they leave the liquid at
the top, Finally, "rotary air stripping" uses the centrifugal
force caused by a rotating cylinder instead of gravity to
pull the liquid through the packing material. The use of
centrifugal force seems to be more efficient because the
liquid is spread in thinner layers over the packing
material. The revolving motion also tends to disturb the
liquid a great deal. Both of these factors increase the
efficienl)' of this type of air stripper. The biggest
advantage, however, is the smaller size of the device. A
small rotary device can strip the same amount of water
as a much larger packed tower.
•
OH~ TRf.ATMlNl • ♦·••··•·• (S) ····: SurpfWr
Coniaminartd
Groondwa/tr
" -Surloct Wa1tr
"''· Tl!lA TM(NT
STOii.AG[
TA.NKS
(\)
Rtcy<lt
: Offgo1
AtR STRIPPER •
(l)
Trtortd !iqu,d
Figure 1 Schcrn:i.tic Diagram of Air Stripping System
What are the applications of air stripping?
Air slripping is used to remove volatile organic
contaminants from liyuids. These organic compounds
include 1, I, 1-trichloroethanc, trich lorocthylcnc.
dichloroethylene. chlorobcnzene, and vinyl chloride.
Stripping is only partially effective in some cases. In
these cases, stripping must be followed by another
process to remove the remaining contaminant. The
equipment used in air stripping is relatively simple.
allowing for quick start-up and shut-down. The modular
design of packed LOwers allows for easy maintenance.
These factors make air stripping well suited for
hazardous waste site operations.
An imporL<rnt factor to consider when looking at air
stripping as a remediation option is the air pollution
impact. The gases generated during an air stripping may
require the collection and treatment of the waste air
stream. Often, computer modeling of the air stripper is
required before operations can begin. These models arc
used to predict the stripper impact on the surrounding
atmosphere.
How well does aii-;s.tripping work'!
Air stripping has been successfully used to treat water
that has been contaminated with volatile urganic
compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile compounds. Air
stripping has been shown to be capable of removing up
to 98 percent of VOCs and up to 80 percent of certain
semi-volatile compounds. The method is not suitable for
the removal of some low-volatility compounds, metals, or
inorganic contaminants. Air stripping has commonly
been used with pump-and-treat methods for treating
• contaminated groundwater. In this method, the
groundwater is removed from the ground by pumps.
trca(Cd in the packed tower and often returned to the
same area.
Where have air strippers been used?
An air stripping system was installed at the Sydney Mine
site in Valrico, Florida. The packed tower was 42 feet
tall, li>ur. feet in diameter, and contained a 24-foot
section of packing material. The packing material was
3.5-inch diameter (baseball-sized) polyethylene balls.
The average water flow rate was 150 gallons per minute.
Air stripping was also used at a municipal well site in
the city of Tacoma, Washington. Five towers were
installed in this operation. Each tower was I 2 feet in
diameter and was packed with one-inch saddle shaped
packing material to a depth of 20 feet. The average
water Oow was 700 gallons per minute for each lower.
The lowers consistently removed 94 to 98 percent of the
n)ntaminants.
Are residues generated by air stripping'!
The primary residues created with air stripping systems
arc the waste gas coming from the top of the tower and
the treated water coming from the bottom. The gas is
released to the atmosphere only after it is treated to
remove or destroy the contaminants. The treated water
may require further treatment if it contains other
contaminants that were not removed during the air
Slripping. If the water requires further, it is treated on-
site or stored for transportation to another treatment
facility. Once an acceptable level of contaminants has
been removed from the water, it can either be sent to a
sewage treatment facility, released to a surface water
body, or returned to its source if it was removed from
the ground.
For more information about Air Stripping, you
may contact EPA at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Counland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
The information in this fact sheet was compile.d from Engineering Bulletin, J\ir Stripping of Aqueous Solgtio~ October, 1991.
What is groundwater monitoring?
Water that has collected naturally and is stored in
porous soil and rock under the earth's surface is
called groundwater. Nearly half of the population
of the United States depends on
groundwater for their daily water needs, either
from private wells or large public water systems.
Everyone wants to be sure that their groundwater
supply is safe. To ensure this, samples of water
arc taken and analyzed for a· wide variety of
chemicals. It is often necessary to install specially
designed wells 10 obtain the samples.· These
moni10ring wells are installed in and around
known or suspected contamination sources such as
landfills, waste dumps, and industrial sites. These
special monitoring wells are usually laid out in
such a way as to intercept any contaminant
migration (movement) away from a site. The
visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant
from it's source is often called a plume, as it is the
groundwater equivalent of a smoke cloud coming
from a fire. Figure I shows a landfill with a plume
moving away from it that should be monitored.
Figure 2 shows the parts of a typical monitoring
well.
Figun: 1: Spill Site Showing Contaminant Plume
Monitoring
June 1992
Figure 2 Typical Monitoring Well
What does monitoring tell us ?
The monitoring wells in and around a site are sampled
periodically, typically several times each year. The wells
arc locked between sampling to prevent tampering which
could affect sample results. The samples are taken by
specially trained people using sterilzed equipment to be
sure that the sample truly represents what is in th_e
ground. The water samples are analyzed by a certified
laboratory for a large number of chemicals. The results
are usually expressed in parts per million or parts per
billion. These numbers represent the relative
concentration of the chemical in the groundwater, and
arc the ratio of units of chemical per million or billion
units of groundwater. This information is compiled
using computer programs which keep track of the results
and compare them 10 established standards. These
programs arc designed 10 look for changes over time,
and to make predictions of how the plume of
contamination may migrate through the ground in the
future. Using this information, scientists and regulators
can decide on the best method of controlling, containing
and remediating (cleaning up) the contamination.
Monitoring is also essential in dctcrminig if a remedy is
working. This information is vital if they are 10 properly
protect human hcallh and the environment.
•
How is monitoring well sampling performed?
The sampling of mo~J<>ting wells is usually done by
trained field personnel.from the testing-laboratory or by
groundwater consultants. In general, a sample is taken
only after the pH, electrical conductivity, and
temperature of the water being pumped from the well
· have stabilized. (pH is a numerical measure of the
relative acidity of the water; zero to seven indicate
decreasing acidity, seven to fourteen indicate increasing
alkalinity, while seven is considered neutral.)
How is contaminant movement predicted?
In many instances of groundwater contamination, the
ability to predict how the contaminant plume will behave
in the future can only be based on the results of
expensive drilling and sampling programs. Many
scientists interested in the movements of contaminants
in groundwater believe that it will soon be possible to
use mathematical modeling techniques to estimate the
spread of a particular contaminant and its concentration
at any point in the plume.
How are the locations of monitoring wells
determined?
Once the general limits of the plume have been
identified, several monitoring wells are installed in or
near the plume. The purpose of these monitoring wells
is to:
• Determine the properties of the rock formation
in which the contamination is found and the
surrounding aquifers.
• Determine the level of groundwater of all
aquifers in the area.
•
•
Provide sampJ.tlS __ of groundwater for the
detection of'ci>nialninants.
Monitor thl!tment of the contaminant ··,;,.·-plume.
Usually one monitoring well is located near the center of
the plume in the path of the groundwater as ii moves
away from the site. Another is installed farther away,
but in the path of the plume. Background conditions are
recorded from a third monitoring well that is located in
an uncontaminated area (see Figure 3).
The most difficult decision is usually not where to place
the monitoring well, but at what depth the samples
should be taken. Selection of the most appropriate
depths depend on the characteristics of both the
contaminant and the aquifer or soil surrounding the site.
The design of the well and sampling plan are extremely
important if meaningful and accurate information
concerning the extent of contamination is to be obtained.
Proper placement of the monitoring wells is also
important and must be based on accurate information
concerning the pattern of groundwater flow and the type
of contamination.
(XPLANATION 0 Up;•,~ttr.• "IOnHo•..-.:;
8 LOl'\Cllill moMo,,rw;i Q well
C Do..-n~•od;erii mon,tc,OQ 0 ... ,11
l◄tgUre 3: Typical Arrangement or Monitoring Wells
For more information about Groundwater
Monitoring, please contact EPA at the following
address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Supe,fund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
The information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE), a publication of the U.S. environmental Protection Agency, November 1991.
&EPA
Purpose
Section 121 (b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in
which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, and contaminants as a principal element." The Engineer-
ing Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize the latest
information available on selected treatment and site remedia-
tion technologies and related issues. They provide summaries
of and references for the latest information to help remedial
project manage", on-scene coordinato", contracto", and other
site cleanup manage" understand the type of data and site
characteristics needed to evaluate a technology for potential
applicability to their Superfund or other hazardous waste site.
Those documents that describe individual treatment technolo-
gies focus on remedial investigation scoping needs. Addenda
will be issued periodically to update the original bulletins.
Abstract
Air stripping is a means to transfer contaminants from
aqueous solutions. to air. Contaminants are not destroyed by
air stripping but are physically separated from the aqueous
solutions. · Contaminant vapo" are transferred into the air
stream and, ff necessary, can be treated by incineration, ad-
sorption, or oxidation. Most frequently, contaminants are
collected in carbon adsolptlon systems and then treated or
destroyed in this con..e1tiaied l\lrm. The concentrated con-
taminants may be recowred, Incinerated for waste heat recov-
ery, or destroyed by other treatment technologies. Generally,
air stripping is used as one in a series of unit operations and can
reduce the overall cost for managing a particular site. Air
stripping is applicable to volatile and semivolatile organic com-
pounds. It is not applicable for treating metals and inorganic
compounds.
During 1988, air stripping was one of the selected rem-
edies at 30 Superfund sites [1 ]•. In 19B9, it was a component
of the selected rernecly at 38 Superfund sit<;,S (2). An estimated
• [reference number, page number]
1,000 air-stripping units are presently in operation at sites
throughout the United States [3). Packed-tower systems typi-
cally provide the best removal efficiencies, but other equipment
configurations exist, including diffused-air basins, surface aera-
to", and cross-flow towe" [4, p. 2) (5, p. 10-48]. In packed-
tower systems, there is no clear technology leader by virtue of
the type of equipment used or mode of operation. The final
determination of the lowest cost alternative will be more s1te
specific than proc~ss equipment dominated.
This bulletin provides information on the technology ap-
plicability, the technology limitations, a description of the
technology, the types of residuals produced, site requirements,
the latest performance data, the status of the technology, and
sources of further information.
Technology Appllcablllty
Air stripping has been demonstrated in treating water
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
semivolatile compounds. Removal efficiencies of greater than
98 percent for VOCs and greater than or equal to 80 percent
for semivolatile compounds have been achieved. The technol-
ogy is not effective in treating low-volatility compounds, metals,
or inorganics (6, p. 5-3). Air stripping has commonly been used
with pump-and-treat methods for treating contaminated •
groundwater.
This technology has been used primarily for the treatment of
voes in dilute aqueous waste streams. Effluent liquid quality is
highly dependent on the influent contaminant concentration.
Air stripping at specific design and operating conditions will yield
a fixed, compound-specific percentage removal. Therefore, high
influent contaminant concentrations may result in effluent con-
centrations above discharge standards. Enhancements, such as
high temperature _or rotary air stripping, wiU allow less-volatile
organics, such as ketones, to be treated (6, p. 5-3).
Table 1 shows the effectiveness of air stripping on gen-·
eral contaminant groups present in aqueous solution. Ex-
amples of constituents within contaminant groups are pro-
vided in Reference 7, "Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCIA Soils and Sludges.• This table is based
on the current available information or professional judgment
Table 1 • Effectiveness ol Air Stripping on General Contaminant
Groups trom Water
Contaminant Groups, Effectivmns
Halogenated volatiles ■
Halogenated semivolatiles • ..
Nonhalogenated volatiles ■
-S Nonhalogenated semivolatiles :J
C PCBs :J 0 E' Pesticides :J 0
Dioxins/Furans 'J
Organic cyanides :J
Organic corrosives :J
Volatile metals :J
Nonvolatile metals :J -• C Asbestos :J 0 E' Radioactive materials :J 0 .s Inorganic corrosives :J
Inorganic cyanides :J
~ Oxidizers :J -~
V Reducers :J g
0:
■ Demonstrated Effectiveness: SucceHful treatability test at some scak?
completed .. Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will work
" No Expected Effectiveness: E,:;pert opinion that technology will not
wori<
Only some compounds in this category are candidates for air strip-
ping.
where no information was available. The proven effectiveness
of the technology for a particular site or contaminant does
not ensure that it will be effective at all sites or that the
treatment efficiencies achieved will be acceptable at other
sites. For the ratings used for this table, demonstrated effec-
tiveness means that, at some scale, treatability testing dem-
onstrated the technology was effective for that particular
contaminant group. The ratings of potential effectiveness
and no expected effectiveness are both based upon expert
judgment. Where potential effectiveness is indicated, the
technology is believed capable of successfully treating the
contaminant group in a particular matrix. When the tech-
nology is not applicable or will probably not work for a
particular contaminant 9roup, a no-expected-effectiveness
rating is given.
Limitations
Because air stripping of aqueous solutions is a means of
mass transfer of contaminants from the liquid to the air stream,
air pollution control devices are typically required to capture or
destroy contaminants in the off gas [8]. Even when offgas treat-
ment is required, air stripping usually provides significant ad-
vantages over alternatives such as direct carbon adsorption
from water because the contaminants are more favorably sorbed
onto activated carbon from air than from Wc\!'.er. Moreover,
contaminant destruction via llytic oxidation or ;ncineration
may be feasible when applied to the offgas air stream.
Aqueous solutions with high turbidity or elevated levels
of iron, manganese, or carbonate may reduce removal effi-
ciencies due to scaling and the resultant channeling effects.
Influent aqueous media with pHs greater than 11 or less than
5 may corrode system components and auxiliary equipment.
The air stripper may also be subject to biological fouling. The
aqueous solution being air stripped may need pretreatment to
neutralize the liquid, control biological fouling, or prevent
scaling [ 6][9].
Contaminated water with VOC or semivolatile concentra-
tions greater than 0.01 percent generally cannot be treated by
air stripping. Even at lower influ.ent concentrations, air strip-
ping may not be able to achieve cleanup levels required at
certain sites. For example, a 99 percent removal of
trichloroethene (TCE) from groundwater containing 100 parts
per million (ppm) would result in an effluent concentration of
1 ppm, well above drinking water standards. Without heating,
only volatile organic contaminants with a dimensionless Henry's
Law constant greater than 1 0·2 are amenable to continuous-
flow air stripping in aqueous solutions [6][5]. In certain cases,
where a high removal efficiency is not required, compounds
with lower Henry's LaW constants may be air stripped. Ashworth
et al. published the Henry's Law constants for 45 chemicals
[10, p. 25]. Nirmalakhandan and Speece published a method
for predicting Henry's Law constants when published constants
are unavailable [11 ]. Air strippers operated in a batch mode
may be effective for treating water containing either high
contaminant concentrations or contaminants with lower Henry's
Law constants. However, batch systems are normally limited
to relatively low average flow rates.
Several environmental impacts are associated with air strip-
ping. Air emissions of volatile organics are produced and must
be treated. The treated wastewater may need additional treat-
ment to remove metals and nonvolatiles. Deposits, such as
metal (e.g., iron} precipitates may occur, necessitating periodic
cleaning of air-stripping towers [6, p. 5-5]. In cases where
heavy metals are present and additional treatment will be re-
quired, it may be beneficial to precipitate those metals prior to
air stripping.
Technology Description
Air stripping is a mass transfer process used to treat ground-
water or surface water contaminated with volatile or semivola-
tile organic contaminants. At a given site, the system is de-
signed based on the type of contaminant present, the
contaminant concentration, the required effluent concentra-
tion, water temperature, and water flow rate. The major design
variables are gas pressure drop, air-to-water ratio, and type of
packing. Given those design variables, the gas and liquid
loading (i.e., flows per cross--sectional area}, tower diameter
and packing height can be determined. Flexibility in the system
design should allow for changes in contaminant concentration,
air and water flow rates, and water temperature. Figure 1 is a
schematic of a typical process for the air stripping of contami-
nated water.
2 Engineering Bulletin: Air stripping of Aqueous Solutions
,,,,----. • Figure 1 • Schematic Diagram of Air-Stripping System (8, p. 20][13, p. 43]
+········ OFFGAS TREATMENT ♦-----Gas
Liquid (S) : Stripper
Offgas
Contaminated
Groundwater
or --+
Surface Water
PRE-
TREATMENT
STORAGE
TANKS
( 1) Feed
HEAT
EXCHANGERS
{optional)
(2)
Recycle (optional)
In an air-stripping process, the contaminated liquid is
pumped from a groundwater or surface water source. Water to
be processed is directed to a storage tank (1) along with any
recycle from the air-stripping unit.
Air stripping is typically performed at ambient temperature.
In some cases, the feed stream temperature is increased in a heat
exchanger (2). Heating the influent liquid increases air-stripping
efficiency and has been used to obtain a greater removal of semi-
volatile organics such as ketones. At temperatures close to 100°C,
steam stripping may be a more practical treatment technique [8,
p. 3J.
The feed stream (combination of the influent and recycle)
is pumped to the air stripper (3). Three basic designs are used
for air strippers: surface aeration, diffused-air systems, and
specially designed liquid-gas contactors (4, p. 3]. The first two
of these have limited application to the treatment of contami-
nated water due to their lower contaminant removal efficiency.
In addition, air emissions from surface-aeration and diffused-air
systems are frequently more difficult to capture and control.
These two types of air strippers will not be discussed further.
The air stripper in Figure 1 is an example of a liquid-gas
contactor.
The most efficient type of liquid-gas contactor is the packed
tower (4, p. 3]. Within the packed tower, structures called
packing provide surface area on which the contaminated water
can form a thin film and come·in contact with a countercurrent
flow of air. Air-to-waterratiosmayrangefrom 10:1 to 300:1 on
a volumetric basis (14, p. 8J. Selecting packing material that
will maximize the wetted surface area will enhance air strip--
ping. Packed towers are usually cylindrical and are filled with
either random or structured packing. Random packing consists
of pieces of packing dumped onto a support structure within
the tower. Metal, plastic, or ceramic pieces come in standard
sizes and a variety of shapes. Smaller packing sizes generally
increase the interfacial area for stripping !nd improve the mass-
Air
Blower
Treated Liquid
EFFLUENT
TREATMENT
(4)
transfer kinetics. However, smaller packing sizes result in an
increased pressure drop of the air stream and an increased
potential for precipitate fouling. Tripacks', saddles, and slotted
rings are the shapes most commonly used for commercial
applications. Structured packing consists of trays fitted to the
inner diameter of the tower and placed at designated points
along the height of the tower. These trays are made of metal
gauze, sheet metal, or plastic. The choice of which type of
packing to use depends on budget and design constraints. Ran-
dom packing is generally less expensive. However, structured
packing reportedly provides advantages such as lower pressure-
drop and better liquid distribution characteristics (4, p. SJ.
The processed liquid from the air•stripper tower may con•
tain trace amounts of contaminants. If required, this effluent is
treated (4) with carbon adsorption or other appropriate
treatments.
The offgas can be treated (5) using carbon adsorption,
thermal incineration, or catalytic oxidation. Carbon adsorption
is used more frequently than the other control technologies
because of its ability to remove hydrocarbons cost-effectively
from dilute(< 1 percent) air streams (8, p. SJ. ·
Process Residuals
The primary process residual streams created with air•
stripping systems are the offgas and liquid effluent. The offgas
is released to the atmosphere after treatment; activated carbon
is the treatment most frequently applied to the offgas stream.
Where activated carbon is used, it is recommended that the
relative humidity of the air stream be reduced. Once spent, the
carbon can be regenerated onsite or shipped to the original
supplier for reactivation. ~ spent carbon is replaced, it may
have to be handled as a hazardous waste. Catalytic oxidation
and thermal incineration also may be used for offgas treatment
(15, p. 1 OJ (8, p. 5]. Sludges, such as iron precipitates, build up
Engineering Bul/etln: Air stripping of Aqueous Solutions 3
• within the tower and must be removed periodically [6, p. 5-5].
· Spent carbon can also result ~ carbon filters are used to treat
effluent water from the air-stripper system. Effluent water
containing nonvolatile contaminants may need additional treat-
ment. Such liquids are t,eated onslte or stored and removed to
an appropriate facility. Biological; chemical, activated carbon,
or other appropriate treatment technologies may be used to
treat the effluent liquid. Once satisfactorily treated, the water is
sent to a sewage treatment facility, discharged to1surface water,
or returned to the source, such as an undergrou?d aquifer.
Site Requirements
Air strippers are most frequently permaner:it installations,
although mobile systems may be available for limited use.
Permanent installations may be fabricated onsite or may be
shipped in modular form and constructed onsite. Packing is
installed after fabrication or construction of the tower. A concrete
pad will be required to support the air-stripper tower in either
case. Access roads or compacted soil will be needed to transport
the necessary materials.
Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service is needed.
Water should be available at the site to periodically clean scale
or deposits from packing materials. The quantity of water
needed is site specific. Typically, treated effluent can be used to
wash scale from packing.
Contaminated liquids are hazardous, and their handling
requires that a site safety plan be developed to provide for
personnel protection and special handling measures. Spent
activated carbon may be hazardous and require similar han-
dling. Storage may be needed to hold the treated liquid until it
has been tested to determine its acceptability for disposal or
release. Depending upon the site, a method to store liquid that
has been pretreated may be necessary. Storage capacity will
depend on liquid volume.
Onsite analytical equipment for conducting various analy-
ses, including gas chromatography capable of determining
site-specific organic compounds for performance assessment,
make the operation more efficient and provide better informa-
tion for process control.
Performance Data
System performance is measured by comparing contami-
nant concentrations in the uniieated liquid with those in the
treated liquid. Performance data on air-stripping systems, rang-
ing from pilot-scale to full-scale operation, have been reported
by several sources, including equipment vendors. Data ob-
tained on air strippers at Superfund sites also are discussed
below. The data are presented as originally reported in the
referenced documents. The quality of this information has not
been determined. The key operating and design variables are
provided when they were available in the reference.
An air-stripping system, which employed liquid-phase GAC
to polish the effluent, was installed at the Sydney Mine site in
Valrico, Florida. The air-stripping tower was 4 feet in diameter,
!
• Table 2
Performance Data for the Groundwater Treatment
System at the Sydney Mine Sile, FL [13, p. 42]
Concmtration
lnflumt Effluent Contaminant (µg/L} (µg/L}
Volatile organics
Benzene 11 ND'
Chlorobenzene 1 ND
1, 1-dichloroethane 39 ND
Trans-1,2-dichloropropane 1 ND
Ethyl benzene 5 ND
Methylene chloride 503 ND
Toluene 10 ND
Trichlorof1uoromethane 71 ND
Meta-xylene 3 ND
Ortho-xylene 2 ND
Extractable organics
3-(1, 1-dimethylethyl) phenol 32 ND
Pesticidn
2,4-0 4 ND
2,4,5-TP 1 ND
lnarganics
Iron (mg/L) 11 < 0.03
'ND = Not detected at method detection limit of 1 µg/L for volatile
organics and 1 0 µg/L for extracta~ organics and pesticides
42 feet tall, and contained a 24-foot bed of 3.5-inch diameter
polyethylene packing. The average design water flow was 150
gallons per minute (gpm) with a hydraulic loading rate of 12
gpm/ft' and a volumetric air-to-water ratio of approximately
200:1. The air-stripping tower was oversized for use at future
treatment sites. Effluent water from the air stripper was pol-
ished in a carbon adsorption unit. Table 2 summarizes the
performance data for the complete system; it is unclear how
much removal was accomplished by the air stripper and how
much by the activated carbon. Influent concentrations of
total organics varied from approximately 25 parts per billion
(ppb) to 700 ppb [13, p. 41]. .
Air stripping was used at well 12A in the city of Tacoma,
Washington. Well 12A had a capacity of 3,500 gpm and was
contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons, including 1, 1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane; trans-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE); TCE; and
perchloroethylene. The total voe concentration was approxi-
mately 1 00 ppb. Five towers were installed and began operation
on July 15, 1983. Each tower was 12 feet in diameter and was
packed with 1-inch polypropylene saddles to a depth of 20
feet. The water flow rate was 700 gpm for each tower, and the
volumetric air-t~water ratio was 310:1. The towers consis-
tently removed 94 to 98 percent of the influent 1, 1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane with an overall average of 95.5 percent re-
moval. For the other contaminants, removal efficiencies in excess
of 98 percent were achieved [16, p. 112].
Another remedial action site was Wurtsmith Air Force Base
in Oscoda, Michigan. The contamination at this site was the
result of a leaking underground storage tank near a mainte-
4 Engineering Bulletin: Air stripping ol Aqueous Solutions
)
)
,-.._
TatMfj
Alr-S!TtppW Perlonnauce Summary
Al Wurtsmlth AFB
[17, p. 121]
G/l Wata Flow Slngl, To...,. Srrlrs O~rat/on
/vol) (Umin) ('6 R,movttl) /% R,movttl)
10 1.135 95 99.8
10 1,700 94 99.8
10 2,270 86 96.0
18 1,135 98 99.9
18 1,700 97 99.9
18 2,270 90 99.7
25 1,135 98 99.9
25' 1,700 98 99.9
25 2,270 98 99.9
Influent TCE concentration: 50-8,000 µg/l Water temperature: 283°K
nance facility. Two packed-tower air strippers were installed to
remove TCE. Each tower was 5 leet in diameter and 30 feet tall,
with 18 feet of 16mm pall ring packing. The performance
summary for the towers, presented in Table 3, is based on
evaluations conducted in May and August 1982 and January
1983. Excessive biological growth decreased performance and
required repeated removal and cleaning of the packing. Op-
eration of the towers in series, with a volumetric air-to-water
ratio of 25:1 and a water flow of 600 gpm (2,270 l)min),
removed 99.9 percent of the contaminant [17, p. 119].
A 2,500 gpm air stripper was used to treat contaminated
groundwater during the initial remedial action at the Verona .
Well field site in Battle Creek, Michigan. This well field is the
major source of public potable water for the city of Battie Creek.
The air stripper was a 10-loot diameter tower packed to a
height of 40 feet with 3.5 inch pall rings. The air stripper was
operated at 2,000 gpm with a 20:1 volumetric air-to-water
ratio. Initial problems with iron oxide precipitating on the
packed rings were solved by recirculating sodium hypochlorite
through the stripper about lour times per year [8, p. 8-9]. The
total voe concentration of 1 31 ppb was reduced by approxi-
mately 82.9 percent [15, p. 56]. The air stripper ollgas was
treated via vapor phase granular activated carbon beds. The
ollgas was heated prior to entering the carbon beds to reduce
its humidity to 40 percent.
An air stripper is a.nendy operating at the Hyde Park
Superfund site in New York. Treatek, Inc., which operates the
uni, reports the system is treating about 80,000 gallons per
day (gpd) of landfill leachate. The contaminants are in the
range of 4,000 ppm total organic carbon (TOC). The air
stripper is reportedly able to remove about 90 percent of the
TOCs [18). A report describing the performance of the air
stripper is expected to be published during 1991.
The primary voes at the Des Moines Superlund site were
TCE; 1,2-DCE; and vinyl chloride. The TCE initial concentration
was approximately 2,800 ppb and gradually declined to the
800 to 1,000 ppb range alter 5 months. -Initial groundwater
concentrations,,2-DCE were unreported while the concen-"~,
tration of vinyl chlotide ranged from 38 ppb down to 1 ppb. I
The water flow rate to the air stripper ranged from 500 to 1,850
gpm and averaged approximately 1,300 gpm. No other design
data were provided. TCE removal efficiencies were generally
above 96 percen~ while the removal efficiencies for 1,2-DCE
were in the 85 to 96 percent range: No detectable levels of vinyl
chloride were observed in the effluent water [12, p. 8-1 ].
VOCs were detected in the Eau Claire municipal well field in
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as part of an EPA groundwater supply
survey in 1981. An air stripper was placed on-line in 1987 to
protect public health and wetfare until completion of the reme-
dial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and final remedy selec-
tion. Data reported on the Eau Claire site were for the period
beginning August 31, 1987 and ending February 15, 1989. Dur-
ing this period, the average removal efficiency was greater than
I
I
Table4
Air-Stripper Perlonnance at
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field [12, p. C-1]
Contaminant lnflutnt Rtmoval
Conctntration Effldtncy
(ppb) (%)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0.17-2.78 88
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.38-1.81 93
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 4.32-14.99 99
Trichloroethene 2.53-11.18 98
88 percent for the lour chlorinated organic compounds studied.
The average removal efficiencies are shown in Table 4. The air
stripper had a 12-foot diameter and was 60 feet tall, with a
packed bed of 26 feet Water feed rates were approximately 5 to
6 million gallons per day (mgd). No other design parameters
were reported [12, p. C-1 ].
In March 1990, an EPA study reviewed the performance
data from a number of Superfund sites, including the Brewster
Well Field, Hicksville MEK Spill, Rockaway Township, Western.
Processing, and Gilson Road Sites [15].
Reported removal efficiencies at the Brewster Well Field site
in New York were 98.50 percent, 93.33 percen~ and 95.59
percent for tetrachloroethene (PCE); TCE; and 1,2-DCE; respec-
tively. Initial concentrations of the three contaminants were
200 ppb (PCE), 30 ppb (TCE) and 38 ppb (1,2-DCE) [15, p. 55].
The 300 gpm air stripper had a tower diameter of 4.75 fee~
packing height ol 17.75 lee~ air-to-water ratio of 50:1, and
used 1-inch saddles for packing material [15, p. 24].
A removal efficiency ol 98.41 percent was reported for methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK) at the Hicksville MEK spill site in New York.
The reported influent MEK concentration was 15 ppm. The air
stripper had a 100 gpm llowrate, an air-to-water ratio of 120: 1, a
tower diameter of 3.6 lee, a packing height ol 15 I~ and used
2-inch Jaeger Tripack packing material. Water entering the air
stripper was heated to approximately 180'to195'F by heat ex-
changers [15, p. 38].
Engineering Bulletin: Air Strfpplng of Aqueous So/utlom 5
Tables • AJr Stltpper Perfoonance at Rockaway
Township, NJ (1 S, p. S3]
Contaminant
Trichloroethytene
Methyl-tert-butyl ether
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Chloroform
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Total VOC
lnllumt
Conttntratlon
(ppb)
28.3
3.2
4.0
6.4
1.3
20.0
2.0
65.2
R~moval
Efflci,ncy
/%)
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
The Rockaway Township air stripper had a flowrate of
1,400 gpm, tower diameter of 9 feet, packing height of 25
feet, air-to-water ratio of 200:1, and used 3-inch Tellerettes
packing material. The performance data are shown in Table 5
[15, p. 18).
The Western Processing site had two air-stripping towers
treating different wells in parallel. The first tower had a 100
gpm (initial) and 200 gpm (maximum) flowrate, a tower diam-
eter of 40 feet, a packing height of 40.5 feet, an air-to-water
ratio of 160: 1 (initial) and 100: 1 (maximum), and used 2-inch
Jaeger Tripack packing material. The second tower had a 45
Table 6
Alr-Strtpper Performance at
Westem Processing, WA [1S, p. 61)
Contaminant
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
1, 1, l •Trichloroethane
T richloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Dichloromethane
T etrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,2.Qichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
lsobutanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Influent
Concentration
(ppb)
73
5
781
22
89
1.~o
8,220
.159.
8,170
378
551
11
250
250
10
1,480
Rm,oval
Efflcl,ncy
/%)
93.15
99.36
77.27
94.38
99.65
99.94
99.37
99.63
98.68
99.09
54.55
96.00
96.00
0.00
70.27
Alr-Slrlppe, Petlonnance at the
GIison Road Site, NH [1 S, p. 6S)
Contaminant lnflu,mt Av~Ranova/
lsopropyt alcohol
Acetone
Toluene
Oichloromethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Total voe
Concmtratkm
/ppb)
532
473
14,884
236
1,340
1,017
469
18,951
Effldmcy
(%)
95.30
91.93
99.87
93.79
99.45
99.71
99.06
99.41
gpm (initial) and 60 gpm (maximum) flowrate, a tower diam-
eter of 2 feet, packing height of 22.5 feet, air-to-water ratio of
83.1 :1 (initial) and 62.3:1 (maximum), and used 2-inch Jaeger
Tripack packing material [15, p. 31 ]. The performance data are
presented in Table 6.
The Gilson Road Site used a single column high-tempera-
ture air stripper (HTA5) which had a 300 gpm flowrate (heated
influent), tower diameter of 4 feet, packing height of 16 feet, air-
to-water ratio of 51.4: 1, and used 16 Koch-type trays at 1-foot
intervals [15, p. 42-45]. The performance data are provided in
Table 7. Due to the relatively high influent concentrabon and
the high (average) removal efficiency, this system required supple-
mental control of the volatiles in the offgas. ·
Another EPA study, completed in August 1987, analyzed
performance data from 177 air-stripping systems in the United
States. The study presented data on systems design, contami-
nant types, and loading rates, and reported removal efficiencies
for 52 sites. Table 8 summarizes data from 46 of those sites,
illustrating experiences with a wide range of contaminants [19).
Reported efficiencies should be interpreted with caution. Low
efficiencies reported in some instances may not reflect the true
potential of air stripping, but may instead reflect designs in-
tended to achieve only modest removals from low-level con-
taminant sources. It is also important to recognize that, be-
cause different system designs were used for these sites, the
results are not directly comparable from site to site.
Technology Status
Air stripping is a well-developed technology with wide
application. During 1988, air stripping of aqueous solutions
was a part of the selected remedy at 30 Superfund sites [1 ]. In
1989, air stripping was a part of the selected remedy at 38
Superfund Sites [2).
The factors determining the cost of an air stripper can be
categorized as those affecting design, emission controls, and
operation and maintenance (O&M). Design considerations such
as the size and number of towers, the materials of construction,
and the desired capacity influence the capital costs. Equipment
cost components associated with a typical packed-tower air strip-•
6 Engineering Bulletin: Air stripping of Aqueous Solutions
)
J '. i
• • Table 8
summary cl Repolted Alr-Strtpper Removal Effleleneles from 46 Sites [19]
lnflumt Rq,ort,d
No. of Concrntration R,mova/ Efflcifflq"
Data Point1 (µg/L) (%)
Contaminant Average Range Avera~ Range
Aniline I 1 226 NA' 58 NA I
Benzene ! 3 3,730 200-10,000 99.6 99-100
Bromodichloromethane 1 36 NA 81 NA
Bromoform 1 8 NA 44 NA I Chloroform 1 530 1500 48 NA I
Chlorobenzene 0 95 NA ND' NO
Dibramochloromethane 1 34 NA 60 NA
Dichloroethylene 7 409 2-3,000 98.6 96-100
Diisopropyl ether 2 35 20-50 97.0 95-99 I Ethylbenzene 1 6,370 100-1,400 99.8 NA I
Ethylene dichloride 7 173 5-1,000 I 99.3 79-100
Methylene chloride 1 15 9-20 100 NA
Methyl ethyl ketone 1 100 NA 99 NA
2-Methylphenol 1 160 NA 70 NA
Methyl tertiary butylether 2 90 50-B0 97.0 95-99
Perchloroethylene 17 355 3-4,700 96.5 86-100
Phenol 1 , 198 NA 74 NA
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 300 NA 95 NA
Trichloroethane 8 81 5-300 95.4 70-100
Trichloroethylene 34 7,660 1-200,000 98.3 76-100
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1 29,000 NA 99 NA
Toluene 2 6,710 30-23,000 98 96-100
Xylene 4 14,823 17-53,000 . 98.4 96-100
Volatile organic compounds 3 44,000 57-130,000 98.8 98-99.5
Total Volatile Organics 46 11,120 12-205,000 97.5 58.1-100
•Note that the averages and ranges presented in this column represent more data pClinU than are presented in the second column of this table because the
removal efficiencies were not available for all air strippen.
0NA = Not Applicable. Data available for only one stripper.
<ND= No Data." Insufficient data available.
Figure 2
Cost EsHmates lor Air Strtpplng wllhOUI Air Emission
Conlrols as a Funellon cl the Henry's Law Coefflclenl
ii,
~
ii,
I ;;
8
E ~ ~ en
100
I 00
010
\ \ ..
· 1 ::::.::.-.-.-.:::
0.1 mgd
'mod
10 mod
\-.
\.. -------------
\:.:~··.·.·---···.·_·· ' ···• ..... . ·---... ··---...... ········ ··----.. ____ _
·---------
O~w.~~-~~~~=-~-~~~~-~~
0~ 001 01
Henry's Coefficient
(dimensionless)
per include tower shell, packing support, water distributor, mist
eliminator, packing, blower and motor, engineering, and con-
tractor overhead and profit. The addition of an air treatment
system roughly doubles the cost of an air-stripping system [3][6,
p. 5-5]. Onsite regeneration or incineration of carbon may
increase the cost associated with emission controls. The primary
O&M cost components are operating labor, repair and upkeep,
and energy requirements of blower motor and pumps [12].
Adams et al. made cost estimates based on flows from 0.1 to
10 mgd assuming a removal efficiency of 99 percent. The
process was optimized for packed tower volume and energy
consumption. Figure 2 presents general cost curves for three
flow rates based on their work. Air emissions controls were not
included in the costs: Within the range of Henry's Law Coefficients
of O.Ql to 1.0, the cost ranged from S0.07/1 ,000 gallons to
S0.70/1,000 gallons. As the Henry's Law Coefficient approached
0.005, the costs rapidly rose to V.00/1,000 gallons [20, p. 52].
Engineering Bulletin: Air Stripping of Aqueous Solutions 7
• Acco_rding to Hydro Group, Inc., the cost of air stripping
may range from S0.04 to S0.17 per 1,000 gallons [21, p. 7].
The Des Moines Superlund site unit cost for groundwater treat-
. ment is estimated to be about S0.45/1,000 gallons based on a
1,250 gpm treatment_ rate and an average O&M cost of
S200,000/year for 10 years at.10 percent interest. The Eau
Claire site had a unit cost of roughly S0.14/1,000 gallons
assuming a 5-year operation period and an average treat-
ment rate of 7 million gpd [12, p. C-6].
Recent developments in this technology include high-
temperature air stripping (HTAS) and rotary air stripping. A
full-scale HTAS system was demonstrated at McClellan AFB to
treat groundwater contaminated with fuel and solvents from
spills and storage tank leaks. The combined recycle and makeup
was heat~ to 65°C, and a removal efficiency of greater than
99 percent was achieved [8, p. 9]. The rotary design, marketed
under the name HIGEE, was demonstrated at a U.S. Coast
Guard air station in East Bay Township, Michigan. At a gas-to-
liquid ratio of 30:1 and a rotor speed of 435 rpm, removal
efficiencies for all contaminants, except 1, 2-DCE, exceeded 99
percent. The removal efficiency for 1,2-DCE was not reported
[4, p. 19].
Raising influent liquid temperature increases mass-transfer
rates and the Henry's Law Constants. This results in improved
removal efficiencies for VOCs and the capability to remove
contaminants that are less volatile. Table 9 illustrates,the
influence that changes in liquid temperature have on contami-
nant removal efficiencies. Note that steam stripping may be
the preferred treatment technology at a feed temperature
approaching 1 OO'C, because the higher temperatures associ-
ated with steam stripping allow organics to be removed more
efficiently than in HTAS systems. However, steam stripping
uses more fuel and therefore will have higher operating costs.
Additionally, the capital costs for steam stripping may be higher
than for HTA5 if higher-grade construction materials are needed
at the elevated temperatures used in steam stripping [8, p. 3].
Table 9
Influence of Feed Temperature on Removal ol Water Soluble Compounds from Groundwater [8, p. 1 S]
Compound -/lanoml at ~/«ltd T,mf)fflJrUrt
rz-c 3s0c 73'C
2 -Propanol 10 23 70
Acetone 35 80 95
Tetrahydrofuran 50 92 ,99
• • Rotary air strippers use centrifugal force rather than gravity
to drive aqueous solutions through the specially designed pack-
ing. This packing, consisting of thin sheets of metal wound
together tightly, was developed for rotary air strippers because of the strain of high centrifugal forces. The use of centrifugal force
reportedly results in high removal efficiencies due to formation of
a very thin liquid film on wetted surfaces. The rotary motion also
causes a high degree of turbulence in the gas phase. The
turbulence results in improved liquid distribution over conven-
tional gravity-driven air strippers. The biggest advantage of
rotary strippers is the high capacity for a relatively small device.
Disadvantages include the potential for mechanical failures and
additional energy requirements for the drive motor. Water
carryover into the air effluent stream may cause problems with
certain emission control devices used to treat the contaminated
air. Cost and performance data on rotary air strippers are very
limited [4, p. 16].
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding air stripping of
liquids may be directed to:
Dr. James Heidman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
FTS 684-7632
[phone]
Acknowledgments
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio,
by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under
contract No. 68-CS-0062. Mr. Eugene Harris served as the EPA
Technical Project Monitor. Mr. Gary Baker was SAIC's Work
Assignment Manager. This bulletin was authored by Mr. Jim
Rawe of SAJC. The Author is especially grateful to Mr. Ron
Turner, Mr. Ken Dostal and Dr. James Heidman of EPA, RREL,
who have contributed significantly by serving as technical con-
sultants during the development of this document
The following other Agency and contractor personnel have
contributed their time and comments by participating in the
expert review meeting and/or peer reviewing the document:
Mr. Sen Blaney
Dr. John Crittenden
Mr. Clyde Dial
Dr. James Gossett
Mr. George Wahl
Ms. Tish Zimmerman
EPA-RREL
Michigan Technological University
SAIC'
Cornell University
SAIC
EPA-OERR
8 Engineering Bulletin: Air Stripping of Aqueous Solutions
•
1. ROD Annual Report, FY 1988. EPA/540/8-89/006, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
2. ROD Annual Report, FY 1989. EPA/540/8-90/006, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
3. Lenzo, F., and K. Sullivan. Ground Water Treatment
Techniques: An Overview of the State-of-the-Art in America.
Presented at the first US/USSR Conference on
Hydrogeology, Moscow, July 3-S, 1989.
4. Singh, S.P., and R.M. Counce. Removal of Volatile Organic
Compounds From Groundwater: A Survey of the Technolo-
gies. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, under
Contract DE-AC05-84OR21400, 1989.
5. Handbook; Remedial Acton at Waste Disposal Sites (Re-
vised). EPA/625/6-85/006, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., pp.10-48 through 10-52, 1985.
6. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
EPA/540/2-86/003(1), U.S. Environmental Protectjon
Agency, Washington, D.C., pp. 5-3 through 5-6, 1986.
7. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils
and Sludges. EPN540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1988.
8. Blaney, B.L., and M. Branscome. Air Strippers and their
Emissions Control at Superfund Sites. EPN600/D-88/153,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1988.
9. Umphres, M.D., and J.H. Van Wagner. An Evaluation of the
Secondary Effects of Air Stripping. EPN600/S2-89/005, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1990.
10. Ashworth, R. A., G. B. Howe, M. E. Mullins and T. N.
Rogers. Air-Water Partitioning Coefficients of Organics in
Dilute Aqueous Solutions. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
18:25-36, 1988.
11. Nirmalakhandan, N. N. and R. E. Speece. QSAR Model for
Predicting Henry's Constants. Environmental Science and
Technology, 22: 1349-1357, 1988.
1 2. Young, C., et al. Innovative Operational Treatment
Technologies for Application to Superfund Site• Nine
Case Studies. EPA/540/2-90/006, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1990.
1 3. McIntyre, G.T., et al. Design and Performance of a
Groundwater Treatment System for Toxic Organics
Removal. Journal WPCF, 58(1 ):41-46, 1986.
l 4. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment
of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87/014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1987.
15. Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance Study
Series: Comparisons of Air Stripper Simulations and
field Performance Data. EPN450/1-90/002, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
16. Byers, W.D., and C.M. Morton. Removing voe from
Groundwater; Pilot, Scale-up, and Operating Experi-
ence. Environmental Progress, 4(2): 112-118, 1985.
17. Gross, R.L., and S.G. TerMaath. Packed Tower Aeration
Strips Trichloroethylene from Groundwater. Environ•
mental Progress, 4(2): 119-124, 1985.
18. Personal communication with vendor.
19. Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources. Air
Emissions and Controls. EPN450/3-87 /017, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
20. Adams, J. Q. and R. M. Clari<. Evaluating the Costs of
Packed-Tower Aeration and GAC for Controlling
Selected Organics. Journal AWWA, 1 :49-57, 1991.
21. Lenzo, F.C. Air Stripping of VOCs from Groundwater:
Decontaminating Polluted Water. Presented at the
49th Annual Conference of the Indiana Water Pollution
Control Association, August 19-21, 1985.
Engineering Bulletin: Air Stripping of Aqueous Solutions 9
EXTRACTION WELLS Groundwater Treatment AIR STRIPPING CARBON ADSORPTION EQUALIZATION BAG FILTER BAG FILTER DISCHARGE • • !:· ..... ...... ... . . .. . . . ·-.-: : • .. ... ... . MONITORING
• Unrted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Superfund
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/540/2-91/024
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
October 1991
&EPA
Engineering Bulletin
Granular Activated
Carbon Treatment
Purpose
Section 121 (b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the-volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants as a principal element." The Engineering Bulletins
are a series of documents that summarize the latest information
available on selected treatment and site remediation technolo-
gies and related issues. They provide summaries of and refer-ences for the latest information to help remedial project man-agers, on-scene coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup managers understand the type of data and site characteristics
needed to evaluate a technology for potential applicability to their Superfund or other hazardous waste site. Those documents
that desCribe individual treatment technologies focus on reme-dial investigation scoping needs. Addenda will be issued peri-odically to update the original bulletins.
Abstract
Granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment is a physico-
chemical process that removes a wide variety of contaminants
by adsorbing them from liquid and gas streams [l, p. 6-3]. This treatment is most commonly used to separate organic con-taminants from water or air; however, it can be used to remove
a limited number of inorganic contaminants (2, p. 5-17]. In most cases, the contaminants are collected in concentrated
form on the GAC, and further treatment is required.
The contaminant (adsorbate) adsorbs to the surfaces of the microporous carbon granules until the GAC becomes ex-hausted. The GAC may then be either reactivated, regenerated,
or discarded. The reactivation process destroys most contami-
nants. In some cases, spent GAC can be regenerated, typically using steam to desorb and collect concentrated contaminants
for further treatment. If GAC is to be discarded, it may have to be handled as a hazardous waste.
• [reference number, page number]
Site-specific treatability studies are generally necessary to document the applicability and potential performance of a GAC system. This bulletin provides information on the tech-
nology applicability, technology limitations, a technology de-scription, the types of residuals produced, site requirements,
latest performance data, status of the technology, and sources for further information.
Technology Applicability
Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use as a treatment for municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste
streams. The concepts, theory, and engineering aspects of the technology are well developed (3]. It is a proven technology
with documented performance data. GAC is a relatively non-specific adsorbent and is effective for removing many organic and some inorganic contaminants from liquid and gaseous
streams [4].
The effectiveness of GAC as an adsorbent for general con-taminant groups ·1s shown in Table 1. Examples of constituents
within contaminant groups are provided in ~'Technology
Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges" [SJ. This table is based on current available information or professional judgment when no information was available. The proven effectiveness of the technology for a particular site or waste does not ensure that it will be effective at all sites or that the treatment efficiency achieved will be acceptable at other sites. for the ratings used for this table, demonstrated effec-tiveness means that, at some scale, treatability was tested to show that, for that particular contaminant and matrix, the technology was effective. The ratings of potential effectiveness and no expected effectiveness are based upon expert judge-
ment. Where potential effectiveness is indicated, the technology is believed capable of successfully treating the contaminant
group in a particular matrix. When the technology is not applicable or will probably not work for a particular combina-tion of contaminant group and matrix, a no-expected-effective-
ness rating is given.
The effectiveness of GAC is related to the chemical com-position and molecular structure of the contaminant. Or-
-~ 0 0 "' 0
-~ 0 0 "' 0 .E
~ ~ V 0 ~ "'
■
Table 1 • Effectiveness of Granular Activated Carbon on
General Contaminant Groups
Contaminant Group-s Liquid /Gas
Halogenated volatiles II
Halogenated semivolatiles II
Nonhalogenated volatiles• II
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles II
PCBs II
Pesticides ■
Oloxins/Furans ■
Organic cyanides" ,,
Organic corrosives " ■
Volatile metals" ■
Nonvolatile metals" ■
Asbestos ::i
Radioactive materials " ■
Inorganic corrosives ::i
Inorganic cyanides 0 ■
Oxidizersb ■
Reducers ::i
Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale completed
T Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will work.
~ No Expected Effectiveness: Eitpert opinion that technology will not work
" Technology is effective for some contaminants in the group; it may not
be effective for others.
b Applications to these contaminants involve both adsorption and chemical
reaction.
ganic wastes that can be treated by GAC include com-
pounds with high molecular weights and boiling points and
low solubility and polarity [6]. Organic compounds treat-
able by GAC are listed in Table 2. GAC has also been used to
remove low concentrations of certain types of inorganics
and metals; however, it is not widely used for this application
[1, p. 6-13].
Almost all organic compounds can be adsorbed onto
GAC to some degree [2, p. 5-17]. The process is frequently
used when the chemical composition of the stream is not fully
analyzed [1, p. 6-3]. Because of its wide-scale use, GAC has
probably been inappropriately selected when an alternative
technology may have been more effective [7]. GAC can be
used in conjunction with other treatment technologies. For
example, GAC can be used to remove contaminants from the
offgas from air stripper and soil vapor extraction operations
[7] [B, p. 73] [9].
• Ta01e 2
Organic Compounds Amenable to
Adsorption by GAC [1]
Class
Aromatic solvents
Polynuclear aromatics
Chlorinated aromatics
Phenolics
Aromatic amines and
high molecular weight
aliphatic amines
Surfactants
Soluble organic dyes
Fuels
Chlorinated solvents
Aliphatic and aromatic acids
Pes tic id es/herbicides
Limitations
Exampl~
Benzene, toluene, xylene
Naphthalene, biphenyl
Chlorobenzene, PCBs, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
Phenol, cresol, resorcinol,
nitrophenols, chlorophenols,
alkyl phenols
Aniline, toluene diamine
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Methylene blue, textile dyes
Gasoline, kerosene, oil
Carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
Tar acids, benzoic acids
2,4-0, atrazine, slmazine,
aldicarb, alachlor, carbofuran
Compounds that have low molecular weight and high
polarity are not recommended for GAC treatment. Streams
with high suspended solids (~ 50 mg/L) and oil and grease (~
1 0 mg/L) may cause fouling of the carbon and require frequent
backwashing. In such cases, pretreatment prior to GAC, is
generally required. High levels of organic matter (e.g., 1,000
mg/L) may result in rapid exhaustion of the carbon. Even lower
levels of background organic matter (e.g., 10-100 mg/L) such
as fulvic and humic acids may cause interferences in the adsorp-
tion of specifically targeted organic contaminants which are
present in lower concentrations. In such cases, GAC may be
most effectively employed as a polishing step in conjunction
with other treatments.
The amount of carbon required, regeneration/reactivation
frequency, and the potential need to handle the discarded GAC
as a hazardous waste are among the important economic con-
siderations. Compounds not well adsorbed often require large
quantities of GAC, and this will increase the Costs. In some
cases the spent GAC may be a hazardous waste, which can
significantly add to the cost of treatment.
Technology Description
Carbon is an excellent adsorbent because of its large surface
area, which can range from 500-2000 m2/g, and because its
diverse surfaces are highly attractive to many different types of
contaminants [3]. To maximize the amount of surface available
2 Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
• • • Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Fixed-Bed GAC System
(CONTAMINATED
UOUID)
131
I 11
CARBON BED
/-------~EFFLUENT
{TREATED WATER)
'"
SPENT CARBON
for adsorption, an activation process which increases the sur-face-to-volume ratio of the carbon is used to produce an exten-sive network of internal pores. In this process, carbonaceous materials are converted to mixtures of gas, tars, and ash. The tar is then burned off and the gases are allowed to escape to produce a series of internal micropores [1, p. 6-6 J. Additional processing of the GAC may be used to render it more suitable for certain applications (e.g. impregnation for mercury or sulfur removal).
The process of adsorption takes place in three steps [3]. First the contaminant migrates to the external surface of the GAC granules. It then diffuses into the GAC pore structure. Finally, a physical or chemical bond forms between the con-taminant and the internal carbon surface.
The two most common reactor configurations for GAC adsorption systems are the fixed bed and the pulsed or moving bed [3]. The fixed-bed configuration is the most widely used for adsorption from liquids, particularly for low to moderate concentrations of contaminants. GAC treatment of contami-nated gas streams is done almost exclusively in fixed-bed reac-tors. The following technical discussion applies to both gas and liquid streams.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a typical single-stage, fixed-bed GAC system for use on a liquid stream. The contami-nant stream enters the top of the column (1 ). As the waste stream flows through the column, the contaminants are ad-sorbed. The treated stream (effluent) exits out the bottom (2). Spent carbon is reactivated, regenerated, or replaced once the effluent no longer meets the treatment objective (3). Although Figure 1 depicts a downward flow, the flow direction can be upward, depending on design considerations.
Suspended solids in a liquid stream or particulate matter in a gaseous stream accumulate in the column, causing an in-crease in pressure drop. When the pressure drop becomes too high, the accumulated solids must be removed, for example by backwashing. The solids removal process necessitates adsorber downtime, and may result in carbon loss and disruption of the mass transfer zone. Pretreatment for removal of solids from streams to be treated by GAC is, therefore, an important design consideration.
As a GAC system continues to operate, the mass-transfer zone moves down the column. Figure 2 shows the adsorption pattern and the corresponding effluent breakthrough curve [3). The breakthrough curve is a plot of the ratio of effluent concen-tration (C,,) to influent concentration (C,,) as a function of water volume or air volume treated per unit time. When a predeter-mined concentration appears in the effluent (C8), breakthrough has occurred. At this point, the effluent quality no longer meets treatment objectives. When the carbon becomes so saturated with the contaminants that they can no longer be adsorbed, the carbon is said to be spent (Ce=C0). Alternative design arrangements may allow individual adsorbers in multi-adsorber systems to be operated beyond the breakpoint as far as com-plete exhaustion. This condition of operation is defined as the operating limit (C,~Cc) of the adsorber.
The major design variables for liquid phase applications of GAC are empty bed contact time (EBCT), GAC usage rate, and system configuration. Particle size and hydraulic loading are often chosen to minimize pressure drop and reduce or elimi-nate backwashing. System configuration and EBCT have an impact on GAC usage rate. When the bed life is longer than 6 months and the treatment objective is stringent (C/C0 < 0.05),
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment 3
• Figure 2
Breakthrough Characteristics or Fixed-Bed GAC Adsorper (3]
l
Adsorotron
lone ,,,
Co Co
w ,;:,;,;
. ; I I I
1.0 C0/C0----,----,----•----1---
1 1 1 1 Complete Exhaustion
CL/Co----T----,----7---
, · '-Operating Limit Ce
Co
I I I
CBfCo-- - --r - - --,-- - --Breakpoint
I I
Throughput. volume/time
a single adsorber or a combination of single beds operating in
parallel is preferred. For a single adsorber, the EBCT is normally
chosen to be large enough to minimize GAC usage rate. When
less stringent objectives are required (C.JC0 > 0.3), blending of
effluents from partially saturated adsorbers can be used to
reduce GAC usage rate. When stringent treatment objectives
are required (C.JC0 < 0.05) and GAC bed life is short (less than
6 months) multiple beds in series may be used to decrease GAC
usage rate.
For gas-phase applications, the mass transfer zone is usu-
ally very short if the relative humidity is low enough to prevent
water from filling the GAC pores. The adsorption zone (Figure
2) for gas-phase applications is small relative to bed depth, and
the GAC is nearly saturated at the breakpoint. Accordingly,
EBCT and system configuration have little impact on GAC
usage rate and a single bed or single beds operated in parallel
are commonly used.
GAC can be reactivated either onsite or offsite. The choice is
usually dictated by costs which are dependent on the site and on
the proximity of offsite facilities ihat reactivate carbon. Generally
onsite reactivation is not economical unless more than 2,000
pounds per day of GAC are required to be reactivated. Even so,
an offsite reactivation service may be more cost effective [10].
The basic evaluation te~hnique for initial asse~ment of the
feasibility of GAC treatment is the adsorption isotherm test.
This test determines if a compound is amenable to GAC adsorp-
tion and can be used to estimate minimum GAC usage rates.
More detailed testing such as small-scale column tests and pilot
tests should be conducted if the isotherms indicate GAC can
produce an effluent of acceptable quality at a reasonable carbon
usage rate (1 OJ.
Process Residuals
The main process residual produced from a GAC system is
the spent carbon containing the hazardous contaminants. When
the carbon is regenerated, the desorbed contaminants must be
treated or reclaimed. Reactivation of carbon is typically accom-
plished by thermal processes. Elevated temperatures are em-
ployed in the furnace and afterburners to destroy the accumu-
lated contaminants. If the carbon cannot be economically
reactivated, the carbon must be discarded and may have to be
treated and disposed of as a hazardous waste. In some cases,
the influent to GAC treatment must be pretreated to prevent
excessive head loss. _Residues from pretreatment (e.g. filtered
suspended solids) must be treated or disposed. Solids collected
from backwashing may need to be treated and disposed of as a
hazardous waste. -
Site Requirements
GAC equipment generally has small space requirements
and sometimes can be incorporated in mobile units. The
rapidity of startup and shutdown also makes GAC amenable to
mobile treatment. Carbon beds or columns can be skid-mounted
and transported by truck or rail [2, p. 5-19].
As previously stated, spent carbon from the treatment of
streams containing hazardous substances is generally considered
hazardous, and its transportation and handling requires that a
site safety plan be developed to provide for personnel protection
and special hand_ling measures. Storage may have to be provided
to hold the GAC-treated liquid until its acceptability for release
has been determined. n additional treatment is required, ad-
equate space must be provided for these systems.
4 Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
Performance Data •
Performance data on full-scale GAC systems have been
reported by several sources including equipment vendors.
Data on GAC systems at several. Superiund sites and other
cleanup sites are discussed Jn this section. The data presented
for specific contaminant removal effectiveness were obtairied
from publications developed by the respective GAC system
vendors. The quality of this information has not been deter•
mined; h0wever, it does give an indication of the efficiency of
GAC.
A GAC system was employed for leachate treatment at the
Love Canal Superfund site in Niagara Falls, New York. The
results of this operation are listed in Tables 3 and 4 (11 ].
Table 5 summarizes a number of experiences by Calgon
Corporation in treating contaminated groundwater at many
other non-Superfund sites. Table 5 identifies the sources of
contamination along with operating parameters and results
[12]. While these sites were not regulated under CERCLA, the
type and concentration of contaminants are typical of those
encountered at a Superiund site.
The Verona Well Field Superfund site in Battle Creek, Michi-
gan used GAC as a pretreatment for the air stripper. This
arrangement reduced the influent concentrations which allowed
the air stripper to comply with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The system had two paral-
lel trains: a single unit and two units in series. Approximately
one-third of the total flow was directed to the first train while
the remaining flow went to the other train. Performance data
for removal of total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) on
selected operating days are given in Table 6 [13].
A remediation action at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station in
Traverse City, Michigan, resulted in GAC being used to treat
contaminated groundwater. The groundwater was pumped
from the extraction well system to the GAC system. The treated
water was then discharged to the municipal sewer system.
Concentrations of toluene in the monitoring wells were reduced
from 10,329 parts per billion (ppb) to less than 10 ppb in
approximately 100 days [14].
Technology Status
GAC is a well-proven technology. It has been used in the
treatment of contaminated groundwater at a number of Super-
fund sites. Carbon adsorption has also been used as a polishing
step following other treatment units at many sites. In 1988, the
number of sites where activated carbon was listed in the Record
of Decision was 28; in 1989, that number was 38.
Costs associated with GAC are dependent on waste stream
flow rates, type of contaminant, concentrations, and site and
timing requirements. Costs are lower with lower concentration
levels of a contaminant of a given type. Costs are also lower at
higher flow rates. At liquid flow rates of 100-million gallons per
day (mgd), costs range from S0.1 O -1.50/1 ,000 gallons treated.
At flow rates of 0.1 mgd, costs increase to Sl .20 -6.30/1,000
gallons treated [12].
• Table 3
Love CalOI Leachate Treatrnec rt System" (Maeh 1979) [ 11]
Carbon Sy.stem Carbon Sy.stem
Priority Pollutant Influent Effluent
C ompound.s Identified µg/1 µg/1
Hex:ach lorobutadiene 109 <20
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 23 <20
Hexachtorobenzene 32 <20
a-BHC 184 <0.01
y-BHC 392 0.12
~-BHC 548 <0.01
Heptachlor 573 <0.01
Phenol 4,lQQb <5'
2, 4-dichlorophenol 10 <5
Methylene chloride l 80 <10
1, 1 -dichloroethylene 28 <10
Chloroform 540 <10
Carbon tetrachloride 92 <10
Trichtoroethylene 240 <10
Dibromochloromethane 21 <10
1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene 270 <10
Chlorobenzene 1,200 <10
• Samples were analyzed by Recra Research, Inc., according to EPA
protocol dated April 1977 {sampling and analysis procedures ot
screening for industrial effluents for priority pollutants).
0 The data represent phenol analysis conducted by Calgon in june 1979.
as earlier results were suspect. •
Table 4
Love Canal Leachate Trealmenl Systemo (June 1979) ( 11]
Raw Carbon System
Priority Pollutant Leachate Effluent
C ompound.s Identified µg/1 µg/1
2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol 85 <10
2,4-dichlorophenol . 5, l 00 N.D.
Phenol 2,400 <10
1,2, 3-trichlorobenzene 870 N.D.
! Hex:achlorobenzene 110 N.D.
1 2-chloronaphthalene 510 N.D.
1 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1,300 N.D.
1, 3 & 1,4-dichlorobenzene 960 N.D.
Hexachlorobutadiene 1,500 N.D.
Anthracene and phenanthrene 29 N.D.
Benzene 28,000 <10
Carbon tetrachloride 61,000 <10
Chlorobenzene 50,000 12
1,2-dichloroethane 52 N.D.
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 23 N.D.
l, 1 -dichloroethane 66 N.D.
1, 1,2-trichloroethane 780 <10
1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 80,000 <10
Chloroform 44,000 <10
l, l -dichloroethylene 16 N.D.
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 3,200 <10
1,2-dichloropropane 130 N.D.
Ethylbenzene 590 <10
Methylene chloride 140 46
Methyl chloride 370 N.D.
Chlorodibromomethane 29 N.D.
T etrachloroethylene 44,000 12
Toluene 25,000 <10
Trichtoroethylene 5,000 N.D.
• Samples were analyzed by Carborundum Corporation according to EPA
protocol dated April 1977 (sampling and analysis procedures for screening
of industrial effluents for priority pollutants).
N.0. = nondetectable.
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment 5
• • Table 5
Performance Data at Selected Sites [ 12]
Typical Influent Typical Effluent Carbon Usage Total Contact Source of Cone. Cone. Rate Time Contaminants (mg/I) (µg/1) (lb.II 000 gal.) (min.)
Truck spill
Methylene chloride 21 <1.0 3.9 534 l, 1, 1-trichloroethane 25 <l .O 3.9 534
Rail car spills
Phenol 63 <1.0 5.8 201 Orthochlorophenol 100 <1.0 5.8 201 Vinylidine chloride 2-4 <10.0 2.1 60 Ethyl acrylate 200 <1.0 13.J 52 Chloroform 0.020 <1.0 7.7 160
Chemical spills
Chloroform 3.4 <1.0 11.6 262 Carbon tetrachloride 130-135 <1.0 11.6 262 Trichloroethylene 2-3 <1.0 11.6 262 T etrachloroethylene 70 <1.0 11.6 262 Dichloroethyl ether 1.1 <1.0 0.45 16 Dichloroisopropyl ether 0.8 <1.0 0.45 16 Benzene 0.4 <1.0 1.9 112 DBCP 2.5 <1.0 0.7-3.0 21 1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane 0.42 <10 1.5· 53 T richlorotrifloroethane 5.977 <10 1.5 53 Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene .005 <1.0 0.25 121
Onsite storage tanks
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.5 <1.0 0.8 64 Tetrachloroethylene 7.0 <1.0 0.8 64 Methylene chloride 1.5 <100 4.0 526 Chloroform 0.30-0.50 <100 1.19 26 Trichloroethylene 3-8 <1.0 1.54 36 lsopropyl alcohol 0.2 <10.0 1.54 36 Acetone 0.1 <10.0 1.54 36 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 12 <5.0 1.0 52 1 ,2-dichloroethylene 0.5 <1.0 1.0 52 Xylene 8.0 <1.0 1.0 52
Landfill site
TOC 20 <5000 1.15 41 Chloroform 1.4 <1.0 1.15 41 Carbon tetrachloride 1.0 <l. 1.15 41
Gasoline spills, tank leakage
Benzene 9-11 } <1.01 214 Toluene 5-7 <1 oo Total <1.01 214 Xylene 6-10 <1.01 214 Methyl t-butyl ether 0.030-0.035 <5.0 0.62 12 Di-isopropyl e~her 0.020-0.040 <1.0 0.10-0.62 12 Trichloloethylene 0.050-0.060 <1.0 0.62 12
Chemical by-products
Di-isopropyl methyl phosphonate 1.25 <50 0.7 30 Dichloropentadiene ·•·· 0.45 <10 0.7 30
Manufacturing residues
DDT 0.004 <0.5 1.1 31 TOC 9.0 1.1 31 1 ,3-dichloropropene 0.01 <1.0 1.1 31
Chemical landfill
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 0.060-0.080 <1.0 <0.45 JO 1, 1 -dichloroethylene 0.005-0.015 0.005 <0.45 JO
6 Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
Tablet>
TVOC Removal with GAC at
Verona Well Super!und Site [13]
Efflu~nt
lnflu~nt
O{Hrating ''"' Train (I) Train (1)
Day Conctntratlon Conctntration Conctntration
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
18,812 NA 25
' 9 12,850 11 7
16 9,290 41 17
27 6,361 260 426
35 7,850 484 575
42 7,643 412 551
49 7,577 405 524
57 5,591 452 558
69 10,065 377 475
92 6,000 444 509
106 3,689 13 702
238 4,671 246 263
NA = not available
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding GAC treatment
may be directed to:
Dr. James Heidman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
FTS 684-7632 or [phone]
Acknowlegements
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Risk Reduction Engineering laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio,
by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under
contract No. 68-CB-0062. Mr. Eugene Harris served as the EPA
Technical Project Monitor. Mr. Gary Baker was SAIC's Work
Assignment Manager. This bulletin was authored by Ms. Mar-
garet M. Groeber of SAIC. The author is especially grateful to
Mr. Ken Dostal and Dr. James Heidman of EPA, RREL, who have
contributed significantly by serving as a technical consultant
during the development of this document.
The following other Agency and contractor personnel have
contributed their time and comments by participating in the
expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the document:
Dr. John C. Crittenden
Mr. Clyde Dial
Mr. James Rawe
Dr. Walter J. Weber, Jr.
Ms. Tish Zimmerman
Michigan Technological University
SAIC
SAIC
University of Michigan
EPA-OERR
• ' REF~RENCES
1. Voice, T.C. Activated-Carbon Adsorption. In: Standard
Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal,
H.M. Freeman, ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York,
1989.
2. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
EPA/540/2-86/003 (f), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
3. Weber Jr., W.J. Evolution of a Technology. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 110(5): 899-91 7, 1984.
4. Sontheimer, H., et.al. Activated Carbon for Water
Treatment. DVGW-Forschungsstelle,_ Karlsruhe, Germany.
Distributed in the US by AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, CO. 1988.
5. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. EPN540/2-88/1004, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.
6. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment
of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87 /014, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1987.
7. Lenzo, F., and K. Sullivan. Ground Water Treatment
Techniques -An Overview of the State-of-the-art in
America. Paper presented at First US/USSR Conference
on Hydrology. Moscow, U.S.S.R. July 3-5, 1989.
8. Crittenden, J.C. et. al. Using GAC to Remove VOC's From
Air Stripper Off-Gas. Journal AWWA, 80(5):73-84, May
1988.
9. Stenzel, M.H. and Utpal Sen Gupta. Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwaters with Granular Activated
Carbon and Air Stripping. Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, 35(12): 1304-1309, 1985.
10. Stenzel, M.H. and J.G. Rabosky. Granular Activated
Carbon -Attacks Groundwater Contaminants. Marketing
Brochure for Calgon Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. ·
11. McDougall, W.J. et. al., Containment and Treatment of
the Love Canal landfill Leachate, Journal WPCF, 52(12):
2914-2923, 1980.
12. O'Brien, R.P. There is an Answer to Groundwater
Contamination. Water/Engineering & Management,
May 1983.
1 3. CH2M Hill. Thomas Solvent-Raymond Road Groundwater
Extraction Well Treatment System Monitoring Report.
June 1988.
14. Sammons, J.H. and J.M. Armstrong. Use of Low Flow
Interdiction Wells to Control Hydrocarbon Plumes in
Groundwater. In: Proceedings of the Natural Conference
on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1986.
15. Adams, J.Q. and R.M. Clark. Evaluating the Costs of
Packed Tower Aeration and GAC for Controlling Selected
Organics. Journal AWWA, 83(1 ):49-57, January 1991.
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment 7
•
SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
1 • lllTE
DISCOVERY FEASIBILITY }...--1 7
LO~TERU
Cl.£.ANUP STUDY
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IN 1980, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
"SUPER FUND", TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT(SAAAJ, THE ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO RESPOND TO
RELEASES OR THREATENED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR
WELFARE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE 1982 SUPERFUNO NATIONAL OIL ANO HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP), REVISED IN 1988,
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBIT PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
OF HOW A LONG-TERM SUPERFUNO RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SITE IS DISCOVERED, IT IS INVESTIGATED, USUALLY BY
THE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE THEN RANKS THE SITE
USING THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HAS), WHICH TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT:
-POSSIBLE HEAL TH RISKS TO THE HUMAN POPULATION
-POTENTIAL HAZARDS (E.G.,FROM DIRECT CONTACT,
INHALATION. FIRE. OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SITE
·POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO POLLUTE
OR OTHERWISE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE PROBLEMS AT A SITE ARE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE
STATE AND THE EPA, THE SITE WILL BE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL .
PRIORITIES LIST (NPL), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL SUPERFUNO
MONEY.
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT
TO PUBLIC HEAL TH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AT ANY TIME, EPA MAY
CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
3. NEXT. EPA USUALLY CONDUCTS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(RI). THE RI ASSESSES HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONTAMINANTS ARE PRESENT, ANO
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS
PART OF THE RI, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AT THE SITE
AND.THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SITE.
4. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE RI. EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS),
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, AND COST. THE FINDINGS ARE
PRESENTED IN A DRAFT FS REPORT.
5. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT FS REPORT, EPA
HOLDS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES. CITIZENS ·
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS EITHER ORALLY AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING QR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO EPA.
6. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. EPA
RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS IN THE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMAAY PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WHICH
IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC CLEANUP PLAN.
7. ONCE THE DESIGN IS FINISHED. THE ACTUAL REMEDIAL
ACTIVITIES OR CLEANUP OF THE SITE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WITH EVERY SITE. IN GENERAL. AN RUFS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP PLAN MAY TAKE
SIX MONTHS AND IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDY -THE ACTUAL
CONTAINMENT OR REMOVAL OF THE WASTE -MAY TAKE FROM
ONE TO THREE YEARS. IF GROUNDWATER IS INVOLVED. THE
FINAL CLEANUP MAY TAKE MANY MORE YEARS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS ANO OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED ANO TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROLIGHOUT THE SUPERFUND PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST ANO NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EP.A'S COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SITE ARE AVAIL.ABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW ANO COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES.
EPA Facts About
Pump-and-Treat
What is the pump-and-treat method?
The pump-and-treat method is the most common
remedial (cleanup) technology used in purifying
contaminated aquifers. These aquifers arc natural,·
underground rock formations that are capable of
storing large amounts of water. The pump-and-treat
process usually includes three steps. First, the
contaminated groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer through recovery wells. Second, the
recovered water is treated. Finally, the treated water
is discharged and the contaminants arc disposed of.
Groundwater collection systems are designed to
capture contaminated groundwater by removing it
from the aquifer. These collection systems arc also
used to prevent the spread of contamination. As the
contaminated groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer, the contamination is prevented from moving
deeper into the aquifer or spreading into surrounding
clean aquifers.
Why not simply treat water at the well?
Another form of the pump-and-treat process, called well-
head treatment, is sometimes used when drinking water
wells are contaminated. In some cases, it has been found
to be cost-effective to continue to recover contaminated
groundwater, but to remove the contaminants before
delivering it to users.
There are several variations of this approach. At some "" sites, the source of the:ji;:ontamination is known and an
auxiliary recovery syst~/has:been installed. This auxiliary
system is intended to ~~'llbp the contaminated aquifer or
may operate simply'<:fto"0 prevent further spread of
contai:nination. The contaminated water is drawn away
from the drinking water well and redirected. In other
cases, the source of contamination is not known and the
well-head treatment system may be the only practical
alternative.
The system may use a variety of tools to move and redirect
groundwater, including extraction wells, injection wells, drain
intercepts, and barrier walls. Extraction wells arc designed
to pump groundwater out of the aquifer and to redirect the
remaining water. Injection wells use the opposite method;
pumping water into an aquifer to change its flow patterns.
June 1992
Drain intercepts arc surface features thal arc designed to
capture and redirect the groundwater now. Barrier walls
may be installed in the cleanup area to create physical
harriers to groundwater now.
Why do we want to pump groundwater'!
The treatment of a contaminated aquifer, or "aquifer
restoration", is not the only goal of groundwater extraction
systems. Another goal is the control of contaminant
migration (movement). Groundwater pumping techniques
involve the active management of groundwater to contain
or remove contamin~nts. These techniques can also he
used to adjust the groundwater level so that no migration
will occur.
The area of contaminated groundwater associated with a
site is called a plume, and is the groundwater equivalent of
smoke -from a fire. A water barrier may be constructed hy
causing the water in an aquifer to move in such a way as to
prevent the plume from moving toward a dri~king well.
Pump-and-treat technology is used to construct these water
barriers to prevent off-site migration of contaminants. In
most aquifer restoration systems, plume containment is
listed as secondary goal. It is usually necessary to establish
control of contaminant migration if the aquifer is to he
cleaned up. Exceptions to this general rule arc sites where
the aquifer can restore itself naturally by discharging 10
surface water bodies or through c}\cmical or biological
degradation (breaking down) of the groundwater
contaminants to render them harmless to human health and
the environment.
Control of groundwater contamination involves one or
more of four options: (1) containment of a plume; (2)
removal of a plume after the source of contamination has
been removed; (3) . reduction of groundwater now to
prevent clean groundwater from flowing through a S<>urcc
of contamination, or to prevent contaminated groundwater
from moving toward a drinking well; and (4) prevention of
a plume by lowering the water table beneath a source of
contamination.
Why do we use pump-and-treat?
Groundwater collection and treatment has proven effective
over a wide range of site conditions and contaminants.
Well.collection systems can remove groundwater from the
great depths. In addition, the costs associated with this
technology arc generally moderate.
What pumping systems are used,
Almost all remediation of groundwater at contaminated
sites is based on groundwater extraction by wells or drains.
This process is usuaUy-:~mpanied by treatment of the
extracted water prior to;:~isposal.
Well collection systems consist of a line or circle of wells
placed around the contaminated area or in the path of the
contaminated groundwater flow. This type of well system
limits movement of the plume and collects groundwater by
pumping it from the ground faster than it can be replaced
from nearby areas. This ensures that the flow of
groundwater is toward the well area and not away. The
groundwater is pumped to the surface where it is treated to
remove the contaminants.
Drain collection systems consist of horizontal pipes with
holes along the length that are placed in the ground below
the groundwater level. These drains are placed around the
contaminated area or in the path of the contamination
plume. This system uses .gravity flow to collect
groundwater, or can be pumped to accelerate the flow.
What methods are used to clean up groundwater?
Once the contaminated water is collected, it can be treated
by using one or a combination of the following proven
methods:
Biological Treatment -This treatment is similar to that
used in normal sewage treatment plants using beneficial
microorganisms such as bacteria and protozoa to break
down contaminants into non-hazardous substances.
Carbon Adsorption -This treatment involves passing the
contaminated water through carbon filters. Contaminants
are adsorbed ( cling to the surface) of the carbon particles
and are removed from the water. This is the same water
treatment used by most household aquariums.
Air Stripping -This treatment uses an air stream that
moves across the surface of the water to capture and '~--remove VOCs from I . ter.
Ultraviolet/OxidatioJ: _. '.ireatment uses high intensity . :;:--~ ... light and chemicals (ozone and peroxide) to destroy
contaminants.
What site conditions hamper pump-and-treat
technology?
Several physical features of a hazardous waste site have
been identified that can interfere with the cleanup process
of pump-and-treat sit.-ne is that th~ ~ntaminants tend
to adhere (stick to) the surface of the materials that make
up the aquifer. If this adsorption is neglected in the
planning stages, the effectiveness of the pump-and,treat
method will be over-estimated. Second, variations in the
size and pore space of the aquifer can also reduce the
effectiveness of this technology by making it difficult to
control the flow of groundwater. Third, if the contaminant
is still present, it can continue to spread hazardous waste
into the aquifer, perhaps faster than the pump-and,treat
method can remove it. Finally, if the contaminant is a
petroleum based product, it will not dissolve in the water
and will not be removed from the aquifer when the water
is pumped out.
GWSSARY
Aquifer: An underground geological (rock) formation
that can store arid transmit large amounts of water.
Barrier Walls: Walls installed in the cleanup area to
· create physical barriers for groundwater flow, causing
redirection of the flow. ·
Drain Intercepts: Surface channels · of trenches
installed at the ground surface of the cleanup area
designed to capture and redirect groundwater flow:
Extraction Well: A well where water is pumped out
of the. well in order to redirect' groundwater
. movement (by changing the hydraulic gradient).
Injection Well: A well where water· is pumped into
the · aquifer in order to redirect groundwater
movement.
Microorganisms: Microscopic animalor plant life;
particularly any of the.bacteria, protozoa; viruses, etc.
For more information about Pump-and-Treat, you
may contact EPA at the following address:
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
1-800-435-9233
The information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Basis or Pump and Treatment: Groundwater Remediation Technology, a public.alion of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
) • • -,
NOTES (
· -}>r -N±; & C tM(t .-. S.
' ·o/ff~~oo-
y ' 0 • • Groundwater ·and Land Use • 1n ~ • j "-'S ! . ' , , -i, ,?' •· -,,.; (-~ ~ J, ~ --, ! /.----/ J ,-. .,._ ~ ...... Direction of Grounc:hvater t,.,\ovement the Water Cycle " \.-;;:;--, '¾:< 'J-· , ·1· -~ ,, ___ ,., ) \ ·-'.J _ ,> /; ' D Human induced impacts on groundl-'.'<Her Natural processes • & ·.· f '\, ' ,., -~ ,;: ~ ,,1 . t-'-'· D . . Eva~ration _ -.. --_i.-• ~ T ranspirat1on ., ---__ -H • ~-=--tf:i-~-• .___..,.--1 • • . . . • ~~op:du~ing_.~--~.~-...... -~~t. .... -·'-?'..~--,; -·~-~t::1--" -··•-,.,_ 1,-. ,., ~ _,._ '-1-_ C..............) -~ ----.;:..,,::; • -.• . e;~~?:·::----~ --'\_; --~_.;-,· ' ' -~ i,,.,, ~ ' c, .'> ~-~' ' ~-' <"<\_ -l .;:,,., .. _; ;~~ ..c ,. """· .· ._ -~ " . ~--· . :,r~-w~ -~----\ Precipitation -·"" -~ --··\.-. -~-------.~-_-::..., ------~--~:_;:?--' -.-----------~ ::. ..:,,~---"·':::< ~-' •i: -:..,":.;,#~ • --___,,,,...,...~ _, ~ ... , .-..,_.;,<--R ff ... _ -~~ .... _ <...s-'.,, ... ~, _ :: ,-. <"' 'b,1>' uno Soile,o>iJJn""'7v\ -Runo /"'\---. •·_ .• • ~).,,,-c· -~~.,-.• -:,cj;/ _:;,,,---.(; Evaporation~,{:~ Ls~--= 2-...'I C:::~~~ · · -~'"';,;~F.;-,. ~_,,~--_:-:~Q,: • ,. "·t.' -n~. -,... ,_,_c~ ,i~:c :·--• ·•-_:.-~<0"":>'~ _·· ;;{jr, k;''~-•_,, .-;·,, . ,; ';·_ .. _.);•".: T,anspi,ation I !_,~~'. unoff iii,: , .. , :;...,.---'•" _ ~~~---::~~~-;1I~~p ¢51 ~-~'"7~J--. : lank c}~~-----;:-~ ~;;;;, -~--~ .... :: .-:. ~-:-·:-:;, ~~Tailif}gs',p :.>:·•.'-·,~; -~~ ";~ ~p··6~{i;;:!1~.<,:e·:~7;.f • ::}2?: ... ~..>·,, 'f ,~-.• •.·, ' •X-j,'tj\ ! ••• A¼ ) --· J ! ~~ -~-:: :::'~~ ;.~ ~"---~ i-~ --~ • ~~ef.fn~sp'!~r;;g:,tJJ.-~ ~~~~~;;~ ~~ -"!"" -...: '-~~-~,;::;_, ~"'-_.... ~-~ ~ ;);:§',-.----~~--,,:];;~~-'-. .-_·, ------: = ::-.:>_-..,.,.--4,-,-~..,,;,,_r. -~~~,~~:..j;.:,--~~~1h:J.,t:~ --~~_-".--it,-,-~~~.-:-·.:;:_-----~·._ •. --.;·;·;.-•;,.'#;-::; ->(l:i:Y--, • .,__ ..... :,·, ,:, ... •. • .,.~;..·~-~~~ r.. :' -:._.:..~ . -::ys ct?1. ~ -;~-= _ , ~ _-; --_ . -. -~Runo ~ 'I'•~ • Cons ~ .. -= ,..,,..,.,c,-~....... lrflga11on , _ ~-~-~-·-e ::---611~--~ =· I ~,,"'%\."~ ---~--~:-:::. . ~. · .. -.. ~ - - -~l, ~ ... ~ -• ~-• --7 __ :-"'1'•.<,i,:~,. ; __ ..__ -......: Infiltration-""'--· ---:--. •• -~ ~ -• ', ~ ~-'-'.;::i .... --~ .. : I I .. · · "" ,,z•~e:::a:t~~~~~~~~;,,.,, Evaporation 1,; , ~--~!2~~~%-~~~-7t£r~--t--~-. "1 -' -I!.,_T__;l---_..L---r~:r;:::::--:-~ __;-c -~~:L_--, __ .._, --J-----r . -• . -~ ~---7!i'\l __ • __ l ()"➔Ii --g"ec" oi G,oundwate: o,em d --~ ==~-~---L.. \.--1 ~ , =z: ~ J. ~ . C,eviccd ---. .:r--L,mestone Aquiie, ._-t,-f. I L=-~£:~ _.. -~~ ~di/\A ... · -""' ~• '!/'@/j'• -, ... , ~ --;;:-. _,-_.,{~ C :; 4= [ F C I ·t IL/ / ) _·-~ 'ic:i;." , ~ _ .. ., I,<,~ ( __ ·-~ .. -~~ ' ·~. ': .> C !SW~~;~~SITf1~~5~~~:~~~f]'t~:\~~;~
&EPA
I
i:
I
ufistates
EU,,mental Protection
Agency
Pesticides Ann&
Toxic Substan--
(H-7506-C)
EPA's Pesticide
Programs
21T-1005
May 1991
•
CONTENTS
Introduction
Overview of EPA's Role
Facts and Figures
Pesticide Registration
How EPA Regulates New Pesticides
Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Evaluating Scientific Studies
•
Special Review, Cancellations, and Suspensions
Food Safety
Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Monitoring Residues
Other Pesticide Programs
Farmworker Safety
Home, Lawn, and Garden Pesticides
Pesticide Storage and Disposal
Certification and Training
State Enforcement
Pesticides in Ground Water
Endangered Species
Biological Pesticides
Inert Ingredients
Preventing Pollution
A Closing Word
Appendices:
Glossary
For Further Information
EPA Pesticide Contacts
State Agency Contacts
1
1
2
3
3
4
6
6
7
7
8
10
10
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
17
19
20
20
21
22
23
Photo on p. 11 courtesy of S.C. Delaney/EPA; p. 15: Fish and Wildlife Sen1ice;
p. 18: Gene Alexander, USDA/SCS.
•
Introduction
Few chemicals have had as much
impact or been the subject of as
much controversy in recent
decades as pesticides. Introduced
on a massive scale following the
Second World War, pesticides
have become an integral part of
American agricultural production,
making possible the most plentifol
and safest food supply in human
history. Over time, however,
public concerns have mounted
about the toxic effects of chemical
pesticides. Pesticide residues in
food, farmworker exposure to
pesticides, and pesticide
contamination of ground water
have all contributed to a growing
unease over the widespread use
of pesticides.
Some of these concerns have had
beneficial results. Consumers are
using more caution in handling
pesticides and in limiting their
exposures to pesticides in food.
In the agricultural community,
many growers are using fewer
chemical pesticides and adopting a
more integrated approach to
managing pests. And new
pesticides coming on the market
tend to be less toxic than the
chemicals they replace. While all
of these are encouraging signs,
pesticides nevertheless remain a
fact of our daily lives. Managing
pesticides to minimize their risks
and maximize their benefits is the
task we face.
•
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
been charged by Congress with
the job of regulating the use of
pesticides and balancing the risks
and benefits posed by pesticide
use.
To carry out this task, EPA has
developed a variety of regulatory
and educational programs to
protect human health and the
environment from the harmful
effects of pesticides. These
include registering pesticides for
specific uses, setting tolerances for
pesticide residues on food, setting
standards to protect workers who
are exposed to pesticides,
certifying and training pesticide
applicators, and educating
consumers about pesticide use and
exposure.
This booklet is intended to
introduce readers to EPA's
pesticide programs. Pesticide
registration and food safety are
discussed first, followed by
descriptions of other pesticide
programs. The appendices at the
back of the booklet contain a
glossary of technical terms, a list
of materials for further reading
and reference, and the addresses
and telephone numbers of
pesticide program contacts in
EPA headquarters and 10 regional
offices and in all 50 states.
Overview of EP A's Role
EPA regulates the use of
pesticides in the United States
under the authority of two laws
-the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act. No
pesticide may legally be sold or
used in the United States unless it
bears an EPA registration
number. It is a violation of the
law for any person to use a
pesticide in a manner inconsistent
with its label.
EPA's pesticide regulations cover:
•
•
•
Some 30 major pesticide
producers plus another 100
smaller producers
3,300 formulators
29,000 distributors and other
establishments
40,000 commercial pest control
firms
About 1 million farms
Several million industry and
government users
About 90 million households.
FIFRA gives EPA the authority
and responsibility for registering
pesticides for specified uses,
provided that such uses do not
pose an unreasonable risk to
human health or to the
environment. EPA also has the
authority to suspend or cancel the
registration of a pesticide if
subsequent information indicates
that use of the pesticide would
pose unreasonable risks.
•
Facts and Figures
Broadly defined, a pesticide is any agent used to kill
or control undesired insects, weeds, rodents, fungi,
bacteria, or other organisms. Thus, the term
"pesticides" includes insecticides, herbicides,
rodenticides, fungicides, nematicides, and acaracides, as
well as disinfectants, fumigants, and plant growth
regulators.
At present, approximately 25,000 formulated pesticide
products are registered for marketing and use in the
United States. EPA regulates these products primarily
on the basis of their pesticidal active ingredients, the
component of a pesticide product that acts on the
pest. There are fewer than 750 active ingredients
currently in production, with 200 leading active
ingredients.
Total U.S. annual pesticide consumption is estimated
at 2.7 billion pounds of active ingredients. Of this
amount, 1.6 billion pounds represents wood
preservatives, disinfectants, and sulfur (a fungicide).
The remaining 1.1 billion pounds of "conventional
pesticides" (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides)
were sold to users at a cost of $7.4 billion in 1988.
In the conventional pesticide market (see Figure 1),
agriculture accounts for over two-thirds of pesticide
user expenditures and about three-quarters of the
volume used annually; the remainder of the market
comprises industry, government, and home and garden
2
800 millions lbs. a.i.
700
600
500
400
300
'"
■ I lcrhicidcs
II lnsccti.cidcs
D Fungicide.,
f]Othcr
200 fu
"' JOO ~
0 ""'-,:1-'----.-,~~:'7~ ~
L_ ____ -::----'."-:--:--:--:---:-""'."-;:-~;-;:--;:;;;;;;~
Fig. 1-Volume of Converliona/ PeslicideAclive lng1edien/s Used in US .. 19118
•
uses. Herbicides are the leading type of conventional
pesticide, with over 50 percent of both domestic sales
and volume used. EPA estimates that total U.S. farm
expenditures on pesticides, $5.1 billion in 1988,
represents less than 4 percent of total farm production
expenditures ($132 billion in 1989).
The 10 largest-use agricultural pesticides are shown in
Figure 2, along with estimates of their annual usage
for all agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Alachlor
and atrazine are the two most widely used pesticides
by volume. Eight of the 10 pesticides shown are
herbicides (carbaryl and malathion are insecticides.)
1200 million lbs. a.i.
1()()()
800
60()
Total
200-h~-r-..,-,..,..TT...,--.,...-,...-,-.-,,....,-.-r,
64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88
L-----------:--:-----1
Fig. 3-Ttends in U.S. Pes!icide Usage, 1964-1988
fu
"' :;
j
After increasing steadily throughout the 1960's and
1970's, pesticide usage reached its all-time high in the
early 1980's; since then, it appears to be holding
steady at just slightly lower levels (sec Figure 3) and
may decline in coming years. More efficient use of
pesticides, the availability of even more effective
pesticides, and an increased interest in sustainable
agriculture contribute to this trend.
(()
Pesticide Registration
How EPA Regulates New
Pesticides
EPA is responsible under FIFRA
for registering new pesticides to
ensure that, when used according
to label directions, they will not
pose unreasonable risks to human
health or the environment.
FIFRA requires EPA to balance
the risks of pesticide exposure to
human health and the environ-
ment against the benefits of
pesticide use to society and the
economy.
Pesticide registration decisions are
based primarily on EP A's
evaluation of the test data
provided by applicants.
Depending on the type of
pesticide, EPA can require up to
70 different kinds of specific tests
(see box). For a major food-use
pesticide, testing can cost the
manufacturer up to $10 million.
Testing is needed to determine
whether a pesticide has the
potential to cause adverse effects
on humans, wildlife, fish, and
plants, including endangered
species. Potential human risks,
which are identified by using the
results of laboratory tests, include
acute toxic reactions, such as
poisoning and skin and eye
irritation, as well as possible long-
term effects like cancer, birth
defects, and reproductive system
disorders. Data on "environ-
mental fate" (how a pesticide
•
3
behaves in the environment) also
are required so that EPA can
determine, among other things,
whether a pesticide poses a threat
to ground or surface water. The
list of tests required is currently
undergoing review; revisions are
expected to be proposed in 1991.
Certain additions to the list, such
as neurotoxicity, applicator
exposure, ground and surface
water contamination, and
residential exposure tests, will
strengthen the data requirements.
EPA may classify a product for
restricted use if it warrants special
handling due to its toxicity.
Restricted use pesticides may be
used only by or under the
supervision of certified applicators
trained to handle toxic chemicals
and this classification must be
shown on product labels. During
registration review, the Agency
may also require changes in
proposed labeling, use locations,
and application methods. If the
pesticide is being considered for
use on a food or feed crop, the
applicant must petition EPA for
establishment of a tolerance (see
the section on Food Safety
below).
A brand-new active ingredient
may need six to nine years to
move from development in the
laboratory, through full
completion of EPA registration
requirements, to retail shelves.
This time-frame includes at least
two or three years to obtain
registration from EPA A
diagram of the process is shown
in Figure 4 on the next page.
4
•
Since 1978, when EPA began
requiring more extensive data on
pesticides than in the past, over
130 brand-new chemical active
ingredients have been registered;
between 10 and 15 new pesticide
active ingredients are registered
each year.
Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
EPA is required by law to
reregister existing pesticides that
were originally registered before
current scientific and regulatory
standards were formally
established. The reregistration
process ensures that:
(1) Up-to-dale data bases are
developed for each of these
chemicals ( or their registrations
will be suspended or cancelled)
(2) Modifications are made to
registrations, labels, and tolerances
as necessary to protect human
health and the environment
(3) Special review or other
regulatory actions arc initiated to
deal with any unreasonable risks.
Reregistration has proved to be a
massive undertaking and has
proceeded slowly. To date, EPA
has issued 194 "registration
standards." A registration
standard includes a comprehensive
review of all the available data on
an existing chemical, a list of
additional data needed for full
reregistration, and the Agency's
current regulatory position on the
pesticide. The 194 registration
standards already issued represent
about 350 individual active
ingredients that account for 85 to
90 percent of the total volume of
pesticides used in the United
States.
Under the 1988 FIFRA
amendments, EPA has been
directed to accelerate the progress
of reregistration so that the entire
process is completed by 1997.
FIFRA '88 sets out a five-phase
schedule to accomplish this task
with deadlines applying to both
pesticide registrants and EPA. It
was originally estimated that
EPA's reregistration activities
would cost in excess of $250
million over a nine year period,
with almost half the amount
coming from EPA's current
budget for reregistration and the
remainder coming from
reregistration fees assessed on the
pesticide industry. These cost
estimates are being revised
upwards to reflect actual costs
incurred in the accelerated
program.
• •
Product Development: . Product discovery . Laboratory & greenhouse testing . Experimental use permit obtained from EPA . Large-scale field testing
Application:
Registrant submits test data, application
to register product, draft labeling, & tolerance
petition (for food-use pesticide)
Registration Review: . Review of Data:
-toxicology -ecological effects
-residue analysis -exposure assessment . Arc data valid? . When used according to label directions, does the pesticide
pose unreasonable risks of adverse effects to human health
and the environment?
Approval: Returned:
EPA establishes tolerance EPA returns application, noting:
for food use pesticide, . need for more or better data
approves registration, publishes . need for labeling modifications
notice in Federal Register . need for use restrictions
Producer markets product for
use according to label
Figure 4 -Pesticide Registration Process for New Chemical
5
Evaluating Scientific
Studies
Because virtually all of EPA's
decisions relating to the
registration of pesticides depend
on the Agency's evaluation of
scientific studies, EPA has
developed a standardized review
process and established
procedures and testing guidelines
to ensure the quality and
consistency of toxicity studies.
How much data to require in the
first place and how much should
be generated again in the
reregistration process are
important issues. For example,
long-term animal studies usually
require two or more years to
complete, at a significant cost to
the registrant, and using
significant numbers of animals.
Thus, it is not a trivial matter to
require additional studies to be
performed. At the same time, it
is crucial that registration
decisions be based on conclusive
scientific information and that all
products be evaluated consistently.
In light of these considerations,
EPA has set forth four types of
documents governing the
generation and review of data.
These are:
(1) Data requirements -what
data must be generated to support
registration and reregistration;
(2) Data guidelines -protocols
for how to conduct the studies;
6
•
(3) Standard evaluation
procedures -guidelines for
Agency reviewers on what to look
for in the data and how to reach
consistent conclusions; and
( 4) Good Laboratory Practices -
regulations that specify how
studies must be conducted to
assure the quality and integrity of
data submitted to support
pesticide registration and
reregistration. EPA's laboratory
audit program also serves as a
further check on the quality of
pesticide. safety data.
Nevertheless, there still may arise
differences in professional
judgment about whether a
particular study satisfies a data
requirement or whether data can
be used from multiple studies to
fill data requirements. Therefore,
major evaluations made by EP A's
staff may be submitted for review
to an independent panel of
experts, known as the Scientific
Advisory Panel. In addition, the
bases for EP A's regulatory
decisions are subject to public
review so that everyone has an
opportunity to look at the science
supporting the Agency's decisions.
Special Review,
Cancellations, and
Suspensions
New data on registered products
sometimes reveal the existence of
a problem or a potential for
hazard that was not known at the
time of registration. Congress
and EPA have developed various
mechanisms to reach sound
scientific decisions in these
situations.
Special Review: Under the law, if
EPA seeks to revoke the
registration of a pesticide, the
Agency must first announce its
reasons and offer the registrant a
formal hearing to present
opposing evidence. Because the
cancellation process can be very
time-and resource-consuming,
EPA often will employ a more
informal and often more
productive process known as
Special Review.
Special Review is an intensive and
systematic examination process
that offers opportunities for
interested parties on all sides to
comment and present evidence on
the risks and benefits of a
pesticide. In many cases, the
Special Review results in an
agreement to modify the
registration to sufficiently reduce
risk so that a formal hearing is no
longer necessary.
•
Cancellation: If the Special
Review process fails to resolve
the issues, however, or if EPA
decides that the problem is severe
enough to warrant cancellation,
EPA may issue a proposed notice
of intent to cancel without
holding a Special Review. The
Agency also is required by FIFRA
to send the proposed notice to
the Scientific Advisory Panel and
the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and must
evaluate their comments before
proceeding with a final Notice of
Intent to Cancel Registration.
If no hearing is requested within
30 days of the notice, the
pesticide's registration is cancelled
immediately. If a hearing is
requested, it is conducted in a
trial-like administrative proceeding
before an EPA Administrative
Law Judge, who issues a
recommended decision to the
EPA Administrator. At the end
of the cancellation process, which
may take two years or more, the
decision may still be challenged in
a federal court of appeals. If
there is no appeal to a decision
to cancel, all pertinent
registrations of the pesticide are
automatically cancelled, and the
products may no longer be sold
or distributed in the United
States.
Suspension: During the entire
cancellation process, the pesticide
remains on the market and no
regulatory restrictions arc imposed
on the pesticide or its use. In
some cases EPA may believe that
allowing the pesticide to stay on
•
the market -during a Special
Review and/or a cancellation
hearing -would pose an
unacceptably high risk. In such
cases, EPA may issue a
suspension order that .bans sale or
use of the pesticide while· the
ultimate decision on the
pesticide's status is under review.
In order to issue a suspension
order, EPA must find that use of
the pesticide poses an imminent
hazard. In most cases, EPA must
first offer the registrant an
expedited hearing on the
suspension issues. However, if
EPA finds that an emergency
exists (i.e., that even during the
time needed for a suspension
hearing, use of the pesticide
would pose unreasonable adverse
effects), the Agency can ban the
sale and use of a pesticide
effective immediately.
Under current law, even in an
emergency suspension, EPA must
assess the benefits of the pesticide
as well. This provision makes
emcrgen~-y suspension difficult to
use, and EPA has been able to
make these findings only three
times for major pesticides -
ethylene dibromidc (EDB);
2,4,5-T/Silvcx; and dinoseb.
Proposals have been made that
would streamline the existing
cancellation process and make the
suspension process more flexible.
Food Safety
The food supply of the U.S. is
among the safest in the world.
Although many of the foods we
consume may contain low levels
of pesticide residues as a result of
the legal use of these products,
numerous safeguards are built into
EPA's pesticide regulatory process
to ensure that the public
(including infants and children)
are protected from unreasonable
risks posed by eating pesticide-
treated foods.
EPA regulates the safety of the
food supply by setting tolerance
levels, or maximum legal limits,
for pesticide residues on food
commodities and animal feed
available for sale in the United
States. The purpose of the
tolerance program is to ensure
that U.S. consumers arc not
exposed to unsafe levels of
pesticide residues in food.
Pesticides can be registered under
FIFRA for use on a food or feed
crop only if a tolerance ( or
exemption from tolerance) is first
granted, under authority of
sections 408 and/or 409 of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act. EPA has approved about
300 pesticides for food uses;
about 200 of them are in common
use in the U.S.
Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Pesticide tolerances are being
reassessed as part of EP A's
reregistration process. Since
7
residue chemistry and toxicology
arc _far more advanced now than
wiieh pesticides were first
. r~gist~rcd in this country, EPA is
•,:,'lipgrading its traditional tolerance
,,i'i~y' stem. l,··,'
To evaluate the risks posed by
pesticides in the diet, EPA follows
Agency risk assessment guidelines.
For non-cancer effects, when
using the results of animal tests,
EPA determines the highest level
of exposure to a pesticide at
which there are no observed
adverse effects in animals. An
"uncertainty factor" is applied to
that level (most often, by dividing
by 100) in order to estimate a
level of daily exposure to the
pesticide acceptable for humans.
This level is called the Reference
Dose (once known as the
Acceptable Daily Intake).
•,.
EPA also estimates the levels of
people's exposure to pesticide
residues' in food, based on
pesticide residue studies as well as
studies of how much food people
consume. Using data on both
toxicity and exposure, the Agency
sets tolerances at levels that will
not pose significant dietary risks
to the consumer. EPA usually
will deny a registration if the
anticipated exposure from a
proposed new food use of a
pesticide, when added to
estimated exposure from other
food uses of that pesticide,
significantly exceeds the pesticide's
Reference Dose.
In cases where a food-use
pesticide is a carcinogen ( cancer-
8
•
causing agent), EPA uses a
second approach in addition to
that discussed above. EPA
assesses the cancer risk specifically
associated with exposure to the
pesticide in food over the course
of a lifetime. EPA then
determines whether that cancer
risk can be considered "negligible."
In general, EPA will grant a
to.lcrancc and register any
pesticide that poses a negligible or
no-cancer risk.
The concept of a negligible risk is
the attempt to set a standard
below which the cancer risk is so
small that there is no cause for
worry from a regulatory or public
health perspective. EPA's
pesticide program defines a risk as
negligible if a person has a onc-
in-a-million or less chance of
getting cancer as a direct result of
a lifetime of exposure to a
particular substance. (By contrast,
the overall risk to the U.S. public
of getting cancer, from all factors,
is on the order of one in four or
one in five.)
For pesticides that pose a cancer
risk that is greater than negligible,
there are two different policies,
depending on the situation. For
pesticides that require only a
section 408 tolerance (i.e.,
residues in raw agricultural
commodities), EPA will register
the pesticide if its benefits
outweigh the risks posed by its
use. If, however, a pesticide also
requires clearance under the food
additive provisions of FFDCA
(section 409), then EPA cannot
by law grant a tolerance or
register the pesticide if it poses a
greater-than-negligible risk, no
matter how significant the
benefits.
Monitoring Residues
The pesticide tolerances set by
EPA are enforced by the Food
and Drug Administration, which
monitors all domestically produced
and imported foods traveling in
interstate commerce except meat,
poultry, and some egg products.
FDA conducts a Total Diet Study,
also known as a Market Basket
Study, which measures the
American consumer's daily intake
of pesticide residues from foods
that are bought in typical
supermarkets and grocery stores,
and prepared or cooked as they
would be in a household setting.
The findings of the ongoing Total
Diet Study show that dietary
levels of most pesticides are less
than one percent of the
Reference Dose.
•
Imported foods receive special
attention in FDA's monitoring
program. Above-tolerance
residues in 1987 and 1988 were
found in less than one percent of
import samples. Even so, FDA
has tightened its import policy in
the last few years: if a single
shipment from a given source is
found to violate U.S. tolerance
regulations, all shipments from the
same source are subject to
automatic detention.
Monitoring of meat and poultry
products is conducted by USDA's
Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS). Each year, FSIS
conducts 10,000 to 20,000
pesticide residue analyses.
Currently, fewer than one percent
of these tests show illegal
residues, and the violation rate
has been declining steadily over
the last two decades. State
regulatory agencies are also
involved in monitoring the safety
of the food supply; some states
have their own pesticide residue
regulations for food produced and
sold within state boundaries.
In summary, EPA believes that
foods containing legal levels of
pesticides are safe, that continued
regulatory review and action are
serving to reduce and eliminate
unnecessary risks, and that the
overall risks from pesticides in the
diet are small compared to the
benefits of the plentiful,
nutritious, and affordable food
supply that we enjoy in the
United States.
•
9
Other Pesticide
Programs
Farmworker Safety
EPA is making a concerted effort
to safeguard farmworkers' health
through a combination of
regulatory, educational, and
research programs. Despite
regulations issued in 1974,
significant numbers of pesticide
poisonings among agricultural
workers continue to occur every
year. In 1988, EPA proposed
new Worker Protection Standards
to strengthen the earlier worker
protection provisions, reduce risks
of exposure to pesticides, and
extend coverage to include
persons who engage in hand labor
tasks or handle pesticides on
farrris, or in forests, nurseries, and
greenhouses. Final new
regulations will be issued in 1991.
The proposed new standards will
reduce the risk of exposure to
pesticides by:
• Requiring that general
pesticide safety rules be
posted in a prominent location
and that workers be notified
of all pesticide applications.
• Requiring training for
pesticide handlers and use of
appropriate personal
protective equipment during
handling activities.
10
•
• Prohibiting workers ( other
than handlers) from being
present in a pesticide-treated
area during application.
• Imposing interim reentry
intervals for the most acutely
toxic chemicals until these
chemicals can be evaluated in
the reregistration process.
Requiring that potable water,
soap, and disposable towels be
made available to pesticide
handlers and workers in
treated areas for washing off
pesticide residues.
EPA also is undertaking a variety
of outreach activities, including
preparing a user's guide to the
regulations, poster materials, and
slide and tape programs in
English and Spanish that will help
communicate these safety
measures to farm workers and
farm owners.
Infonnation on the health
effects of pesticides and
pesticide poisonings is
available 24 hours a day from
operators at the EPA-funded
National Pesticide Tele-
communications Network
operating out of the Texas
Tech University School of
Medicine.
Call toll-free:
1-800-858-7378
•
Home, Lawn, and Garden
Pesticides
A wide variety of pesticides used
in homes and on lawns and pets
are readily available to consumers
in retail stores. No special
training is required to use these
products; consumers are expected
to follow the instructions on the
pesticide label. However, many of
these products can be hazardous
if improperly stored, handled, or
applied.
Household pesticides arc coming
under a systematic review as part
of the Agency's reregistration
process. EPA also is studying
whether household pesticide labels
are adequate to fully inform the
user of potential health or
environmental hazards.
Indoor Air
An emerging concern is the level
of pesticide residues in indoor air.
EPA recently conducted a limited
monitoring study, the Non-
Occupational Pesticide Exposure
Study (NOPES), which measured
exposures in some 250 households
in Florida and Massachusetts. Of
the 32 pesticides monitored, all
were detected at least once in an
air sample, but the levels found
were minute and were determined
to present little or no concern for
adverse health effects. This study
_ was too limited to draw any broad
conclusions about residential air
quality, but it will help set the
Agency's course for future
research.
•
Lawn Cam
As part of the reregistration
process, EPA is reviewing
individually the 35 major lawn
pesticides. In addition, EPA is
reviewing the current set of data
requirements for lawn care
products in order to determine if
additional potential hazard
information should be generated.
EPA believes that homeowners
and residents are unlikely to
receive long-term or chronic
exposure to lawn care pesticides.
Even intensively managed lawns
generally receive a maximum of
five pesticide applications a year.
Furthermore, highly toxic
pesticides are not registered for
home use.
Nevertheless, EPA encourages
homeowners and the pest control
industry to follow integrated pest
•
management (1PM) practices that
reduce reliance on pesticides
while still allowing healthy,
attractive lawns to be maintained.
For example, in properly
maintained lawns, the thick
healthy turf will crowd out many
weed species; if grass is cut at the
proper height, watered, aerated,
and fertilized properly, the
incidence of fungus disease will be
lessened. A number of pest-
resistant grass varieties and low-
maintenance ground cover plants
are available commercially.
EPA is working with state and
local governments to develop !PM
plans, guidance documents, and
research papers on 1PM
technology for home lawns and
golf courses. (See the appendix
for recent 1PM publications and
fact sheets on home gardening
and lawn care.)
Pesticide Storage and
Disposal
Pesticide wastes result from the
use of pesticides in agriculture,
industry, households, and various
other pest control operations.
Pesticide wastes appear in a
variety of forms: empty containers,
left-over pesticides, and excess
dilute pesticide solutions resulting
from left-over tank mixes, spray
equipment rinsate, and rinsing of
empty containers.
FIFRA '88 significantly expanded
EPA's authority and responsibility
to regulate the packaging, storage,
transportation, and disposal of
pesticides. EPA may now require
pesticide producers to submit data
on storage and disposal methods;
EPA may also establish labeling
requirements for transportation,
storage, and disposal of pesticides
and their containers. The new
law also strengthens EPA's ability
to take direct enforcement action
against violations of storage,
disposal, and transportation
requirements. Under FIFRA '88,
registrants will have significant
new responsibilities in assuring
that pesticide wastes arc
minimized and that any eventual
disposal is carried out in an
environmentally sound manner.
If a pesticide is suspended and
cancelled, EPA now has the
authority to order the recall of
the product and its eventual
disposal at the producer's expense.
The recall of products by
manufacturers is the most efficient
and environmentally sound
method of consolidating stocks of
cancelled and suspended products.
EPA also will be studying the
problems associated with pesticide
container disposal, and examining
options to encourage or require:
• The return, refill, and reuse of
pesticide containers
• The development and use of
pesticide formulations that
facilitate the removal of
pesticide residues from
containers
• The use of refillable
containers to reduce the
number of pesticide containers
requiring disposal.
This study was due to be
submitted to Congress by
December 1990, with regulations
on the design of pesticide
containers to follow in 1991. The
regulations are intended to
facilitate the safe use, disposal,
and refill and reuse of pesticide
containers. FIFRA '88 also
authorizes EPA to establish
procedures for storage, transport,
and disposal of containers,
rinsates, or other materials used
to contain or collect excess or
spilled pesticides.
12
•
Certification and Training
Pesticides with a restricted use
classification can be applied only
by a certified applicator or under
a certified applicator's direct
supervision. There are currently
over 100 federally registered
restricted use pesticides and some
1.25 million applicators holding
valid certification. Applicators
include both "private" applicators
(mostly farmers) and "commercial"
applicators.
Because FIFRA gives the states
the opportunity to administer
their own certification program,
certification requirements vary
from state to state. All states,
however, must meet the minimum
federal requirements established
by EPA
Certification programs currently
are conducted by all states except
Colorado (where EPA administers
the program for private
applicators) and Nebraska (where
EPA administers the program for
all applicators).
•
The law does not require
pesticide applicators to be trained;
however, the law docs require
certified applicators to
demonstrate competency with
respect to the use and handling of
pesticides. EPA has issued
standards for determining the
competency of commercial and
private applicators for certification
purposes.
Both EPA and USDA fund,
develop, and distribute training
materials for certified applicators.
Under an intcragcncy agreement
between EPA and USDA, EPA
funds are passed through USDA
to state extension service training
programs. Each state has al least
one extension specialist on
pesticide use and safety. Efforts
are underway to strengthen state
training programs, particularly in
relation to ground-water
contamination and endangered
species protection.
State Enforcement
FIFRA includes provisions for
monitoring the distribution and
use of pesticides, and imposing
civil as well as criminal penalties
for violations. For example, it is
unlawful under FIFRA lo use a
registered pesticide product in a
manner inconsistent with its label,
to alter the label, or to distribute
in commerce any adulterated or
misbranded product. FIFRA also
authorizes "cooperative
enforcement agreements" between
EPA and the states.
•
Since I 978, the states have been
given primary enforcement
responsibility for pesticide use
violations, subject to oversight by
EPA. Through cooperative
enforcement agreements, all states
except Nebraska and Wyoming
have now assumed primary
enforcement responsibility. EPA
sets FIFRA enforcement policy
and conducts compliance
monitoring and enforcement
programs in these two states.
On an annual basis, EPA issues
national Consolidated Pesticide
Cooperative Agreement Guidance,
which outlines the national
enforcement priorities and
activities that every state, tribe,
and territory must address under
its enforcement cooperative
agreement. EPA also issues
national compliance monitoring
strategics in follow-up to every
major pesticide regulatory action
to help ensure consistency in
enforcement activities across the
country.
Cases of pesticide misuse or
accidents should be reported to
the state agency with
responsibility for pesticides -
generally the state department of
agriculture (sec appendix at the
back of this booklet). Such cases
also may be reported to an EPA
regional office (see appendix).
Pesticides m Ground
Water
Ground water is the vast
underground accumulation of
reservoirs that supplies wells and
springs. Nearly half of all
Americans get their drinking
water from private or community
wells that tap ground water. Our
dependence on ground water to
meet drinking water needs is
growing. In some rural areas,
ground water accounts for up to
95 percent of the water used for
domestic purposes.
Pesticides can enter ground water
in a variety of ways -through
pesticide spills, improper storage,
or even as a result of normal
application of pesticides in the
field. The extent to which
ground-water contamination can
occur depends on a variety of
factors: the chemical/physical
properties of the pesticide, the
frequency and quantity of
pesticide applied, the
characteristics of the soil, and the
geology of the area. These
factors, working singly or in
combination, inllucncc the
movement of a pesticide through
the soil and whether or not it will
leach into ground water.
When pesticides do enter ground
water, there may be a potential
risk to the health of those who
drink and use the water. In 1988,
the Agency's Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base showed that 46
pesticides had been found in
13
· ground water in 26 states as a
result of normal agricultural use.
· In response to these findings,
EPA has undertaken a number of
activities. In 1989 EPA published
Health Advisories for 55
pesticides to assist federal, state,
· and local officials in responding to
the contamination of drinking
water. The Health Advisories
contain information about the
pesticides and their uses, the
health risks associated with
drinking water containing
particular concentrations of
pesticides, and testing and
treatment methods for removing
the pesticides from the water.
Summaries of the Health
Advisories can be obtained by the
public through EP A's Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-
426-4791 ).
Recently, EPA set standards that
regulate 17 pesticides in drinking
water, setting Maximum
Contaminant Levels for the
pesticide contaminants in
community water system wells and
establishing monitoring and
reporting requirements.
In addition, in a major effort to
determine the extent of the
problem of pesticides in drinking
water wells, EPA has undertaken
a National Pesticide Survey of
drinking water wells (sec box).
EPA also is preparing to publish
a final Pesticides in Ground-
Water Strategy based on extensive
analysis and consultation with
farmers, other business
14
•
organizations, environmentalists,
and government officials at all
levels. The strategy will define
the Agency's goal of preventing
adverse effects on current and
potential sources of drinking
water. States play a key role in
achieving this goal by developing
and implementing state
management plans to identify
··••r-iJlUsijfiliJi~ii&iiili··•sJFJby••·•·•···
.The ~~/lgl[J ~ !;;b/~] ?
··•••·~;;iiY;;9~~f 1h? 1?~1 F~ciyot Ii
/ii~•·.rihq••.1§p§•·•C?nc1u§tec1.?n•••i ··•· ia••·naiiohal·•··scale;(Bctwecnt .
.1.~~. ~Kil iJ.~, ¥{~ ~~.!TIP1\'<!1,~2.9.~.S11I 1.'?9!.\9<1.) iriau <so siates .ror ihet ···
tpf/is{ii4\ •... •··2r• .. ·•·• §yir.•·••i1()()•······•···· •·· pesticides an</f9r .n.i.HaJ!cs:··.·• i~t Ji;fy;i~~ i~~;;i l~~if I~ )
... ·,.h~.t \19•.··•··•PCf';fr! .....• • •. i:,f•······!.~.e ..•.•..
••··••n~.\i2ni•f?1J1!!14ti!ty.1f.i.~.~.i.9g L ··•waterwe11s··•aridaboutfoilrt
areas most vulnerable to
contamination and by tailoring
appropriate prevention and
management measures to local
conditions. EPA will issue
guidance for the management
plans that will specify the
necessary components of an
acceptable plan.
':::::::\t::::'l'\Vi::'){\:::::::::::J':::''.i!I\/'-
,. C
·It~rh1rll!?ntr~~~tt~i~•········••··) t{•••r•••L•••i}·•···••·••···············•······•···•·•·•·•···•·•···•·•····•.•·•···•···•·•··•··•·••···•·•.•····•······•·•·•·•···•·•·•··••·•·•···•·•········•···•··•••··•••··•·•··· ······<!er~£t~bl.¢ •.• .rl!sicl.µe.s •• of~t.·••l,e~~t.()r.e• pc~{Iri<Js, ...•.. 1-10\V~~er;• fe"'.e.r•·.than• oric.··p~rcch( ...•.
····.9(a\1.·••·f~Ilf·•··~~Y{'0#~niraij§n}/il~•·•rci\i2i1cra.l>o\f·•·'fel~·••.of.<h~altf•·.(;Q~•<zf~:··········
•••··• ( 9f •·\11~.• o/91.1} "'.!tr••· 1f t~S!3?1fi.9.Y~1~••·•9r••.9nf •0I/rnprf•• pfst i§ictcI;•••.pf J\••·q!i.n'at~.••i ····••Ih~t.•··••f9·••P$f£;.~.t.•··•?tcpmmvnHY:t:fllt·•··~ml.•l9i.R$f'?'?t.\9fJur~.1·12.m~1i~ .••• o/"..11f••·I "~fCi;dhc~lt~}gyisorypr•rn~i[l!~rn c6rit~rni.n~rt lcv~.ls) TI/.e rnost••·freqti~nt.Iy
~§te1i~? r~F~i1~.fc(9 g11t~~1.1)1ft~foli'."' ."9~ ~Hj'Y~s\ rvtiir9 t.llai.11~1r.trt • •·. n~ tipp's :t:fl\s .•••.•.••. f9~.fa.in ··•··••· ri.triI.cs;\.•·•··bll.t.tf f:t:.~r/i\ha~· •.• ··•three·• ···••Pfra,~t·.•th~vs.•••i . conccntfatimis above the level of health concern, i . . . .. . ....
111••11111~!(~~
•
Endangered Species
Each species plays
an interdependent
role in the dynamic
functioning of a
healthy and stable
environment,
storing a wealth of genetic
information that has taken
millions of years to develop and
perfect. Despite increased
concern over the need to protect
endangered and threatened
species, the world continues to
lose entire species at an alarming
rate. Over 500 plants, animals,
fish, and birds currently are listed
as endangered or threatened in
the United States; some of these
species may be harmed directly or
indirectly by exposure to
pesticides:
Under the Endangered Species
Act, federal agencies must ensure
that any action they carry out or
authorize is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence
of any listed species, or to destroy
or adversely modify its critical
habitat. EPA's registration of
pesticides is considered to be
"authorization" under the
Endangered Species Act.
Therefore, EPA is required to
ensure that the registration of
pesticides and their use are not
likely to jeopardize endangered
species.
In July 1989, EPA proposed an
Endangered Species Protection
•
Program aimed at protecting listed
species from harmful exposure to
pesticides, while avoiding placing
any unnecessary limitations on
pesticide use.
EPA's new program evaluates
potential pesticide impacts by
focusing first on listed species
whose status is most fragile. In
cooperation with USDA and the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
EPA will gather information on
the habitats and locations of these
species, and determine whether
the species may be affected by
pesticides to which they are likely
to be exposed. If so, as required
by the law, EPA will formally
consult with FWS to determine if
these pesticides will jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
In cases where FWS finds that
EPA actions are required to
protect the species, EPA will
institute use limitations on the
pesticides.
15
The Endangered Species
Protection Program will be
implemented through product
--labeling and county bulletins.
The pesticide labels will instruct
users that use of the product
within each county must comply
with the limitations set forth in
the bulletin for that county. The
label will also list a toll-free
phone number that pesticide users
can call to find out whether or
not their county is affected by the
program. Bulletins will be made
widely available through a variety
of outlets.
EPA is encouraging states to
recommend protective measures
tailored to the listed species
located within each state. Until a
final program is developed and
pesticide registrants are required
to modify their labels, EPA will
be relying on a voluntary interim
program to help protect
endangered species.
Biological Pesticides
Natural and Genetically
Engineered Microbials
Certain microorganisms, including
bacteria, fungi, viruses, and
protozoa, have been found
effective as pesticidal active
ingredients. EPA has registered
over 20 naturally occurring
microbial pesticides, which are
currently used in over 100
products in agriculture, forestry,
mosquito control, and home and
garden applications.
16
•
As a class, natural microbial
pesticides usually exhibit several
desirable characteristics -they
tend to be effective in controlling
the target organisms without
adversely affecting other
organisms; they usually do not
have toxic effects on animals and
people; and they do not leave
toxic or persistent chemical
residues in the environment.
Because of this "safe" use history,
natural microbial pesticides are
not subject to the same stringent
registration requirements as
chemical pesticides. However,
manufacturers are still required to
register them as pesticides if they
are intended for commercial use,
and the microbials must still
undergo certain testing
requirements.
With recent advances in
biotechnology, there has been
considerable interest in genetic
engineering of microorganisms to
produce pesticides that arc as
effective and less toxic than
chemical pesticides. At the same
time, there has been concern that
the experimental applications of
genetically altered microbes could
result in unforeseen risks to the
environment. Such microbes, for
example, may not be subject to
natural biological or environ-
mental control mechanisms when
introduced into the environment.
As a result of this concern, EPA
evaluates certain genetically
engineered microbial pesticides
before they are applied in the
environment. Manufacturers are
always required to obtain
experimental use permits (EUPs)
for any large-scale field study of a
pesticide. In addition, in 1984,
EPA published a notice requiring
the Agency to be notified at least
90 days prior to small-scale field
testing of genetically engineered
pesticides. Regulations specifying
the notification and information
requirements for small-scale field
tests of genetically engineered
pesticides are being prepared.
Biochemicals
Biochemicals arc chemicals that
are either naturally occurring or
identical to naturally occurring
substances. Examples include
hormones, pheromones, and
enzymes. Biochemicals function
as pesticides through non-toxic,
non-lethal modes of action, such
as disrupting the mating patterns
of insects, regulating growth, or
acting as repellents. Like many
microbials, biochemicals tend to
be more environmentally
compatible and are thus important
to integrated pest management
programs. They terid not to
disrupt beneficial organisms and
do not generally pose risks of
mammalian toxicity or human
health effects.
Over 30 biochemical pesticides
have been registered by EPA
Although these substances must
still go through the registration
process, EPA allows for reduced
testing requirements for
biochemicals in order to promote
their use.
I I
Inert Ingredients
In addition to containing active
ingredients, virtually all pesticide
products contain one or more
inert ingredients. Typical inerts
are solvents (water, petroleum
distillates, or alcohols), carriers
(talc, sand, or corn meal) and
surfactants (soaps or detergents).
By definition, inert ingredients arc
not "active" in attacking a
particular pest. However, some
inert ingredients are chemically or
biologically active and may cause
health and environmental
problems. Prior to 1987, the
majority of inert ingredients had
received EPA clearance but had
been subject to relatively little
scientific scrutiny.
In 1987, EPA published an Inerts
Strategy which calls for the use of
the least toxic inert ingredients
available. For new inerts,
clearance requests must include a
minimum "base set" of data that
allows EPA to determine whether
or not exposure to the inert will
result in unreasonable adverse
effects. Existing inerts have been
placed in groups based on their
known toxicity and the need for
additional toxicity testing.
EPA is concentrating its attention
on the higher priority inerts. Of
some 50 substances identified by
EPA as presenting potential
toxicological concern, all but a
few have now been eliminated by
registrants from their products; in
the interim, manufacturers must
relabel products to identify the
•
presence of these toxic inerts. A
second group of about 65 inerts
has been identified as
representing potential toxic
concern and a high priority for
testing. EPA is evaluating these
chemicals as additional
information hecomes available to
determine the risks of their
continued use.
Preventing Pollution
In line with an Agency-wide
priority on preventing pollution,
EPA is promoting the
development, and expediting the
registration, of safer alternatives
in pest control. EPA is also
looking to build into the review
process for existing pesticides an
increased emphasis on non-
chemical alternatives to problem
pesticide uses. Other specific
initiatives are being developed in
integrated pest management and
in sustainable agriculture.
Integrated Pest Management
For the urban environment, EPA
has been developing an integrated
pest management (1PM) strategy.
Elements of that strategy over the
next few years will likely include:
Support for research to
develop biological and cultural
alternatives to traditional
pesticides
An emphasis on the
development of integrated
systems to forestall the build-
up of resistance to any single
control measure
• Building strong public/private
partnerships involving
government, industry, users,
universities, and private
organizations to promote rapid
transfer of new pest
management and crop
production technologies to
growers and other users.
EPA is participating in the
International Pest Resistance
Management Congress, to be held
late in 1991, which will bring
together representatives from both
industrialized and developing
countries. The Congress will
establish a global communication
network and data base on
pesticide resistance and success[ ul
management strategies.
Sustainable Agriculture
Pesticide use in agriculture is
increasingly coming under scrutiny
in the context of preventing
pollution and achieving a
sustainable agricultural system.
Several features of the current
system of American agriculture
detract from its "sustainability"
over the long term. These
include a heavy reliance on fossil
fuels; cropping systems that
degrade soils and water;
chronically low economic returns
that continue to force some
17
farmers, particularly family
farmers, out of business; and
e_nvironmentally damaging use of
synthetic pesticides and inorganic
• fertilizers.
The long-term solutions to
agricultural pollution, like the
sources themselves, are highly
diverse. But certain methods hold
considerable promise. They
include: rotating crops, scouting
fields to determin~ actual pest
populations, the,tfse of pest
resistant crop varieties, recycling
animal manures, and the use of
biologically based methods of pest
control. The intent is to minimize
the need for pesticides, conserve
soil or enhance soil productivity,
and make farming systems more
sustainable.
To support USDA in fostering
"susta1nable agriculture, EPA is
generating and distributing
information that will assist in a
voluntary shift in agricultural
practices over the long term.
Particularly important are
demonstration and education
projects emphasizing more
environmentally benign production
practices which also sustain yield
and net farm income. EPA is '"
working with USD'.-\ officials to '-
increase their emphasis on these
programs and to use their field
presence to educate farmers on
pollution prevention and
sust.ainable agriculture.
18
• •
I
.I
•
A Closing Word
The next few years will require an
enormous level of effort by EPA
and our state partners to develop
a more comprehensive system to
implement the provisions of the
FIFRA '88 amendments. The
effort calls for equally active roles
by a wide variety of individuals
and groups affected by pesticides.
State agencies play a critical role
in ensuring compliance with
regulations, as well as in providing
guidance to users and educating
the public concerning pesticide
issues. In the next several years,
states will have a new and critical
role in ground-water protection,
endangered-species protection,
and farmworker safety. In all
areas of pesticide regulation, EPA
hopes to build on existing
EP Nstate partnerships.
Environmental and public interest
groups are encouraged to monitor
the progress of particular
pesticides through the
reregistration process and to
provide input in the development
of EPA's forthcoming regulations
on storage, transport, and disposal
of pesticides and containers.
EPA also encourages environ-
mental and public interest groups
to work closely with the public
and with pesticide users to
promote better understanding of
pesticide usage and to encourage
more integrated pest management.
•
Pesticide registrants will be
required to play a much more
active role in the regulatory
process than in the past,
particularly in reregistration.
They are being asked to make
financial commitments in the form
of fees and testing costs, and to
meet statutory deadlines for
submitting as complete and
accurate data as possible.
Registrants will need to keep lines
of communication open with
growers about the pesticide
industry's intentions for
reregistering old products and for
registering new products.
Pesticide users will benefit from
the increased protection that
reregistration will offer, but they
may experience temporary
disruptions in the availability of
familiar products. Grower groups
have a role to play in:
• Providing information to EPA
early on about critical
pesticide uses
• Assisting in conducting more
residue studies in the
marketplace so that exposure
data are more realistic
• In some cases, supporting the
development of data for
"minor uses" of a pesticide for
which the basic registrant does
not intend to seek
reregistration
• Actively supporting and trying
IPM and other techniques of
sustainable agriculture to
reduce the overall burden to
the environment.
The food industry should note that
EP A's accelerated review of older
pesticides may uncover risk
concerns in some cases. Food
industry representatives are urged
to be as responsive as possible to
consumer inquiries and to help in
educating consumers on pesticide
issues. The food industry may
also be asked to assist in
improving exposure data through
increased residue studies.
Finally, individual members of the
public will have the opportunity to
contribute information to the
decisions on pesticides made by
EPA Ultimately the public will
benefit from greater confidence in
our national pesticide regulatory
process and the enhanced safety
of our food supply that will result
from the implementation of
FIFRA '88.
19
Appendices
Glossary
Active Ingredient: In any pesticide
product, the component which kills,
or otherwise controls, target pests.
Pesticides are regulated primarily on
the basis of their active ingredients.
Acute Toxicity: The capacity of a
substance to cause a poisonous effect
(such as skin or eye irritation or
damage to an organ) or death as a
result of a single or short-term
exposure.
Cancellation: The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section
6(b) authorizes cancellation of
registration if, when used according
to widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the pesticide
generally causes unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment, or if its
labeling or other material required to
be submitted does not comply with
FlFRA provisions.
Cholinesterase: An enzyme that
helps regulate nerve impulses.
Cholinesterase inhibition is
. associated with a variety of acute
symptoms such as nausea, vomiting,
blurred vision, stomach cramps, and
rapid heart rate, and can lead to
death in severe cases.
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a
substance to cause harmful health
effects after long-term exposure.
Endangered Species: Animals, birds,
fish, plants, or other living organisms
threatened with extinction by man-
made or natural changes in their
environment. Requirements for
20
•
declaring a species endangered are
contained in the Endangered Species
Act.
Experimental Use Permit: Pesticide
manufacturers are required to obtain
experimental use permits for testing
new pesticides or new uses of
pesticides whenever they conduct
experimental field studies to support
registration of the pesticide on IO
acres or more of land or one acre or
more of water.
Inert Ingredient: A component of a
pesticide such as a solvent or carrier
that is not active against target pests.
Microbial Pesticide: A
microorganism that is used to control
a pest. Microorganisms are living
organisms so small that individually
they usually can be seen only
through a microscope.
Pest: An insect, rodent, nematode,
fungus, weed, or other form of
terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal
life or virus, bacteria, or
microorganism considered to be an
annoyance and which may be
injurious to health or the
environment.
Pesticide: Substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing,
destroying, repelling, or mitigating
any pest. Also, any substance or
mixture of substances intended for
use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or
desiccant.
Reentry Interval: The period of time
immediately following the application
of a pesticide to an area during
which unprotected workers should
not enter the area.
Registrant: Any manufacturer or
formulator who obtains registration
for a pesticide active ingredient or
product.
Registration: Under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (as amended), the
formal listing with EPA of a new
pesticidal active ingredient prior to
its marketing or distribution in intra-
or inter-state commerce.
Registration Standards: Published
documents which include summary
reviews of all the data available on a
pesticide active ingredient, data gaps
identified, and the Agency's existing
regulatory position on the pesticide.
Reregistration: The reevaluation and
relicensing of existing pesticidal
active ingredients originally
registered prior to current scientific
and regulatory standards.
Residues: The pesticide remaining
after natural or technological
processes have taken place.
Restricted Use: When a pesticide is
registered, some or all of its uses
may be classified under FlFRA for
restricted use if the pesticide requires
special handling because of its
toxicity. Restricted-use pesticides
may be applied only by trained,
certified applicators or those under
their direct supervision.
Suspension: EPA's act of prohibiting
the use of a pesticide in order to
prevent an imminent hazard resulting
from continued use of the pesticide.
An emergency suspension takes effect
immediately; under an ordinary
I
I
ii
I
I
:I
I
•
An emergency suspension takes effect
immediately; under an ordinary
suspension, a registrant can request a
hearing before the suspension goes
into effect.
Tolerance: The maximum amount of
pesticide residue allowed by law to
remain in or on a harvested crop.
EPA sets these levels so that the
chemicals do not pose an
unreasonable risk to consumers.
Toxic: Harmful to living organisms.
Toxicity: The inherent capability of
a substance to cause adverse effects
in human, animal, or plant life.
Unreasonable Risk: Under FIFRA,
'unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" means any
unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, taking into account the
economic, social, and environmental
costs and benefits of the use of any
pesticide.
•
For Further Information:
Brochu.res
'Apply Pesticides Correctly: A Guide
for Commercial Applicators,' and
'Apply Pesticides Correctly: A Guide
for Private Applicators.' U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Printing Office, 1975.
'Chemical Risk: A Primer.'
Information Pamphlet. American
Chemical Society Department of
Government Relations and Science
Policy, 1155 16th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20036. I 984.
'Citizen's Guide to Pesticides"
(1990), ' A Consumer's Guide to
Safer Pesticide Use' (1987), "Lawn
Care for Your Home,' and
'Pesticides in Drinking Water'
(1989). U.S. EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (H7501C), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
'Farm Chemical Safety is in Your
Hands.' National Agricultural
Chemicals Association, 1155 15th St.
NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.
'Integrated Pest Management for
Turfgrass and Ornamentals.' U.S.
EPA, 1989 (NTIS PB90-204587).
'The Least Toxic Pest Management
Catalog.' Bio Integral Resource
Center, P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA
94707.
'Pesticides: A Community Action
Guide.' Concern, Inc., 1794
Columbia Rd. NW, Washington, DC
20009. 1987.
'Pesticide Safety for Farmworkers,'
(1985), and 'Pesticide Safety for
Non-Certified Mixers, Loaders and
Applicators" (English and Spanish,
1986). U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide
Programs. 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
'Preventing Pests in Your Home';
"Lawn Care"; "Home Gardening";
'Home Garden Companion Planting';
"Pesticide Labels'; 'Endangered
Species"; "EP A's Endangered Species
Protection Program.' Environmental
Fact Sheets. U.S. EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (H7501C), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
April 1990.
Reports
Agricultural Chemicals in Ground
Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy.
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. December 1987.
Alternative Agriculture. National
Research Council. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
1989.
Pest Management for Local
Governments, MIS Report, Vol. 21,
No. 8, International City
Management Association.
Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage,
1988 Market Estimates. U.S. EPA.
Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, 401 M St. SW,
Washington, DC 20460. February
1990.
Pesticides in Ground Water:
Background Document. U.S. EPA.
401 M St. SW, Washington, DC
20460. I 986.
Regulating Pesticides in Food: The
Delaney Paradox. National Academy
of Sciences. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 1987.
21
Federal Register Notices
U.S. EPA, Endangered Species
Protection Program; Notice of
Proposed Program. 54 FR 27984
(July 3, 1989).
U.S. EPA, FIFRA Amendments of
1988; Schedule of Implementation.
54 FR 18078 (April 26, 1989).
U.S. EPA Inert Ingredients in
Pesticide Products; Policy Statement.
52 FR 13305 (April 22, 1987).
U.S. EPA, Worker Protection
Standards for Agricultural Pesticides;
Public Meetings and Proposed Rule.
53 FR 25970 (July 8, 1988).
22
•
EPA Pesticide Contacts
EPA Hcadquaners
Office of Pesticide Programs
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
[phone]
Region 1
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
[phone]
Region 2
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
[phone]
Region 3
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
[phone]
Region 4
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Region 5
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
[phone]
Region 6
Chief, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
[phone]
Region 7
Chief, Pesticides and Toxics
Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
[phone]
Region 8
Director, Air and Toxics
Division
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
[phone]
Region 9
Chief, Pesticides and Toxics
Branch
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
[phone]
Region 10
Chief, Pesticides and Toxics
Substances Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
[phone]
State Agency Contacts
Region I
O>nnccticut
Director,
•
Waste Engineering and Enforcement
Division
Bureau of Waste Management
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
[phone]
Maine
Director, Pesticides Control Board
State House, Station 28
Augusta, ME 04333
[phone]
Massachusetts
Chief, Pesticides Bureau
Dept. of Food and Agriculture
100 Cambridge Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02202
[phone]
New Hampshire
Supervisor, Pesticides Control
Division
Dept. of Agriculture
IO Ferry Street
Collerbox 2042
Concord, NH 03302-2042
[phone]
Rhode Island
Chief, Division of Agriculture
Dept. of Environmental Management
22 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02908
[phone]
Vermont
Director, Agriculture Foods and
Markets
120 State Street
State Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05620
[phone]
•
Region 2
New Jersey
Director, Pesticide Control Program
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection
380 Scotch Road, CN 411
Trenton, NJ 08625
[phone]
New York
Director, Bureau of Pesticides
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Room 404, 50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 1~233 -,
[phone]
Puerto Rico
Director, Analysis and Registration
of Agricultural Materials
Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 10163
Santurce, PR 00908
[phone]
Virgin Islands
Director, Pesticide Programs
Division of Environmental Protection
Dept. of Planning and Natural
Resources
14 F Building, 111 Watergut Homes
Christiansted, St. Croix
U.S. Virgin Islands 00820
[phone]
Region 3
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
2320 South Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
[phone]
District of Columbia
Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs
Housing and Environmental
Regulations Administration
Environmental Control Division
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE
Room 203
Washington, D.C. 20020
[phone]
Maryland
Chief, Pesticide Regulation Section
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
[phone]
Pennsylvania
Chief, Agronomic Services
Bureau of Plant Industry
Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture
2301 N. Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
[phone]
Virginia
Program Manager, Virginia Dept. of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
Post Office Box 1163, Room 403
Richmond, VA 23209
[phone]
West Virginia
Director, Pesticides Division
West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
Charleston, WV 25305
[phone]
Region 4
Alabama
Director, Agriculture,
Chemistry/Plant Industry Division
Dept. of Agriculture and Industry
Post Office Box 3336
Montgomery, AL 36193
[phone]
Florida
Administrator, Dept. of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
3125 Conner Blvd., MD2
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
[phone]
Georgia
Assistant Commissioner
Georgia Department of Agriculture
Entomology and Pesticide Division
Capital Square, Room 550
Atlanta, GA 30334
[phone]
23
24
Kentucky
Director, Division of Pesticides
Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture
500 Mero Street, 7th Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601
[phone]
Mississippi
Director, Division of Plant Industry
Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce
Post Office Box 5207
Mississippi State, MS 39762
[phone]
North Carolina
Pesticide Administrator
Pesticide Section
North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 27647
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
South Carolina
Department Head, Dept. of Fertilizer
and Pesticide Control
257 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0394
[phone]
Tennessee
Director, Plant Industries Division
Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station
Nashville, TN 37204
[phone]
Region 5
lliinois
Chief, Bureau of Plant and Apiary
Protection
Department of Agriculture
State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281
Springfield, IL 62794-9281
[phone]
Indiana
Pesticide Administrator
Office of the State Chemist
Department of Biochemistry
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 4 7907
[phone]
•
Michigan
Director, Pesticide and Plant Pest
Management Division
611 W. Ottawa Street
4th Floor, North Ottawa Tower
Lansing, MI 48933
[phone]
Minnesota
Director, Division of Agronomy
Services
Department of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107
[phone]
Ohio
Specialist in Charge of Pesticides
Pesticide Regulation Division
Department of Agriculture
8995 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
[phone]
Wisoonsin
Executive Assistant
Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection
Post Office Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708
[phone]
Region 6
Arkansas
Director, Division of Feed,
Fertilizer, and Pesticides
Arkansas State Plant Board
1 Natural Resources Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72205
[phone]
Louisiana
Office of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences
Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture
and Forestry
Post Office Box 3596
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596
[phone]
New Mexico
Chief, Division of Agricultural and
Environmental Services
New Mexico State Dept. of
Agriculture
Post Office Box 3150
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[phone]
Oklahoma
Supervisor, Pest Management Section
Plant Industry Division
Oklahoma State Dept. of Agriculture
2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
[phone]
Texas
Director, Division of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences
Texas Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 12847
Austin, TX 78711
[phone]
Region 7
Iowa
Supervisor, Pesticide Control
Section
Iowa Dept. of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Building
E. 9th Street and Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
[phone]
Kansas
Director, Plant Health Division
Kansas State Board of Agriculture
901 South Kansas, 7th Flor
Topeka, KS 66612-1281
[phone]
Missouri
Supervisor, Bureau of Pesticide
Control
Department of Agriculture
Post Office Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65102
[phone]
l
• I
'I
' I
•
Nebraska
Director, Bureau of Plant Industry
Nebraska Department of Agriculture
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68509
[phone]
Region 8
Colorado
Supervisor, Pesticide Section
Division of Plant Industry
Colorado Dept. of Agriculture
700 Kipling Street, Suite 4000
Lakewood, CO 80215-5894
[phone]
Montana
Administrator, Montana Dept. of
Agriculture
Environmental Management Division
Agriculture-Livestock Building
Room 317, Capitol Station
Helena, MT 59620-0205
[phone]
North Dakota
Director, Pesticides and Noxious
Weed Division
Department of Agriculture
600 East Blvd.
Bismarck, ND 58505-0020
[phone]
South Dakota
Director, Division of Regulatory
Services
South Dakota Dept. of Agriculture
Anderson Building
445 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3188
[phone]
Utah
Director, Division of Plant
Industries
Department of Agriculture
350 North Redwood Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
[phone]
Wyoming
Manager, Technical Services
Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture
2219 Carey Ave.
Cheyenne, WY 82002
[phone]
Region 9
Arizona
Associate Director, Division of
Agricultural Chemicals and
Environmental Services
Arizona Dept. of Agriculture
1688 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[phone]
California
Assistant Director, Division of
•
Pest Management, Environmental
Protection, and Worker Safety
California Dept. of Food and
Agriculture
1220 N Street, Room A414
Sacramento, CA 958 I 4
[phone]
Hawaii
Head, Division of Plant Industry
Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 22159
Honolulu, HI 96823-2159
[phone]
Nevada
Administrator, Division of Plant
Industry
Nevada Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box I llOO
Reno, NV 89510
[phone]
Guam
Director, Air and Land Programs
Division, Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Post Office Box 2999
Agana, GU 96910
American Samoa
Director, Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 366
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands
Executive Officer, Trust Territory
Environmental Protection Board
Office of the High Commissioner
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands
Environmental Engineer, Division
of Environmental Quality
Dr. Torres Hospital
Saipan, Mariana Island 96950
Region JO
Alaska
Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Post Office Box 1088
Palmer, AK 99645
[phone]
Idaho
Agrichemical Standards Bureau Chief
Division of Agricultural Technology
Idaho Dept. of Agriculture
Post Office Box 790
Boise, ID 83701
[phone]
Oregon
Assistant Administrator, Plant
Division
Oregon Dept. of Agriculture
635 Capitol Street, NE
Salem, OR 97310-0ll0
[phone]
Washington
Pesticide Specialist
Washington Dept. of Agriculture
406 General Administration
Building
Olympia, WA 98504
[phone]
25
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
10 April 1989
Lee Crosby
Grover Nicholson
FCX-Statesville
Public Meeting
•
On 5 April 1989 I attended a public meeting in Statesville, NC,
concerning the FCX property there. The facility has been proposed for
inclusion on the NFL and presently us EPA is attempting to find and
remove the buried pesticides. The meeting was held at the Monticello
Fire Station. It began at 7 pm and ended about 9:30 pm. I have
attached an agenda showing speakers present.
The meeting was orderly and most of the residents seemed well
informed. I answered questions pertaining to the air and soil
sampling conducted around the site and about well sampling conducted
and planned around the site. The residents expressed some concern
about health problems associated with the pesticides. Surprisingly to
me, however, was the residents'question of whether or not removal of
the buried wastes was the proper course of action. They requested
that EPA allow their input into any decision to remove the wastes and
any decision on final disposition of the wastes. EPA promised to
consider their requests concerning final disposition, but removal was
necessary and already underway. Don Rigger reported, however, that
the wastes had not yet been located.
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345COURTLANDSTREET
ATLANTA, Gl:ORGIA 30Jt5
FCX SUPE:RFUND SITE
STAmSV[LLE, NC
APRIL 1989
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
AGENDA.
Introduction of 0 articipants
and Pucpose of Meeting . . . . . . . . . .
Errergency Resp::>1158 1ss11~s
ii/PL Rswrlictl Issues
Public Health ISS'J8,'l
fl. Michael Hendernon
Community Relations
IJSl::PA -Region IV
Don Riggec
On-Scene Coordinator
USEPA -Region IV
Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
USEPA -Region IV
Chuck Pietrosewicz (A'fSDR)
Public Health Consultant
Agency For Toxics And
Substances Disease Registry
IL Michael Bendernon
,J[JBSTIONS AND ANSWER SESSION , ••..... , ••••••••••• All EPA & State Officials
OOTE: Please hold all questions and canrrents until the end of the final
presentation.
Attorney Marcia Owens of USEPA's Office of Regional Counsel and Grover Nicholson,
a geol0<Jist Ecom the State of North Carolina's Departrrent of Human Resources
Superfund Branch will, also, be available to answer questions during the questions
and an5"""r session.
[•!EDIA NOTE: All interviews of. USEPA official should be cleared through the
Community Relations representative, Michael Henderson, before
con,iuct ing the interview.
•• ••
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2091
James G. Martin, Governor
David T. Flaherty, Secretary
Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H.
13 March 1989
Ms. Kelly Cain
NC Project Officer
EPA Region IV Waste Division
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
SUBJECT: Public Meeting
FCX-Statesville
NCD 095 458 527
Dear Ms. Cain:
State Health Director
Don Rigger of US EPA Region IV Emergency Response and
Control Section called on 10 March 1989 and told me that at
the request of local citizens and the Blue Ridge
Environ.'llental Defense League, a public meeting has been
scheduled for 5 April 1989 at 7 p.m. It will be held in the
Monticello Fire Station on Highway 90 in Statesville. The
purpose of the meeting is to tell local citizens and other
interested parties about the investigation of the FCX
facility and about future remedial actions at the site.
US EPA will be represented at the meeting by Don
Rigger, Mike Townsend (the RPM), Cody Jackson (ATSDR), and
Mike Henderson (Community Relations) . I would like to
attend the meeting as a representative of the state PA/SI
program. The original PA/SI was conducted by this program
and there are parts of the pre-remedial investigaion that I
will be better able to address. Also, the state needs to be
aware of any health or environmental concerns of citizens,
particularly around a proposed NPL site.
Ms. Cain
3-13-89
page 2
•• ••
If you approve, I will plan to attend the 5 April
meeting.
GN/db/3.doc
Sincerely,
9::=-Nilf:ii '::ologist
Superfund Branch
Solid Waste Section
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
••
10 March 1989
Lee Crosby
Grover Nicholson
FCX-Statesville
NCD 095458527
••
Don Rigger of US EPA called today and gave me the following
information concerning the site.
/ At the request of local citizens and the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League, a public meeting has been scheduled for
5 April 1989 at 7 p.m. It. will be held in the Monticello Fire Station
on Highway 90 in Statesville. The purpose of the meeting is to tell
local citizens and other interested parties about the investigation of
the FCX facility and about future remedial actions at the site.
US EPA will be represented at the meeting by Don Rigger, Mike
Townsend (the RPM), Cody Jackson (ATSDR), and Mike Henderson
(Community Relations). I am requesting permission from EPA for me to
attend the meeting.
Don Rigger reported that he had been contacted by Janet Hoyle of
the 3lue Ridge Environmental Defense League [phone], and by
Jenny Rominger of Asheville (affiliation unknown) [phone].
Janet Hoyle supplied Don with the names of seven residents said to
live within 1/2 mile of the site and to use water from private wells.
They are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7 .
James Moose
Micky Gaither
Virginia Bell
Grady Poole
Earl Hallard
Francis James
Ann Bustle
2102 Bristol Road Stateville NC
2230 Bristol Road Stateville NC
Rt 13 Box 460 Stateville NC
2209 Newton Drive Stateville NC
(Daughter's Ho.use)
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Coincidentally, the sample analyses results from the soil and
air sampling we did around the FCX site arrived today. No pesticides
were detected in any of the four sets of air samples taken (vapor and
particulate). No pesticides were detected in either of the two soil
samples taken from the N.B. Mills school playground or in the soil
sample taken from the Crawford residence. Soil from the yard of the
••
Rankin residence showed a trace (0.06 ppm) of dieldrin. Soil from the
yard of the BB&T office showed a trace (0.04 ppm) of chlordane and a
trace (0.14 ppm) of PCP. John Neal questions whether these trace
amounts of contaminants can be attributed to the FCX site since both
dieldrin and chlordane were used as lawn and garden pesticides. PCP
has not been identified as a contaminant on the FCX site. The
contamination found at the BB&T office probably comes from another
source.
GN/db/Memos.l
SUBJECT
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
SUMMARY OF COMMUNJCA TION
PHONE CALl
□ OTHER (SPECIFY)
FROM:
FIELD TRIP O CONFERENCE
(Reco~d of item checked above)
DATE
3Ht«A<f!'i'
TIME /35S
/lll € sd :s«"i"'le.o -4~~ ,-.e, t>r-v~ l<>u.J l=l.s
1 fl-GA "' c:;.,./!,,,o .
±I I I.J • i3 . M-; ti 1, 6y;.,..
il:/4 t-).~. tlf,(I..,
.d':, ~ ... J
CONCLUSIONS, ACTl(?N TAKEN OR REQUIRED
INFORMATION COPIES
TO:
EPA Form 1300-6 (7-72)
ao
{a,.-.,12« • ell -
p, e. {-, ... .-.:Q..... , .,,__ 'b...:J)
,, I.,.-er,......
)0.. -._;1-•• µ,.
)...) .. ~ .:;.l!.u, /Oh-'£,,JI
-,~ " " a.c.,...