NCD981023260_20000801_Potters Septic Tank Service Pits_FRBCERCLA SPD_Fact Sheets 1990 - 2000-OCR

1/
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina
August 2000
Site Location/Description
The Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits is located in
a rural section of Brunswick County North Carolina,
in a residential community known as the Town of
Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek is subdivided into one
to two acre lots, each with a private domestic water
well. There are approximately 150 residential lots
of which 70 are currently occupied. Between 1969
and 1976, before the land was developed for
residential use, the Skipper family operated sludge
hauling and oil spill cleanup companies in this area.
Waste disposal pits were operated in and around
the Sandy Creek area. Disposal practices
consisted of placing waste petroleum products and
septic tank sludge in shallow unlined pits or directly
on the land surface.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision describes a fundamental change to
the groundwater restoration approach as pre-
sented in the 1992 Record of Decision (ROD) of the
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits (Site). As a result
of additional data developed since the original ROD
was finalized, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is proposing to use
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) as the remedy
instead of groundwater extraction, chemical
treatment and treating it through air stripping. Site-
specific characterization data indicate that the
aquifer groundwater plumes flowing beneath and
downgradient of the Site pose a diminishing threat
to human health and the environment. [An aquifer
is an underground rock formation composed of
materials such as sand, soil or gravel that can store
and supply usable amounts of water that feed into
supply wells and springs. The plume is a
measurable area of contamination in the
groundwater that moves in the direction of
groundwater flow.] This change to the original
selected remedy has been proposed in accordance
with CERCLA, as amended, and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan , which
states that Monitored Natural Attenuation is
generally recommended in special situations
where geochemical and/or hydrological data
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULED
AUGUST 10TH, 2000
LOCATION: Hood Creek Community Center
Highway 87, Sandy Creek, NC
TIME: 7:00 PM
COMMENT PERIOD: AUGUST 10 -SEPTEMBER 8, 2000
-1-
• suggest a strong likelihood that attenuation
processes are operative at the site, and that they
may assure -attainment of. remedial goals in an
acceptable time·frame.
'. ' ...... ,: .,! '. . 11
Further; "EPA: has 'determined·. based -upon·
documentation that all soil remediation has been
completed based on the clean up goals established
except for a few areas at the comer of Joe Baldwin
and Hickory Drive. Excavation only went to a depth
of 38 feet because the contractor encountered
groundwater at this depth. EPA did not want to
jeopardize the integrity of the aquifer by spreading
contamination into an uncontaminated area.
Therefore, it was decided to address these areas
during the groundwater remediation phase.
In light of new site-specific data that has been
obtained dr developed since the 1992 ROD was
finalized, EPA Region 4 now believes that
Monitored Natural Attenuation, rather than
extraction, is the appropriate remedy for restoration
of groundwater contained in the Site's aquifers.
[Natural attenuation is a slow passive process
where bacteria and microscopic organisms in the
groundwater over an extended period of time break
down the contaminants into harmless substances.]
Following treatment of co:ntaminated soil, recent
sampling of groundwater indicates concentrations of
Contaminants of Concemj (COC) are much lo_wer
than those observed during the 1991-92 Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility stt!Jdy preceding the ROD.
I The recent data suggests that the scope of the
groundwater remedial actidn that was outlined in the
'I 1992 ROD may have been too broad in scope. It
also suggests that a Monitored Natural Attenuation
remedial action for groundwater may be • more
appropriate to this Site than the 1992 ROD-
specified remedial action.
Rational For Selection of Monitored
Natural Attenuation As Groundwater
Restoration Remedy
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Considering the' new information that' has ,been
developed and the changes that hav_e occurred
since the remedial action;ofttie soils, the USEPA
believes that the MNA will attain groundwater
cleanup within a reasonable time frame when
biodegradation processes are considered compared
-2-
• to pumping and treating the groundwater.
Even though the pump-and-treat system was the
selected remedy in the September29, 1992 ROD,
its implementation is n~t necessary to ·protect
human-health and the environment. USEPA views .
the use of Monitored Natural Attenuation as a better
complement to . ttie source control and soil
treatment activities completed in 1996. Monitored-
Natural Attenuation processes, particularly
biological degradation, have been documented as
very successful remedies at petroleum waste sites.
Under appropriate field conditions, the compounds
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) naturally degrade through microbial activity
and ultimately produce non-toxic end products (e.g.,
carbon dioxide and water).
Monitored Natural Attenuation remediation has
been implemented with success at sites
contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) and has gained USEPA acceptance over
the years. This process also offers a number of
advantages over the pump-and-treat approach.
These advantages have been documented by the
USEPA and include:
Less generation or transfer of remediation
waste.
• Less intrusive and disruptive than engineered
methods.
• Remediation costs may be lower than with
active remediation.
• Can be combined with active remedial
measures to remediate a portion of the Site.
• Requires no removal, treatment, storage or
discharge consideration for groundwater.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary
responsibility at Superfund sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health
·and.the environment. In addition, Section 121 of
CERCLA established several other statutory
requirenients and preferences. [Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act is the federal law passed by Congress
• in 1980 to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.] These specify
that when complete, the selected remedial action
for a site must comply with applicable or relevant
and appropriate · e·nvironmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental
laws 'unleiss 'a.statutory waiver is granted. The
Site Location Map
• selected remedy must also be cost-effective and
utilize permanent treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of hazardous wastes.
--f.-:-= .::_--..::-:: ..;-_-. ,e=;ami:i<~ '-/· ~i~Jl§i;;-· ~L~;~jP~}--
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site J
0
N
I
-3-
r
• Considering the new information that has been
developed and the changes that have been made to
the selected remedy, USEPA believes that the
proposed change of remedy is protective of human
health and the environment and complies with
Federal and State requiremenis' that were identified .
in the ·September 1992 ;ROD· as applicable,:or
relevant and appropriaie to this remedial action. · In
addition, the proposed remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEW
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
USEPA Region 4 has reconsidered the selected
remedy presented in the September 1992 ROD.
This section profiles Alternative 4 which the Agency
is proposing, compared to the other alternatives that
were evaluated, using the nine criteria which are
used to compare all proposed remedial actions.
The Remedial Action Alternatives presented for
study and consideration in the ROD Amendment
are as follows:
Alternative 1 -No Action, est. cost $140,000
Alternative 2 -Institutional controls, est. cost
$1,400,000
Alternative 3 -Groundwater Extraction and
Chemical Treatment (Air Stripping) with Discharge
to Chinnis Branch, est. cost $7,100,000
Alternative 4 -Monitored Natural Attenuation and
Institutional Controls, est. cost $2,000,000.
The results of Alternative 4 when judged by the nine
criteria EPA uses to test all technologies under
consideration at any site are as follows:
Overall Protectiveness .
The degree of each alte'rnative eliminates, ~educes,
or controls threats to pubiic_· healih-and· the
environment through· treatm'eh( · engineering
methods, or institutionai controls. .
...
-4-
• Compliance with ARARs
Groundwater contaminant concentrations would
meet the established cleanup goals for the Potter's
Pits site.
Long,Term Effective'ness'·and Perniane·nce ' :
The poieritial of off-site contaminant migration via
groundwater would be eliminated· permanently.
Long-term public health risks associated with.
groundwater ingestion and inhalation would be
eliminated. No future site use restrictions would be
required once groundwater treatment is completed.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Through Treatment
Monitored Natural Attenuation treatment of
contaminated groundwater would achieve a
maximum and permanent reduction of contaminant
mobility, toxicity, and volume in the groundwater.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The length of time needed to implement each
alternative was considered. EPA assessed the
risks that may be posed to nearby residents.
Implementability -Preliminary Schedule
Monitor:ed Nattiral . Attenuation .• groundwater
remediation obtains clean-up levels within a
reasonable time frame.
Cost
A comparison or present worth cost associated with
the groundwater alternative indicates that the cost
of Alternative 4 is approximately $2,000,000.
State Acceptance
The. State of North Carolina concurs with this
proposed amendment to the 1992 ROD.
Community Acceptance
Ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity
to provide input by conducting a public meeting and
public comment period on the action that is being
proposed. Respond to questions and comments
received.
I
\
. .
EPA'S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
Monitored Natural Attenuation
This alternative includes MNA and.monitoring of groundwater .contaminant levels. A continued
groundwater monitoring program would. be put in, place to :monitor VOC concentrations and
migration pathways. If potential future receptors are identified, they would be protected through the
monitoring program, area reconnaissance, and, if necessary, through the use of well head
treatment or alternative water supply.
Monitoring will involve periodic (short and long-term) sampling and analysis of groundwater to
determine if contaminants have degraded or migrated. Monitoring will also be used as a verification
mechanism to confirm predicted contaminant transport pathways, concentrations and time frames,
and to evaluate potential contingencies should unanticipated contaminant trends or migration
pathways occur.
Institutional Controls will consist of restricting use of specific areas of properties 1 A and 1 B [see
Site map on page 3] overlying impacted groundwater. This restriction will continue in force until
data obtained from monitoring groundwater indicates that there is no further risk. The restrictions
are: (1) the Site shall not be used for any below-ground construction, specifically installation of
potable wells and septic systems. (2) No alteration, disturbance or removal of the existing soil,
landscape and contours shall occur other than erosion control measures unless approved by the
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources. Planting of trees, shrubs and flowers must
be approved by the State prior to planting. (3) Any surface or underground water located within
the open space arna shall not be used.for swimming or as a source of potable water. Mowing of
vegetation and tree cutting are allowed on the Site. ·
Community.Participation
Before EPA selects a remedy in the remedial
process, we ask the public for.their comments. We
conduct a public meeting as well as a public
comment period for a minimum•of.30 days, and ask
citizens to review the documents related to this
proposed action and provide us with comments. At
the conclusion of the public comment period, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary of all
questions/comments received and the Agency's
response to these questions/comments which will be
placed in the Information Repository along with all
other documents developed during the Superfund
process. We encourage the public's participation in
this process.
The public meeting will occur on August 10, 2000,
beginning at 7:00 PM at the Hood Creek Community
Center off Highway 87 in Sandy Creek, NC.
The public comment period begins on August 10th
and ends at midnight September 8th , 2000.
Information Repository
The Information Repository housing copies of
documents developed during the Superfund process
are located in the:
Contacts
East Columbus Branch of
Columbus County Library
Highway 87
Reigelwood, NC
Phone: [phone]
If you want more information about the Site or this
proposed action, please contact:
Beverly Hudson, EPA Project Manager, or
. Diane Barrett, Community Involvement Coord.
U.S.E.P.A., R·egion 4
North Site Management Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: [phone]
-5-. -
' . • •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft 61 Forsyth Street, SW
North Site Management Branch /ii · , •
Diane Barrett, Community Involvement Coard. /,;r··. ~ P. r,,:_;.,
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager f · .,,,\ '\'--ll•'0 Atjanta, Georgia 30303
Region 4
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
S/F
PUBLIC INFO.OFFICER
N.C. SUPERFUND SECTION
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES
P. 0. BOX 27687
401 OBERLIN STREET, SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27601-7687
• AL1·• -' l 1.,-/'//!"l I
\ /
'·:., ,p:''
RECEiVEO
JIUG 15 2000
SUPERFUND SECTION
POTR 127
27605-1350 t?S .... -;6! .. , I, II, .. 1, II,, II,,, ,I, I, II, II,, ""I, I, II,,,,, I, 1, 1, 1 .. 1; ,II
. . '
\
., • ,. • ~~\ --/ . ft .
g~j
~« .. ;~,.l
Region 4
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANNOUNCES THE TRANSFER OF SITE DOCUMENTS
The Administrative Record/Information Repository files for the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Superfund Site in Sandy Creek, NC, have been moved from the East Columbus Branch Library in Reigelwood to:
Leland Public Library
487 Village Road
Leland, North Carolina 28451
Phone: [phone] ·
This move has been made in order to provide more space and accessibility to a micro film reader. We hope this move does not create an inconvenience for the public. Please contact Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator at 1-800-435-9233 ext. 2073 if you have questions concerning this Site .
• •
Ladies and Gentlemen, the above notice will appear in the Wilmington Morning filar: newspaper on February 28, 1996. This copy is being mailed to citizens on the Site's mailing list for your information in the event you miss seeing the display ad in the newspaper.
..
_,
\ • ... ... •
....... ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coard.
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
.. '$/F . . '
PUBLIC INFO• ASST• ,-_/, ,.,N.C• SUPERFUNO S.ECTION , ' · .. .-,~ .. ', NC DEP-T •.OF, ENV IRONM_ENT' HEAL TH • : "
, .. ·. f.. NA TUR.AL. RESOURCES,._' · ... ·••sox ·27687 p. 0. a • • •
~ALEIGH ' . ···NC 27601-7687·
\
RECEIVED
FEB 2 31996
SUPERFUNO SECTION
POTTER'S s·EPTIC TANK SERVICE·
SUPERFUND SECTiON PITSiSITE
Region 4 ' Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina
The attached is a technical document which is made available to the public for their information. A copy of this
document is also available in the Information Repository.
. -·-. . . ., . ;..;.:: ',:.,
The Explanation o.f Significant Difference (ESD) document thaLwas issued and s_igned-~rn
February 6, 1996,-represents a change in<the Record of Decision of August 5, 1992, which
selected the remedial treatment to·be-used at the Site:· An ESD is issued whenever a _c_ha.'rige ·
needs to be made to the Record of Decision ... This action is governed and regulated bftne
National Contingf(lCY-l;'Jan §300.435(c)(2)(I)(t,), and (Bl:-··;r~e,.E,?.i;> is _prepared, '.'when the
remedial or en(9(9ii'm§]}f action, or the settleiji·ent'or cqn_sEJnt dei:;t~~ differs. significar:itly;lror:i:i)bg
remedy ,s_electe.~Jn Jhe Record of Decision with respect to scqpe,_ performance or:cost;·the
Agency;._must ,'puplish a notice that briefly s_ummarizes· the explanation of.significant differe,nces
and the reasons_,for~~uch differences in a-major local -newsp'aper, and make the ESD ·and
supporting''.'inkfri\'iatibri available to· the public. iri' 'the administrative ·.record· and informaHori
repository." A notice oi ihisaction will appear iri'ihe Wilmi □(,JtO □-Morn fog Stai On-February~1'4:
1996 . . .. •
In the event .citizens.do not see the notice placed in· the newspaper or do not receive the
newspaper, a copy of the ESD has been mailed to citizens oh the Site's mailing list to ensure
that this action is m~de 'public. . .
The "significant difference" is the decision to change the clea~ up'goal for lead in ttie-soil. EPA
determined that" the remediation goal for lead should be 400 partii"per million making it [ess .
stringent than the 25 parts per million as stated in the Record of Decision. This action was taken
based upon additional data, and an improved method for determining risk. This change is still
protective of human health and the environment and complies:y,rith applicable State laws, and
makes the remedy more cost-effective. . ·.·
Since this is a technical document, should you want more detailed information about this action,
please contact the EPA Remedial Project Manager, Mrs. Beverly Hudson, at 1-800-435-9233
ext. 2080, or Mrs. Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator, at ext. 2073, in the EPA
offices in Atlanta, Georgia.
.......... ,.,
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
.345 COURTLAND STREET, N:Ec, ·• _.,iLANTA, GEORGIP;'.30365 l ..•.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
FEB• 0 6 1996
. f~/~·.~
:; \~~•f;'.r/ ~
I...' -~· ... i.1.I '~-.~~t..lffYfi"P (
·, •f ." .';.:
SUPERFUND PROGRAM EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS SITE SANDY CREEK, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Introduction
The purpose of this Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) is to provide info'rmation to the public on ·the changes to the remedial activities for the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site in Sandy Creek, Brunswick· County,' "North ··Carolina ( the Site) . The remedial action selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'; Region· IV ·(EPA), the· 1ead agency for'. remedial: activities<,}"" .. ,-at the:•site,· is described:in detail,·in the•.Record of-Decision:.:> (.ROD,), signed on-August. 5; 1992. · The ROD p:n:i_vides for ::tJ:ie, ·. ·./ (·.. :: ,; remediation of soil; arid grou13g~~ter_, at_,~he ,:site. -' ; . ':: •" ,, . ,. • -..... ~ ~ .,,,._ ··• -,.,·,. .·-~-·:.1(\-·• ·• -· ?;2,-v-;;~;{.1. EPA ha's' inade one·1 change to· the/'·impl'ementation of the-"'" •.,' · ., . , .·. recoinmended' soil 'rem'ediation for the" Site, . EPA has deternilnecf JF;r::·, l,,: that·. th·e. remediation,.goal ·,for·.,lead should be 400 ppm ra'th'erJ\th'aii•::, • )1 25,,ppm' as, noted 'in the•';ROD·: ·· .. This change :represents a 'significant:' .. · dif fe .. rence from. the· o_rig.i,nal rE!mediation goa:J, for lead .s.e.t,. ou:t:· in , ,, , the RO(/:, : ,ThE; _publtc,,w;j},l be riot if ie_c_i o~ :,the ,c)lai:ige i_n :~J:i~,tROH·:'.t'·: :.• .. ,., through_the· publication of th.~ ESD; The ESD is being issued by ... · ... EPA with the concurrence of the North Carolina Department of · Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
This•·EsD is issued as part, of EPA'.s public particip•ation . responsibilities. under .Section, 117,(c) ,of the-Comprehensive -Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,,(CERCLA)., · 42 u.s.c. § 9617(c), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and R~author).,za_tion Act_ of 1986, _and Section 300.435(c) (2) (i) of the -• , 1r1. , -, , • , , ~ ~ ,· -. .. , National Oil and'Hazardous·Substances·Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP);· ·40'C.F.R.· Part· 300. This notice'inc'ludes the information which provide the basis for the change, ·the reasons· why the change is appropriate, and a discussion,of the extent of the change. ,. The administrative record file .for this Site contains the information upon which the.remedy selection was based, including the ROD and Responsive~ess Summary. This ESD will become part of.that record which is located at the following location's:· ·' '. . ..
• • . Information Repository EPA Region IV Office -.l -_, ' •
Colwnbus County Library
East Columbus. Braricn''
P.O.' Box 27·> Highway 87
Reigelwood, North Carolina·28456
[phone]
Site History
u. s .· EPA Records Cent'er' Ground Floorr:''" •· , .... , ..
345 Courtland 0 st:. NE.·
Atlanta,· Georgi'a 30365
[phone]·
The Potter's Pits Site is located in a rural section of
Brunswick County, North Carolina, in a residential community
known as the Town of Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek is subdivided into
one to two acre lots, each with a private domestic water well.
There.are approximately 150 residential lots of which 70 are
currently occupied.
Between·, 1969 and 1976, before the land was developed for
residential use, the Skipper Lamily.operatedsludge hauling and
oil spill cleanup companies in this area. Waste disposal pits
were·., opei:-at.ed in· and around the Sandy Creek area. , , Disposal
practices consisted of placing waste petroleum products ahd
septic tank•sludge iri shallow unlined pits or directly on the-·
land si.irface. · . · · · . . ·.
.. .;:..'··,,.,
The Potter's Pits Site was divided by EPA into three study :::f
areas; Areas 1 and 3 are located in residential lots within Sandy
Creek;'. and Area 2 was located·•'approximately 1. 5 miles north -'
across u.,f: Highway 74/76. "Are·a 1 comprises the actual Potter's ;
Pits· Site.·· Area 3 was included· in'•the••investigation··because' • •· ·-,·.
historical ·aerial photogr~phs ·sugg·e·sted that this area .. ,might: have'.' : ·
been used as a disposal Site. During tne Remedial Investigation-··:.
(RI) phase, Area 3 was determined not to be a problem. Area 2
was selected based on preliminary inforination which indicated
that wastes may have been disposed of in this area. However,
subsequent investigations did·not produce any additional
information or evidenc_e of such dispcii;;'al, and Area 2 was removed
from further consideration.
··rn August 1976, an unlined pit in Area 1 failed and allowed
approximately 20,000 ·gallons· of oil to escape. The-'oil flowed
into two streams: Chinnis Branch and then into Rattlesnake
Branch. The United States Coast Guard, acting pursuant to
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, removed the spilled oil from
Rattlesnake'Branch. Also in August 1976, Mr. Otto Skipper
(brother of Ward Skipper) began pumping out the oil remaining in
the breached disposal pit (Area 1) .' Approximately 20,000 gallons
of oil were removed from this pit and transported to Fort Bragg
Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
-2-
" " ,I
• • The oil stored in.three other pits at the .. Site, as well as, . . the oi 1 recovered "from· the~-receiving. s tr earn, ...:,;ia•s'.·"'a:i"so taken< t·o ,:·,,::u. Fort -Bragg. ; In .addition, . approximately 150r,dump -truck loads of .-·, oil sludge ii.nd 'oil st"a{n"ect dirt were excavated.".,ind, hauled -to Brunswick County Landfill --in Leland, North Carol'i'na, fOr final disposal. The thick oii.sludge that could not be.pumped was mixed with sand and buried on site.
The Skipper Estate changed ownership in 1980. Wachovia State Bank, through foreclosure, took possession of the property in January 1980. Investment Manag_ement Corporat.ion. later purchased.the property and subdivided it for residential development. This development became known as Sandy Creek Acres and later as the Town-of Sandy Creek. In July 1983, owners of the property found waste materials buried in their.yard, (formerly Pit Area 1). The State of North Carolina sampled the soil and groundwater. Analysis of these samples··· confirmed the. presence· of ·:contamination-;····· The,•site··owner' s water, wells were coridemned,-· and they were connected-to a neighl)or '.s. well." . , . . . .. . •. ~-. .. . . ' .. ' . . r., '.·. • ;' ::.(.• .• , • ~ , . • . ' I I~ I • , ,~ In>Septernper 1983, -EPA_ and-the.Region IV Field Investigation~ Team (FI-T) performed an :electromagnetic survey of .:the Site, .. '. monitored .the air, ·collected soil, surface wate·r, .. and groundwater.~ samples for laboratory analysis. In February 198-,( EPA-Regioh Iv: used ground penetrating radar (GPR) to further define· the' Site··• "' boundaries.
In March 1984, ·_-an iroinedi~t~ Removal Action at .. the Potter_' s Pits .Site (Area_ 1) was requested by the EPA Offic_e_; of Emergency · and Remedial::Respons~ ... _ O_n_,_Mar~h 21, 1984; a· removal was b'eguri centering· around Ar.ea 1. A-total o{ 1,770 tons of" oily sludge and contaminated soils were excavated and transported to a hazardous waste landfill in Pinewood, S .c". ·soil· removal activities were. completed on April 2, 1984. ..
In May.. 19 84, EPA-Region. -IV-· proposed a ,groundwater monitoring plan, to determine if the Pott.er's Pits s:i."te (A:r'ea 1) presented a. threat to surrounding groundwa.ter sources. Contariiiriatiori ··of the shallow aquifer had been documented at ·the si·t·e (du.ring the September ,1983 FIT investigation) in groundwater samples taken from, both a re~_idential. and a-monit.oring well on Site. .However, in order to-characterize the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination in this area, additional-wells were proposed. Nine monitoring wells were subsequently installed and sampled by EPA. The loca~ions of these wells were based on the assumption that the groundwater flow was.in a northeasterly direct:i."on. · The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Relatively high concentrations of ben·zene, ethylbenz.ene, toluene, and xylenes (BETX) were detected in some of the groundwater samples.
EPA conducted a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of the Site in September 1987. The PA revealed soil and water contamination at
-3-
,-:...,.: . . -~ ·:' ,, .
• •
the Site. · Subsequently, EPA.addeq _Potter's Septic Taf)k ,Service
Pits Site on the National' Priorities List and assumed :read .
responsibility for the Site. ' · .,, '
The wells were re-sampled in 1988 by the State of North
Carolina. These samples were analyzed for volatile organics,
phenols, priority pollutant metals, and several nutrients. BETX
and phenols were the predominant contaminants detected. In
addition, the 1988 data indicated the possibility of low level
benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes in a "deep" well which would
indicate that the "deep." aquifer had now been affected.·
The Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, completed in
December of 1991, consisted of a_.two-phase investigation. The
investigation consisted of analysis ,of the sediments, su'rface
water, groundwater, · surface ·soil; · ·and subsurface soil at the
Site. The RI also ir,cluded an analysis of the potential dangers • ' -1 • • •• to human health and ':he environment. · Based ·on-the results from··'·
the RI, EPA determined.that remediation of the soil and
groundwater was necessary to.protect human health and the
environment. · ·
1 • , ' : ~·
A, Feasibiiity Study. (FS) :.was conducted to analyze''the ....
remedial alternatives. · Each aiterriative was eva'iuated using the
followinii' factors: e'ffecti vetie~s of. soil and groundwater
remediation, cost effectiveness; technical feasibility,
institutional requirements', 'and:'the, degree of protectiv:e,ness to .
human•'nealth. and the envircinni'eni:.: . . ·. ' . '· . ' .. •·.
On May 12, 1992, EPA held a public meeting at the Hood Creek
Community Center, in Sandy Creek, North Carolina.· At this
meeting, EPA discussed the remedial alternatives developed in the
FS and reviewed the preferred alternat'ive·. The ROD was signed
and issued, or:i August 5, 1992'; EPA began the remediation at the
Site in 1993·; using Superfund monies. ' . . ,1. . !
Description of the Remedy
A complete description of the selected remedy is contained
in the ROD .which is available at the information repository in
the ColUTiibus County Library and the U.S. EPA Records·ceriter. In
summary, the Potter'' s Pits remedy addressed the contaminated soil
and groundwater present. at the Site. Th0e remedy includes:
• MIGRATION CONTROL (remediation of contaminated
groundwater) . __ Groundw0 ter will be extracted using
extraction wells located within and near the periphery
of the plume. Extracted groundwater will be treated'
on-site.using an above-ground treatment process which
will inrilude precipitation, fl;cculation, and
-4-
•
• •
. , .. fi'lt~ation'·'to remo,_;e· me~~l'.s; :)ind;iiir--:-stiipping to .... ':
.. , ·remove volatile 'organic· compounds (VOCs )·--: ·· .. After· · .:·
treatment to meet the National° Pollutant Discharge ·
.Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, the
·_extracted groundwater .will be discharged to Chinnis
· · E'ranch. · · · · · · · . .. ·:' '. . ~ ·.., . .
SOURCE CONTROL (remediation of contaminated soil) .
· '' ,On-site soil with contaminant concentration levels. .
1 'above cleanup standards will be excavated and treated ..
Contaminated soil will be treated on-site by a low..:
temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) unit. Each batch
will be tested to determine whether concentrations of ... l .. .., ' . . ' . • . .. . . ·. . . '• . -heavy .metals_ exceed cleanup .standards; if so,. the soil
·will be stabilized. us{ng''ex-situ soil treatment.
' . . ' : ) • : . ', t _. . ;,:) . ·. . -
Describtio~ bf ~{qnifica~E 6ii~er~~ce' ~~-
EPA ha_s made one 'change. to the. impiementation of the
recommended soil remediation for ''tf:ie Site.-EPA has determined
that the remediation goal for lead should be 400 ppm rathei than
25 ppm as.noted in the ROD .. 'I'his .. cl~ang~,was,made as.a result of
a review.···o.f data collected· dur'ing~prel'i'.minai'y field work.· The
revised clean-up level would also'make·1t:he remedy more cost-
effective ... In addition, this'~cha'nge'"{\tprotettive· of human
health and the environment/ ancf complies· with applicable State
laws ·as 'provided under Sections3 i21··:of CERCLA:' · As· noted: abov'e;
NCDEHNR concurs with the revised remedicition· goal for leacL
Change in the Soil Remediation
In the _ROD,· the ori'gi'nal soil·. excavatioi'i'''clean-up goal of 25
ppm· for ;leic1c1· was based Oil 'a Teach_~!=,·e model' that' was too
conservative' in· its assumptions. : A .. leachate model determines a
soil clean-up goal that is protective of groundwater. When this
leachate model.' s calculated value of 25 ppm.,was compared to a
risk-based concentration protective of human' health ·(400 ppm),
the lower value was _chosen as a soil clean-up goal. However, a
new leachate model reflecting 'the principles embodied in a. risk-
based analysis was usedtb"calcula'te_a soil clean-up goal that is
still ptttective of _groundwate_r· .. Therefore, the mbdel .
dem6ns·tra·t:i:is that if the .. r.isk..:based goal of 400 ppm of lead in
soil is used as a clean~up· goal it.would be protective 6f
groundwate_r and human health.
EPA'. is in the process of rerhediating the soil in accordance
with ·t!i'e'-change ·outlined ';i.n the ESD. .
.. ;,~1. >.
·' ..
~-.· ,, .... . ··.-·-,·· -:r.: ;,'·'.
;.{~~~-\
. ;, .:;;> .
.:i::\1{;;-
,
• •
Conclusion·
The above-outlined change in the lead remediati.on leve"i,
represents a significant difference from the remedy outlined in
the ROD. Considering the new information that has been developed
and the change that has been made to the selected remedy, EPA and
NCDEHNR believe that the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment, complies with Federal and State
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
this remedial action, and is cost effective. In addition, the
revised remedy utilizes permanent solutions and resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
Ri Director w te ManeJement· Division
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-6-
'·. .:; .. 4 •• .. -~-...
•
r. ' .. ..15;~ .. ··~•;;;•;,•J. h.2/~J. ~~.1}J .'J~ ·-~•~l: i'."'
.•. · .. :: 'L' :.J '°'. :•':f ~ i•.JC
•.• :~:; .·1:: •. \ .:!.~.~,_···' ... ·. :, ,:..,. :
/::i~,.i.(~::B_ ~d .. f o; · ..
· .. .: .: ::•::3 ::·o:u.i z..1.15Jr~:)... ..':.
.<· ..: .. ~ {i:. ;.-,r; ~..-3.!...!:r·· -~1-~-
;--_~r,-_. -..
. ),JV .,;:-"7,:. :.';d -~ :-;1 ••
·-'"'): ... ,,:10: ~,u.i:,.1.-
_,: :-:'j,JJj:: -~ ~-:~
•
________________________________________________ ,,
l'lt.
·~
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord.
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager
• REMEDIAL ~IGN FACT SHEET
PHASE 1 · SOIL REMEDIATION
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina
January 1995
This fact sheet is not intended to be a technical document but has been prepared in an effort to-provide the general public with a better understanding of the technology to be used to treat contamination at this Site.
INTRODUCTION
The Remedial Design (RD) of the selected remedies outlined in the Record of Decision signed on August 5, 1992, has been completed by Bechtel Environmental, Inc., EPA's contractor. The Remedial Design provides the groundwork for implementing the remedies specified in the Record of Decision which are Low Temperature Thermal Desorption and Stabilization treating contaminated soil, and Chemical and Physical Treatment and Air Stripping using an above-ground system treating contamination in groundwater. However, based upon the data generated during the sampling activities concerning the groundwater in the lower aquifer in the area, the Agency has decided to split the cleanup activities into two phases. Phase 1 will be conducted first and consist of treating the contaminated soils. Phase 2 will cover treatment of contaminated groundwater. The-A(fericy i ,ds ut:,~i1.iiii,~-ci ii iii, 11 iu, ~ ,;;i",,µi,i,~ ;;, iu · analysis of the groundwater in the lower aquifer is needed in order to better characterize the contents in the water to make sure the selected groundwater treatment system will be effective on all contaminants found.
EPA has placed a copy of the Remedial Design for public review or copying in the Information Reposiiory located in the East Columbus Branch of the Columbus County Library, Highway 87, Reigelwood, North Carolina, phone [phone] ..
************************************************************
REMEDIAL DESIGN
The components of the Remedial Design consist of performance specifications, drawings and schedule requirements for getting tasks accomplished, health and safety requirements, and operation and maintenance procedures. The design also documents
specific performance requirements for meeting all State and Federal regulatory requirements.
The contract to implement the Design for the Thermal Desorption and Stabilization treatments was awarded to McLaren/Hart, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
REMEDIAL DESIGN PUBLIC MEETING
January 19, 1995
Location: Hood Creek Community Center
Highway 87
Sandy Creek, North Carolina
• The following is a brief summary of remedial work activities that will be performed by the contractor at the Site:
Site preparation includes complete removal and disposal of vegetation (trees, brush, rubbish and debris) from the work area as well as the removal of any structures. All removed items will be properly disposed of off Site in an approved landfill or disposal area.
Earthwork includes excavation of materials, trenching for utilities, and backfilling and grading of areas to set up the treatment units. All earth moving equipment must meet applicable codes and standards. A plan for controlling debris, dust and sediments during excavation will be implemented.
Set up and furnish temporary office trailers, sanitary facilities and parking area on site for workers. A telephone line will be connected to the office facilities as well as electricity.
r'nn+r.,,...+,-.,r .. ,ill "lrr"lnnr:i f,...,. ,.,...,+c,r c-cn1il"a .. frnm ,'.. . .., ··-· . ···-· ---··--., ..... , existing outlets to the point of use for duration of treatment operation. Contractor will remove all materials and equipment used to extending water service connection to the work areas after the remedial work has been completed.
Surface water will be directed away from work areas via diversion ditches, dikes and grading. Excavation and backfill areas will be protected by sediment barriers to prevent erosion. A stormwater control system will be implemented to prevent run-on and run-off of rainwater at the Site.
Contractor to furnish and install 8-foot fencing around work · areas and the water treatment
system to restrict entry of unauthorized personnel.
Hauling roads will be established as required to transport soil, solidified materials, debris, etc .. Any vehicles utilized to transport materials off Site will be either single or tandem axle dump trucks operating according to DOT and State regulations.
• A tarp will be placed over the truck bed to prevent contaminated material from being blown or spilled from the truck. The contractor will operate under an approved spill prevention and control plan to address any accidental spills.
Excavate contaminated soils to 1 foot below existing grade as required by the Record of Decision. Soil below excavated soil areas will be sampled to determine if contamination has been removed. If contamination is still present in the soil, excavation will continue in. one foot intervals until contamination is no longer found based upon sampling and analysis at each one foot level.
Establish a decontamination pad area on Site; ensure proper decontamination of all equipment, tools, and supplies brought to the Site before and after use; proper disposal of any wastewater generated during the decontamination process.
Develop a Health & Safety Plan which will be protective of workers on-site and the public during all field activities.
Contractor will set up air monitoring devices to determine worker and public exposure to dust or vapors during soil excavation and operation of treatment system. The contractor will implement dust control procedures to prevent the spread of contamination and the generation of dust during Site operations. This will be a part of the Health and Safety Plan for remedial operations.
The contractor shall provide sound barriers or baffles around the thermal desorption unit to minimize noise level from equipment while in operation.
Restore the property to the original setting by backfilling, grading, seeding and fertilizing. Existing turf areas, pavements, and facilities that are damaged during Site operation activities shall be restored to their original condition by the contractor.
2
i I
Remove all mat. and supplies after completion of the remedial work.
Before initiating the treatment operations for soil and groundwater, the contractor shall perform a demonstration phase test of the full-scale treatment systems which consists of designing and providing the treatment unit, installing, starting-up and conducting the performance testing. The first phase will be treatment of contaminated soil. Contaminated soil will be excavated and put into the low-temperature thermal desorption (L TTD) unit. The unit will operate continuously for 2 weeks during the demonstration test. Any off-gases from the treatment process will be treated and must comply with State and Federal requirements. The treated soil exiting the treatment unit will be analyzed to make sure that the cleanup goals specified in the Record of Decision are met. If the levels of inorganics are higher than the cleanup goals, the soils will be stabilized/solidified and either buried on site or transported off site for disposal in a RCRA approved waste landfill. Full-scale operation and maintenance cannot begin until the demonstration phase has been approved. Once operation of the thermal desorption unit has been approved the contractor can begin the full-scale treatment of contaminated soils. Soil will be excavated and placed in a stockpile on site to enable soil to be continuously fed into the treatment system. The goal is to treat 1 O tons of soil per hour. The treated soils will be analyzed to ensure that they meet the soil cleanup standards and if clean, the soil will be used to' backfill excavated areas at the Site. Those areas will be graded and seeded with native vegetation.
Any soils containing levels of chromium, lead and zinc above clean-up standards will be stabilized/solidified. This method consists of mixing these soils with an agent such as port/and cement to prevent contaminants from moving or being transported via rain or melting snow or ice. This mixture confines any contaminants solidifying them within the cement. The solidified materials may be taken off site and properly disposed of in an approved landfill or designated area or buried on site.
Groundler remediation will be conducted in the second phase of Site cleanup activities. The second phase will consist of taking additional groundwater samples of the lower aquifer and analyzing those samples. The lower aquifer is going to require more study and characterization, i.e., location and thickness of aquifer, boundaries of plume, calculation of pumping rate, installation of additional wells if required, etc. The contractor will develop and submit to EPA a detailed design for an extraction system for the lower aquifer based upon the field investigation.
As with the soil treatment system, the contractor will conduct all field activities as described in the work plan. Some of the tasks to be conducted are:
Design, furnish, install, start-up and conduct per1ormance testina of a groundwater treatment system to treat groundwater and surface water contaminated with volatile organic compounds and metals. Materials to be used forwell installation must have a 30-year life span.
• ·--.I~~: _!~~~-t~en.t _____ c:vc:f .om .. _will. :ho_ ~: ~!~m !:!tori . _f0". ... continuous operation and maintenance. The system will have a automatic shut down alarm in the event of a malfunction, and all groundwater pumping and treatment operations will stop.
The treatment system will be located within a boundary fence.
The treatment system will discharge into the Chinnis Branch and discharged water must meet all State and Federal standards.
The extraction system will have a minimum extraction rate of 1,800 gallons per day, and be installed in optimum locations in order to provide the maximum rate of extraction of the contaminant plume.
The contractor will develop and implement a plan to mon_itor the performance of the extraction system on a continuous basis.
3
• , The contractor will provide and implement a spill control and air monitoring plan relating to the installation and operation of the water treatment system.
The contractor will operate up-and-running treatment system under an approved "Operation & Maintenance" plan.
A Site restoration plan will be developed and implemented in order to restore the property to its original lines and grades. This will include backfilling, grading for drainage, seeding, mulching and fertilizing.
• Contractor will be responsible for obtaining all permits concerning construction and operation of the extraction and treatment systems.
Please refer to the Record of Decision and Record of Decision Fact Sheet of August 1992 for· more description of the selected remedies. These and other documents are housed in the information repository located at:
East Columbus Branch of
Columbus County Library
Highway 87
Reigelwood, NC 28456
Phone: [phone]
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
EPA will be conducting a public meeting on January 19, 1995, beginning at 7:00 P.M. at the Hood Creek Community Center. We will be there to provide the public with more detailed information concerning remedial design activities at the Site and to answer questions. Please come and join us .
. ____ ., ... ::.~.~--~:::.:-:::~~:~·.:-·.:·::-... -:-.~~:-::·~~:~-·. :'..:~::~~--t-'·,·:..;;~~(1 ut-the Potter's Site to ensurn that local offlciafs and residents near the Site are kept informed on activities of the cleanup to be undertaken. This program is designed to respond to citizens' concerns and to ensure that those concerns are addressed. Future community relations activities will include telephone contacts, correspondences, distribution of fact sheets, and notification via the Site mailing list, local radio and news media. We encourage citizens to visit the information repository to review documents concerning the Site.
For more information about the Site, please contact either:
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager (1-800-435-9233 ext. 4116) or Diane Barrett, Community Relations Specialist {1-800-435-9233 ext. 4111) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
4
• •
MAILING LIST
If you know of someone that would like to be added to the Potter's Pits Superfund Site mailing list or need to change your address or would like to be deleted from the Site's mailing list, please complete the following information and return to Diane Barrett at the address indicated above. Thank you.
NAME------------------------------
ADDRESS ---------------------------
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE ______________________
_
ADDITION CHANGE DELETION
• •
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV SUPERFUND PROGRAM EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS SITE SANDY CREEK I BRUNSWICK COUNTY I NORTH CAROLINA ·
Introduction
The purpose of this Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) is to provide information to the public on the changes to the remedial activities for the Potter's Septic TanJc Service Pits Site in Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina (the Site). The remedial action selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV (EPA), the lead agency for remedial activities at the Site, is described in detail in the Record of Decision (ROD) signed on August 5, 1992. The ROD provides for the remediation of soil and groundwater at the Site.
EPA has made one change to the implementation of the recommended groundwater remediation for the Site. EPA has determined that the remediation goal for benzene should be 1 ppb rather than the Maximum.Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppb as noted in the ROD. This change represents a significant difference from the original remediation goal for benzene set out in the ROD. The public will be notified of the change in the ROD through the publication of the ESD. The ESD is being issued by EPA with the concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
This ESD is issued as part of EPA's public participation responsibilities under Section 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. S 9617(c), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and Section 300.435(c)(2)(i) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This notice includes the information which provide the basis for the change, the reasons why the change is appropriate, and a discussion of the extent of the change. The administrative record file for this Site contains the information upon which the remedy selection was based, including the ROD and Responsiveness Summary. This ESD will become part of that record which is located at the following locations:
Information Repository
Columbus County Library
East Columbus Branch
P.O. Box 27, Highway 87
Reigelwood, North Carolina 28456 [phone]
EPA Region IV Office
U.S. EPA Records Center·
Ground Floor
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
• • Site History
The Potter's Pits ·site is located in a rural section of Brunswick County, North Carolina, in a residential community known as the Town of Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek ie subdivided into one to two acre lots, each with a private domestic water well. There are approximately 150 residential lots of which 70 are currently occupied.
Between 1969 and 1976, before the land was developed for residential use, the Skipper family operated sludge hauling and oil spill cleanup companies in this area. Waste disposal pits were operated in and around the Sandy Creek area. Disposal practices consisted of placing waste petroleum products and septic tank sludge in shallow unlined pits or directly on the land surface.
The Potter's Pits Site was divided by EPA into three study areas; Areas 1 and 3 are located in residential lots within Sandy Creek, and Area 2 wae located approximately 1.5 miles north across U.S. Highway 74/76. Area 1 comprises the actual Potter's Pits Site. Area 3 wae included in the investigation because historical aerial photographs suggested that this, area might have been used as a disposal site. Area 2 was selected based on preliminary information which indicated that wastes may have been disposed of in this area. However, subsequent investigations did not produce any additional information or evidence of such disposal, and Area 2 was removed from further consideration.
In August 1976, an unlined pit in Area 1 failed and allowed approxi:mately 20,000 gallons of oil to escape. The oil flowed into two streams: Chinnis Branch and then into Rattlesnake Branch. The United States Coast Guard, acting pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water.Act, removed the spilled oil from Rattlesnake Branch. Aleo in August 1976, Mr. Otto Skipper (brother of Ward Skipper) began pumping out the oil remaining in the breached disposal pit (Area 1). Approximately 20,000 gallons of oil were removed from this pit and transported to Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
The oil stored in three other pits at the Site, as well as the oil recovered from the receiving stream, was also taken to Fort Bragg. In addition, approximately 150 dump truck loads of oil sludge and oil stained dirt were excavated and hauled to Brunswick County Landfill in Leland, North Carolina, for final disposal. The thick oil sludge that could not be pumped wae mixed with sand and buried on site.
The Skipper Estate changed ownership in 1980. Wachovia State Bank, through foreclosure, took possession of the property in January 1980. Investment Management Corporation later purchased the property and subdivided it for residential . development. Thie development became known ae Sandy Creek Acree and later as the Town of Sandy Creek. In July 1983, owners of
• •
the property found waste materials buried in their yard, (formerly Pit Area 1). · The State of North Carolina sampled the soil and groundwater. Analysis of these samples confirmed the presence of contamination. The Site owner's water well was condemned, and they were connected to a neighbor's well.
In September 1983, EPA and the Region IV Field Investigation Team (FIT) performed an electromagnetic survey of the Site, monitored the air, collected soil, surface water, and groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. In February 1984, EPA-Region IV used ground penetrating radar (GPR) to further define the Site boundaries.
In March 1984, an immediate Removal Action at the Potter's Pits Site (Area 1) was requested by the EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. On March 21, 1984, a removal was begun centering around Area 1. A total of 1,770 tons of oily sludge and contaminated soils were excavated and transported to a hazardous waste landfill in Pinewood, S.C. Soil removal activities were completed on April 2, 1984.
In May 1984, EPA-Region IV proposed a groundwater monitoring plan to determine if the Potter's Pits Site (Area 1) presented a threat to surrounding groundwater sources. Contamination of the shallow aquifer had been documented at the Site (during the September 1983 FIT investigation) in groundwater samples taken from both a residential and a monitoring well on Site. However, in order to characterize the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination in this area, additional wells were proposed. Nine monitoring wells were subsequently installed and sampled by EPA. ·The locations of these wells were based on the assumption that the groundwater flow was in a northeasterly direction. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Relatively high concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes (BETX) were detected in some of the groundwater samples.
EPA conducted a Prelilllinary Assessment (PA) of the Site in September 1987. The PA revealed soil and water contamination at the Site. Subsequently, EPA added Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site on the National Priorities List and assumed lead responsibility for the Site.
The wells were re-sampled in 1988 by the State of North Carolina. These samples were analyzed for volatile organics, phenols, priority pollutant metals, and several nutrients. BETX and phenols were the predominant contaminants detected. In addition, the 1988 data indicated the possibility of low level benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes in a •deep" well which would indicate that the •deep• aquifer had now been affected.
The Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, completed in December of 1991, consisted of a two-phase investigation. The investigation consisted of analysis of the sediments, surface water, groundwater, surface soil, and subsurface soil at the
• •
Site. The RI also included an analysis of the potential dangers to.human health and the environment. Based on the results from the RI, EPA determined that remediation of the soil and groundwater was necessary to protect human health and the environment.
A Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted to analyze the remedial alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated using the following factors: effectiveness of soil and groundwater remediation, cost effectiveness, technical feasibility, institutional requirements, and the degree of protectiveness to human health and the environment.
On May 12, 1992, EPA held a public meeting at the Hood Creek Community Center, in Sandy Creek, North Carolina. At this meeting, EPA discussed the remedial alternatives developed in the FS and reviewed the preferred alternative. The ROD was signed and issued on August 5, 1992. EPA began the remediation at the Site in 1993, using Superfund monies.
Description of the Remedy
A complete description of the selected remedy is contained in the ROD which is available at the information repository in the Columbus County Library and the U.S. EPA Records Center. In summary, the Potter's Pits remedy addressed the contaminated soil and groundwater present at the Site. The remedy includes,
• MIGRATION CONTROL (remediation of contaminated groundwater). Groundwater will be extracted using extraction wells located within and near the periphery of the plume. Extracted groundwater will be treated on-site using an above-ground treatment procc~ss which will include precipitation, flocculation, and filtration to remove metals; and air stripping to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs). After treatment to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, the extracted groundwater will be discharged to Chinnis Branch.
• SOURCE CONTROL (remediation of contaminated eoil). On-eite eoil with contaminant concentration levels above cleanup standards will be excavated and treated. Contaminated eoil will be treated on-site by a low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) unit. Each batch will be tested to determine whether concentrations of heavy metals exceed cleanup standards; if so, the soil will be stabilized using ex-situ soil treatment.
• •
Description of Significant Difference
EPA has made one change to the implementation of the recommended groundwater remediation for the Site. EPA has determined that the remediation goal for benzene should be l ppb rather than the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppb as noted in the ROD. This change has been made to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, and to comply with applicable State laws as provided under Sections 121 of CERCLA.
Change in the Groundwater Remediation
The groundwater pump and treat remedy selected in the ROD would still b~ implemented. However, there could be an increase in the length of time the system is operated in order to reach the more stringent North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard for benzene.
EPA expects to begin the groundwater remediation in accordance with the change outlined in this ESD tiy March 30 1995,
Conclusion
The above-outlined change in the benzene remediation level, represent a significant difference from the remedy outlined in the ROD. Considering the new information that has been developed and the change that has been made to the .selected remedy, EPA and NCDEHNR believe that the remedy rEllllAin• protective of human health and the environment, complie• with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost affective. In addition, the revised remedy utilizes permanent ■olutions and resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent pr ■cticable for this Site .
..,,..· ~.,_..;..---'-', ~{rl~~~~k'-'---AP~ I ?,4 John H. Hankinson, Jrf. Regional Administrator
• •
U.S. Envlronmantal Protecllon Agency 345 Counland Snet, N.E.
Nor1h Supertund Remedlll llilncil
Diane Banett, Confflnty Rel&Uons C Bevllly Hudson. Renadld Project Mat.
AUanta, Georgia 30365
Offlcf al BuslnesS
Penalty tor Pr1vate Use $300
S/r
r·\ ;·, • J ~1 C. h ,:) J r L .:: >, _ . • r-SU~~~~ 0 f~ Li S[(l lG~:, ~UL10
\·,C. ·uc._P· T • i.!i· L\~·; l "i--LH·1HE'i. I•
t~~lUh~L ~~SUUKLL~
r1 • 'LJ .. ;,) (j X r..: 7 h d ·7
•.-; ;.. J f L: i·h.:i ;.; 1 •
hf.::A~-Y'1i ;·\1\u
1111 !Iii
, I ; I I 1'1 . 11 '' 111,'' I. I I,' 1, 'I, i" 'Ii'' i 'i' '' 111, '' I Iii 1,.11: 1-111,1 l
·Ktt;t~t.U SUPERFUNDjACT SHEET UPDATE
Nov 11 \'.;:JJ POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE
SUPERfllNflStCflON PITS SUPERFUND SITE
RegKm 4 Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTlON
The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide citizens with an
update of activities related to the Potter's Site in the Sandy Creek
community west of Wilmington off U.S. Highway 74f76. The
Record of Decision signed on August 5, 1992, selected
groundwater extraction with precipitation, flocculation, and
filtration to remove metals; and air strip~ng to remove volatile
organic compounds with the treated water being discharged into
Chinnis Branch, and contaminated soil on the Site will oe
excavated and treated on-site by a low temperature thennal
desorption unit Since the Record of Decision was signed a lot
of behind the scenes action has taken place. Some of these
actions. consist .. of EPA , obtaining a contractor (Bechtel
Enviro~merital, Inc.) to conduct the Reniediai"De~gn segment of
the Supertund process, preparation of a Remedial DesigriWork
Plan outlining all of the many activities that go into this phase of
the process, as well as. addi.tional field.work,-and moving.the
residents that have bee'n living on the fonner disposal 1area.c. ·
ACTIVmES TO DATE
Bechtel Environmental was awarded the contract to conduct the
Remed:al Design activities on December.11, 1992. Alter EPA
received and approved the Draft Work Plan from the contractor
of required tasks, action began. After awarding a subcontract to
relocate the trailer home, out buildings and personal property of
the Gurkin family, they and their possessions were moved from
Lot 85 to Lot 42 in the same community _during the end of July
1993.
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site / + 0
N
I
GUHKIN'S
PROPERTY
. i · .·November 1993
From the data gathered during the Remedial Investigation it was
detennined that:
the extent of contamination is limited to the immediate vicinity
of the two former waste disposal areas (See figure below of
Areas 1 A and 1 B).
no other residential wells have been impacted by
contamination from the Potters Pits Site other than the
Gurkin's well located in the disposal area.
the extent of groundwater contamination has primarily been
confined to the shallow aquifer and is restricted to the area
encompassing the fonner disposal pits.
';ij : .. t: ,; · l ; . ' •
• • • ' '·-·. I • ,._.. ,,_ • :
groundwatenlata indicate ttiat the levels of contaminants,
primarily organics, exceed the established levels considered harmful to \tte if consumed. . . . .
-J~"l;f,~: '
it :ivas also detennined that there is a possibility that the deep
aquifei might also be contaminated.
! t . (; .
botti surtace water and sediment in Chinnis Branch exhibit
certain· concentrations of naturally occurring metals which
carinot be attributed directly to Site source contamination.
the contaminants of concern ( 44 organics and some metals)
are' present at the Site due to past waste disposal activities.
-According to the Record of Decision, additional sampling of
•. gr_~~:lwater and soil was to be. conducAuring the R.emedial
Design phase. Add1aonal sampling has iWI' completed in Areas
1 and 2 to better define the area and volume of contaminated soii
to oe excavated and treated during the Remedial Action phase.
Area 3 .was also resampled to detem,ine if any contamination
exists there. We. expect to receive the results in November.
Decision. Actual construction of both remedies can take
approximately 6-9 .hs. The ccntinuing operation of the
equipment to treat t'lllfoundwater contamination might take up
to 30 years to ccmplete, and treatment of the soil to remove
contamination might take up to 1· year to complete.
I '
During the month of August 1993 additional groundwater and soil
samples were taken from the deep and shallow aquifers to better
assess background or naturally occurring concentrations of
metals within each aquifer, ·and to verify the possibility of volatile
organic compounds contaminating the deep aquifer. An aquifer
pump test w~s also performed to better defirje the hydrogeologic
conditions· [movement of water in soil]· of the aquifer to assist in
the design of the groundwater extraction system for the pump and
treat process. The. data from these samples/test are being
evaluated and analyzed into a useable format for preparing the
final preliminary design which EPA is expecting to receive by the
end of November. A 'treatability review' will also be conducted
by the contractor to conduct research and prepare a report
addressing .the use of low temperature them,al desorption to
ensure that the treatment process will effectively work to remove
the volatile organic compounds of concern in the soil.
The cpntractor will be back. on the Site in approximately 4-5
weeks to dispose of the 55-gallon drums that contain the water ~ ... •· . ,. ' • . ' ,,r, extracted during the aquifer pump test At that time they will also
take. a f~IY samples from Ra~.e_snake Branch for analysis .
. :.· .:.£. -_ . ,l. . . :-. The Remedial Design process is expected to be completed by
mid-summer 1994. After EPA approves the Remedial Design
work plan, the Remedial A~tion process will begin. The Remedial
Action consists of procuring a contractor to ccnstruct and operate
ttie remedies as described in the Remedial Design, and to
prepare.a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan ensuring
that, the .. treatment processes are functioning effectively and
efficiently' meeting all requirements established in the Record of ,>'! t ·' . ' ·• • /
FOR MORE INFORMATION
If you would like to received more technical infom,ation about the
Site or the remedies, please contact either:
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager
or
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Ccordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA. 30365
Phone: [phone]
To review the written documents developed during the Superfund
process, please visit the information repository located at:
. ·\: . !· .
•
. ''.Columbus ·county Library
East Columbus Branch
P. 0. Box 27
Highway 87
Reigelwood, North Carolina 28456
Phone: [phone]
----··················· ............................................................................ ___ .................................................... ---
MAILIN~ LIST· POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS SUPERFUND SITE
! If you know of someone that would. like to be added to this list, or you have a change of mailing address, or would like to be deleted from the marling list, please ccmplete this fom, and return to Drane Barrett at the address indicated above:
NAME ______________________________ _
ADDRESS_~----------------------------
CITY, STATE, ZIP-----------------------------
PHONE NUMBER ___________________________ _
AFFILIATION (tt any)---;:-------'------------'----------. .l
Please lndl~: .. : Add i-..,-·-:::.--·-.:::::~:. __ ~·.:..::
j"''',:.~
' ~-------'----------............................................ ·-------------·-_:__.:.......
Delete·.• Cha~ge of address __
t __
(
• •
..,ui€P sr~,-f: " .... ~ . . --. i \'--./1 j \~~~ RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS SUPERFUND SITE
SANDY CREEK, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Region IV
On August 5, 1992, the Regional Administrator of the
Region IV Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
signed the Record of Decision (ROD) which selected
the cleanup remedy for the Potter's Septic Tank
Service Pits Supertund Site on which the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources conditionally concurred.
. Jh.~. selected remedy addresses the future
unacceptable risks posed by the Stte to human health
and. ·the environment .from use of contaminated
groundwater and contact with contaminated soils.
Contaminants in the soil that percolate downward.into
the groundwater will be permanently removed and
destroyed utilizing low temperature thermal desorption
and stabilization, and the groundwater will. be treated
on-site through a chemical and air stripping process.
SOILS
Alternative SC-7: Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption and Stabilization will permanently remove
,and destroy contamination in the soil through on-stte
,treatment. Activtties involved wrth this remedy:
·. Excavate an estimated 10,000 cubic yards of
· contaminated soils. . ·•
Contaminated soils are heated to temperatures
between 200°-1000°F so that only those
contaminants wrth low boiling points will vaporize
tuming into gas separating them from the soil.
The vaporized contaminants/gases are collected
arid treated .. There are four methods within
thermal desorption that can be used for tre_ating
,
August 1992
the vaporized gases: 1) steam extraction; 2)
direct heat; 3) indirect heat; or 4) oxygen free
heating. '
The vaporized contaminants are erther: 1) cooled
and condensed into a liquid; 2) trapped in carbon
filters which are then treated or disposed of; or 3)
burned in an afterburner. _All disposal must meet
federal, state and local standards .
: 9nce th~r91al desorption is C0[npieted usiny one
of these h·eating methods, the soil is tested to
verify that all contaminants have been removed.
The moisture content is adjusted to eliminate dust
particles and the soil is placed into the original
excavation areas, backfilled and revegetated with
native grasses.
Soils containing levels of chromium, lead and zinc
above clean-up standards for off-site disposal will
be solidified wtth either a concrete mixture, lime
or other setting agents and buried on-site.
Groundwater
Alternative GW3: Chemical and Physical Treatment
and Air Stripping on Above-ground System. · This
remedy will Jpermanently remove and destroy the
con\aminants in the groundwater through groundwater
extraction and an on-site above-ground system.
Activities involved in this remedy:
· The area of contaminated groundwater called the
plume will be pumped from the surficial aquifer
• • via extraction wells place within and along the
periphery of the plume. The groundwater is
piped to an on-site treatment process.
The chemical and physical process will remove
the metal contaminants from the groundwater.
This process utilizes a precipitationmocculation
and filtration process. (Precipitation is a process
that removes solids from liquid. Flocculation
chemically or biologically causes clumps of solids
in water to increase in size to separate them from
the liquid. Filtration removes the solid matter
from the liquid by passing the water through a
sand or man-made filter.)
The air stripping treatment process consists of
water being pumped into the top of a large
packed metal cylinder and air being forcibly
pumped into the. bottom. As water enters the
cylinder and flows down through the filter, the
forced air creates· a counter-current flow which
·separates the · volatile . organic compounds
· (VOCs) from the water while in the' filter.
The voes go through an off-gas treatment
process, if needed before being released into the
·atmosphere. The treated water will then be
discharged to Chinnis Branch.
The estimated cost of the selected remedy · is
$11,800,000. ,.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and
the environment, complies with iederal and state
· requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-
effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technology to the maximum
extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
. elem_ent.
A review will be conducted within five years atter
· commencement of remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
/ '
• PROJECTED FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The Environmental Protection Agency will mail a
Notice Letter to the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) in September, 1992. They are given two
weeks to respond. EPA then will begin negotiations
with the PRPs to determine who will perform and pay
for the remaining phases of the Superturid process. 1.[
no response is received from the PRPs, EPA will issue
a Remedial Design Work Assignment to an EPA
contractor atter the two week period.
The Remedial Design will take approximately a year to
design and develop. During this time period, additional
field work (sampling) will take place to further confirm
findings of the Remedial Investigation, and establish
parameters of the groundwater plume and extent of
soil contamination.
Once the Remedial Design has been approved, actual
construction can begin on Site if the North Carolina
Capacity Assurance Plan has been accepted and
approved by EPA.
9.JPERFUND PROPOSE~LAN FACT SHEET
POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS
Sandy Creek, Brunswick County,
North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet is one in a series designed to inform
residents and local officials of the ongoing cleanup
efforts at the Potters Septic Tank Service Pits Su-
perfund Site (referred to in this document as Potter's
Pits). Terms appearing in bDk1 print are defined in
a glossary at the end of this publication.
This Proposed Plan fact sheet has been prepared by
the'i:J.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region
IV (EPA) to propose a clean-up plan, referred to as
a preferred alternative, to address contamination at
the Potter's Pits Superfund Site (the Site) located in
a rural section of Brunswick County, N.C. in a
residential comm..mlty known as the Town of Sandy
Creek. As the lead Agency for oversight of remedial
activities at the site, EPA has worked in conjunction
with the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). In ac-
cordance with Section 117(a) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Uab/1/ty Act (CERCLA), BS amended by Su-
perfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
SARA 1986, EPA is publishing this Proposed Plan
to provide an opportunity for public review and com-
ment on all the clean-up options, known as remedial
alternatives, under consideration for the Site.
The purpose of this Proposed Plan is to:
1) Summarize the results of the Remedial In-
vestigation tRI);
April 30, 1992
2) Describe the remedial alternatives con-
sidered in the Feaslb/1/ty Study (FS) Report;
3) ldentijy the preferred alternative for the
remedial action at the Site and explain the
reasons for the preference;
4) Scliclt public review of and comment on all
the remedial alternatives described during a
30-day public comment period: and
5) Provide information on how the public can
be involved in the remedy selection process.
PUBLIC MEETING FOR
POTTER'S PITS SITE
The EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss EPA's
Proposed Plan for clean up at the Potter's Pits
Superfund Site. The meeting will begin at 7:00 on
May 12 and will be held at the Hood Creek Com-
munity Center. Representatives from EPA will
present EPA's preferred alternative and the other
alternatives considered in the FS Report. After the
presentation, these officials will be available to
answer any questions or concerns the public may
have regarding the preferred alternative, other alter-
natives considered in the FS Report or other con-
cerns related to the clean up of this Site. Please plan
to attend.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
DATE: May 12, 1992
SiJPERFiJNOSECTiON
TIME: 7:00 pm· 9:00 pm
WHERE: Hook Creek Community Center
Highway 87
Sandy Creek, North Carolina
l'Ul'TEI\ 'S t .SEPTIC T,\Nh'. SLI\V 1,·1· . ·. l'ITS SlTI::
Al<l•:A 2
EMPTY
FIELD -
GURKIN'$
PROPERTI
-2-
I
I
I
I
/
•
I
_)
FIGURE I
, ,
TRAILER
WlLMlNGTUN
FIGURE 2
•
SITE BACKGROUND
The Potter's Pits Sia Is located in a rural section of
Brunswick County, North Carolina in a residential
comrrunily known as the Town of Sandy Creek
(Figure 1 ). Sandy Creek is subdivided into one to
two acre lots, each with a private domestic water
well. There are approximately 150 residential lots of
which 70 are currently occupied.
Between 1969 and 1976, before the land was
developed for residential use, the Skipper family
operated sludge hauling and oil spill cleanup com-
panies in this area. Waste disposal pits were
operated in and around the Sandy Creek area. Dis-
posal practices consisted of placing waste
petroleum products and septic tank sludges in shal-
low unlined pits or directly on the land surface.
The Potter's Pits Sile was divided into three study
areas; Area 1 and 3 are located in residential lots
within Sandy Creek, and Area 2 was located ap-
proximately 1.5 miles north across U.S. Highway
74n6 (Figure 2). Area 1 comprises the actual
Potter's Pits Site. Area 3 was included in the inves-
tigation because historical aerial photographs sug-
gested that this area •might have been used as a
disposal site. Area 2 was not well defined and was
removed from further investigation after an ex1en-
sive search indicated that no additional information
regarding its location or existence could be found.
In May 1976, the North Carolina Department of
Natural and Economic Resources (NCDNER) in-
formed Mr. Ward Skipper that an oil disposal pit
(Area 2) located near Maco violated North Carolina
statutes and must be cleaned up immediately. At
that time, approximately 2-3,000 gallons of black oil
was pumped from the pit and the pit area was
covered with soil. Documentation pertaining to the
chemical co~sition of materials disposed in the
pit, the fate of the liquid removed from the pit, and
the quantities and characteristics of the material
buried on site haw not been found.
In August 1976, an unlined pit in Area 1 failed and
allowed approximately 20,000 gallons of oil to es-
cape. The oil flowed into Chinnis Branch and then
into Rattlesnake Branch. The U.S. Coast Guard
responded pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act to conduct the cleanup.
Also, in August of 1976, Mr. Otto Skipper (brother of
Ward Skipper) began pumping out the oil remaining
•
in the breached disposal pit (Area 1 ). Approximately
20,000 gallons of oil were removed from this pit and
transported to Fort Bragg Military Reservation in
Fayetteville, North Carolina. Three other pits con-
taining oil, as well as the oil recovered from the
receiving stream, was also taken to Fort Bragg. In
addition, approximately 150 dump truck loads of oil
sludge and oil stained dirt were excavated and
hauled to Brunswick County Landfill in Leland, North
Carolina, for final disposal. The thick oil sludge that
could not be pumped was mixed with sand and
buried on site.
The Skipper Estate changed ownership in 1980.
Wachovia State Bank, through foreclosure, took
possession of the property in January 1980. Invest-
ment Management Corporation later purchased the
property and subdivided ii for residential develop-
ment. This development became known as Sandy
Creek Acres and later as the Town of Sandy Creek.
Earf and Dixie Gurkin purchased the Sile lots in
1982. They found waste materials buried in their
yard (Area 1) in July 1983. The State of North
Carolina sampled the soil and groundwater.
Analysis of these samples confirmed the presence
of contamination. The Sile owner's water well was
condemned, and they were connected to a
neighbor's well.
In September 1983, EPA and the Region IV Field
Investigation Team (FIT) performed an e/ectromatr
netlc survey of the Sile, monitored the air under the
present owner's home, and collected soil, surface
water, and groundwater samples for laboratory
analysis. In February 1984, EPA-Region IV used
ground penetrating radar (GPR) to further define
the Sile boundaries.
In March 1984, an Immediate Removal Action at the
Potter's Pits Sile (Area 1) was requested by the EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. On
March 21, 1984, a Superfund removal was begun
centering around Area 1. A total of 1 , 770 tons of oily
sludge and contaminated soils were excavated and
transported to a hazardous waste landfill in
Pinewood, S.C. Soil removal activities were com-
pleted on April 2, 1984. An emergency removal is
conducted at anytime at a site when there is an
imminent threat to human health or the environment
from a contaminant.
In May 1984, EPA-Region IV proposed a
groundwater monitoring plan to determine tt the
Potter's Pits Site (Area 1) presented a threat to
-3-
•
surrounding groundwater sources. Contamination
of the shallow aquifer had been documented at the
Site (during the Seplerrber 1983 FIT investigation}
in groundwater~ taken from both a residen-
tial and a monitoring well on Site. However, in order
to characterize the nature and extent of the
groundwater contamination in this area, additional
wells were proposed. Nine monitoring wells were
subsequently installed and sampled by EPA. The
locations of these wells were based on the assump-
tion that the groundwater flow was in a northeasterly
direction. The samples were analyzed for volatile
organic compounds. Relatively high concentra-
tions of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and
xylenes (BETX} were detected in some of the
groundwater samples.
The wells were resampled in 1988 by the State of
North Carolina. These sari-pies were analyzed for
volatile organics, phenols, priority pollutant metals,
and several nutrients. BETX and phenols were the
predominant contaminants detected. In addition,
the 1988 data indicated the possibility of low level
benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes in a "deep"well
which would indicate that the "deep" aquifer had
now been affected.
The Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site scored
29.14 out of a total of 100 on the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). Any site with a HRS score greater
than 28.5 is proposed for the National Priority List
(NPL). Potter's Pits was proposed for addition to the
NPL in June 1988. The Site was placed on the NPL
in 'March 1989 making it eligible for federal money
for cleanup under Superfund.
Based on these activities, EPA determined that the
level and extent of on-site chemical contamination
warranted a more thorough assessment. Conse-
quently a Remedial Investigation (RI} was con-
ducted f rem January 1990 through April 1990. After
Phase I of the RI was corrpleted, it was determined
that a Phase II or RI Addendum would be necessary
due to lack of COlll)lete information. Therefore, in
April of 1991 , EPA conducted the supplemental field
investigation to address the data gaps and ir-
regularities identmed in the inltial RI. A report was
generated in July 1991 which described the field
effort.
OBJECTIVES OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
•
As presented in our March 1991 fact sheet the
primary objectives of both phases of the Potter's Pits
RI were to assess the nature and distribu1ion of
contaminants at the Site and to characterize the Site
hydrology and geology. The types of analyses in-
cluded in the RI were selected to characterize these
factors to the extent required to evaluate potential
risks, tt any, to human health and the environment,
and to evaluate alternatives for Site remediation.
Toward this end, the RI analyzed for potential sour-
ces of contamination in the following media:
• Soils
• Air
• Groundwater
• Surface water/stream sediment
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
PHASE I
The extent of contamination at the Potter's Pits Site
is limited to the immediate vicinity of the two former
waste disposal areas (i.e., north and sou1h of Joe
Baldwin Drive} and the areas immediately
downgrsdlentof each toward Chinnis Branch. The
dominant constituents detected during the RI include
compounds associated with petroleum products or
waste and metals.
The following conclusions were made regarding the
extent of contamination at the Potter's Pits Site
through Phase I.
• Area 3 is not an area of concern (See site map}.
• The extent of soil contamination is limited to the
immediate vicinity of the two former waste pits
and seems to be restricted to the upper 15 feet
of soil. Petroleum constituents (BETX and
naphthalene) and lead and zinc were prevalent
throughout Area 1.
• Residential air within the house overlying one of
the former waste pits was not irrpacted.
• No residential well currently being used is being
impacted by contamination from the Potter's Pits
Site.
• The extent of groundwater contamination in the
surficial aqutter is restricted to the area encom-
passing the former disposal pits and an area
extending toward Chinnis Branch. Concentra-
-4-
•
lions of contaminants decrease dramatically
toward Chinnis Branch.
• Samples of both surface water and sediment
within Chinnis Branch did not detect any con-
taminants above MCLs that could be attributed
to the Site.
PHASE II
After the completion of Phase I, several data gaps
were identttied resulting in uncertainties concerning
the lateral and vertical extent of contamination and
the hydrogeology of the Site. In order to appropriate-
ly develop remedial alternatives, for the Site, It was
necessary to address these uncertainties. There-
fore, Phase II of the RI was done by EPA, Region IV.
The results of this phase are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Phase 11 Remedial Investigation confirmed
the fact that the highest levels of contamination
are present in soils which roughly correspond to
•the areas identttied as the suspected pit areas.
The Phase II data indicates that contamination
of groundwater has primarily been confined to
the shallow aqutter.
The Phase II data indicates that benzene may
be present in the deep aqutter at levels in excess
of current MCLs.
Phase II data confirms original RI data to the
extent that pesticides, PCB's, and cyanides do
not appear to be primary contaminants of con-
cern in either surface soils, subsurface soils, or
groundwater.
Phase II RI soils data revealed only one addi-
tional contaminant, principally naphthalene, in
those areas for which soil remediation has been
targeted. Therefore, the overall volumes of soils
to be considered for remediation do not change.
In general, organic constituents observed in the
Phase II RI were very similar to those found in
the original RI. Concentrations of organics have
generally decreased in wells sampled during
both events.
Groundwater data indicated that the levels of
contaminants, principally organics, are currently
in excess of established Maximum Con-
taminant Levels (MCL 's).
Additional information about the RI findings and
supporting documents are available at the informa-
tion repository.
•
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Results of the Basenne Risk Assessment
During the RI, an analysis was conducted to es-
timate the human health or environmental problems
that could result tt the contamination identified at the
Site was not cleaned up. This analysis, known as a
Baseline Risk Assessment, focused on the poten-
tial health effects from long-term direct exposure to
the contaminants found at the Site.
The contaminants classttied by EPA as carcinogens:
benzene and carcinogenic PAHs were identttied as
the primary soil contaminants. The contaminant
specttic clean-up levels for each of the Site environ-
mental media are presented in the FS Report. Fu-
ture risk scenarios, based on reasonable maximum
exposures, were developed which estimated the
probability of carcinogenic health effects that would
result from direct exposure to contaminants found in
soils. These scenarios were developed for both
adults working and children playing at the Site. EPA
prefers that remediation of Superfund sites achieve
a residual cancer risk no greater that 10·6 (1 chance
in 1,000,000). However, depending upon site fac-
tors, a risk of 10·4 (1 in 10,000) may be considered
protective. The calculated upperbound risks from
exposure to all areas of the Site would fall inside the
protective risk r?nge. The carcinogenic risk ranged
from 1.96 x 10· to 3.18 x 10·6.
The non-carcinogenic toxicity risk from soil con-
taminants was also evaluated. This was done
through the calculation of a Hazard Index (HI). The
HI compares an assumed exposure level with a
reference level established by the Agency. The
reference level is the level where no health effects
occur. HI values above 1 .0 indicate an unaccep-
table risk that increases in magnitude with higher
numerical scores above 1.0. The HI for dermal
contact for various areas of the Site was 64.5 for lead
and 18.61 for zinc.
The human health risk posed by the ingestion of
groundwater was determined by comparing
detected levels of the contaminants with
groundwater standards for these substances. The
following chemicals were detected in concentrations
that exceed their respective standards: benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, lead
and chromium.
-5-
• TABLE 1 • • >
SOIL CLEANUP STANDARDS
Contaminants Concentration Range · Cleanup Standards
1. Benzene .012 -7 ppm .010 ppm
2. Toluene .003 -81 ppm 3.4 ppm
3. Ethylbenzene .001 -84 ppm .235 ppm
4. Xylenes .001 -580 ppm 3.5 ppm
5, Naphthalene .41 -50 ppm 1.8 ppm
6. Lead 1.1 -76 ppm 25 ppm
•• >
7 . Chromium 1.8 -170 ppm 97.2 ppm
8. Zinc* 1.2 -3300 ppm 122 ppm
*Note: Zinc cleanup standard applies only to the top foot of soil.
• TABLE 2
CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR GROUNDWATER
Contaminant Concentration Range Cleanup Standards
1. Benzene 90 -3150 ppb 5 ppb
2. Toluene 29000 ppb 1,000 ppb
>
3. Ethylbenzene 22 -2400 ppb 29 ppb .
4. Xylenes 98 -26000 ppb 400 ppb
5. Naphthalene 42 -125 ppb 30 ppb
.
6. Chromium 19 -2500 ppb 50 ppb
7. Lead 6 -25 ppb 15 ppb
•
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS
PROPOSED ACTION
Remedial response objectives were developed
based on the resuNs of the Risk Assessment and
examination of potential Appl/cable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Action-,
location-, and chemical -specffic ARARs were ex-
amined. Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater
include MCLs and North Carolina Groundwater
Standards.
Because there are no federal or state cleanup stand-
ards for contamination in soil, cleanup standards are
established to reduce soil contamination to within an
acceptable risk range. Cleanup standards at the
Potter's Pits Site will be established at stringent
health based levels. Cleanup standards were also
established to prevent any further degradation of the
groundwater. All state and federal ARARs will be
met.. The contaminant specffic cleanup levels for
each of the Site's environmental media are
presented in Tables 1 & 2.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPA'S
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup alternative
for this Site, as described in this Proposed Plan, is
the result of a comprehensive evaluation and
screening process. The FS for the Site was con-
ducted to identity and analyze the alternatives con-
sidered for addressing contamination at the Site.
THe FS describes the remedial alternatives con-
sidered, as well as the process and criteria EPA used
to narrow the list of potential Remedial Alternatives.
(Refer to the FS for details on the screening
methodology.)
EPA uses a standard set of nine criteria to evaluate
the alternatives identttied in the FS. Although overall
protection of public health and the environment is the
primary objective of the remedial action, the
remedial alternatwe(s) selected for the Site roost
achieve the best balance among these evaluation
criteria considering the scope and relative degree of
contamination present. The criteria are grouped into
three categories:
"Threshold Criteria": These two statutory require-
ments must be met by the alternative and are
described as follows:
•
1. overan Protection of Human HeaHh and the
Eny(ronment addresses how an alternative as a
whole will protect human health and the environ-
ment. This includes an assessment of how the
public health and environment risks are property
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treat-
ment, engineering controls, or controls placed on the
property to restrict access and (future) development.
Deed restrictions are examples of controls to restrict
development.
2. Compnance wHb AppUcable or Relevant and
Appropriate B8Qu(rements IARARsl addresses
whether or not a remedy complies with all state and
federal environmental and public health laws and
requirements that apply or are relevant and ap-
propriate to the conditions and cleanup options at a
specffic site. If an ARAR cannot be met, the analysis
of the alternative must provide the grounds for invok-
ing a statutory waiver.
"Primary Balancing Criteria": These are 5 con-
siderations used to develop a decision as to which
alternative would be best to use.
3. Long-term E!fecl(yeness and permanence
refers to the ability of an alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environ-
ment over lime once the cleanup goals have been
met.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. MobUtty. or Volume are
the three principal measures of the overall pertor-
mance of an alternative. The 1986 amendments to
the Superfund statute emphasize that, whenever
possible, EPA should select a remedy that uses a
treatment process to permanently reduce the level
of toxicity of contaminants at the site; the spread of
contaminants away from the source of contamina-
tion; and the volume, or amount, of contamination at
the site.
s. Short-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood
of adverse impacts on human health and the en-
vironment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation of an alternative until the
cleanup goals are achieved.
6. (mp(ementabmty refers to the technical and ad-
ministrative feasibility of an alternative, including the
availability of materials and services needed to im-
plement the alternative.
-7-
• 7. CQst includes the capital (up-front) cost of im-
plementing an alternative, as well as the cost of
operating and maintaining the alternative over the
long term, and the net present worth of both capital
and operation and maintenance costs.
"Modifying Criteria": These two considerations are
used to determine the acceptability of the alterna-
tives to the public and local officials.
8. State Acceptance addresses whether, based on
its review of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the State
concurs with, opposes, or has no comments on the
alternative EPA is proposing as the remedy for the
Site.
9. Community Acceptance addresses whether the
public concurs with EPA's Proposed Plan. Com-
munity acceptance of this Proposed Plan will be
evaluated based on comments received at the up-
coming public meetings and during the public com-
ment period.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the
alternatives which were developed to address the
soils and groundwater contamination at the Potter's
Pits Site. The primary objective of the FS was to
determine and evaluate alternatives for the ap-
propriate extent. of remedial action to prevent or
mitigate the migration or the release or threatened
release of hazardous substances from the Site.
The following descriptions of remedial alternatives
are summarizations. The FS Report contains a
more detailed evaluation of each alternative and is
available for review in the information repository.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
Three sets of alternatives were developed to ad-
dress groundwater contamination at the site. The
groundwater control (GWC) alternatives are listed
and described below.
GWC-1: No Action
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alterna-
tive be considered to serve as a basis against
which other alternatives can be compared. The
current residents would remain on-site, and no
•
institutional restrictions would be implemented.
A review of remedy would be conducted every
five years.
Costs: The total present worth: $t 40,000.
GWC-2: lnstltutlonal Controls
The Institutional Controls alternative includes the
following:
-The residence on the property would be
moved to another location.
-Water well construction permit restrictions for
areas within the zone of influence (ZOI) of the
contaminated plume.
-A monitoring program which would monitor
groundwater for 30 years.
Costs: The total present worth: $t ,400,000,
GWC-3: Groundwater Recovery and Treatment
This alternative involves the recovery of all Site
groundwater currently exceeding clean-up
standards through a system of numerous ex-
traction wells. The treatment system tor the
extracted groundwater would involve installing
piping from each extraction well to a common
treatment area, a specttic treatment system,
and discharging the treated groundwater into
Chinnis Branch. This treated groundwater
would meet the substantial requirements of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) permit and any other ARARs.
Because of the nature of contaminants, it is
necessary to use a ireatment train" system
where several different technologies are used
to treat the different contaminants. For
groundwater, air stripping would be used to
remove the VOCs and a combined chemical
treatment would be used to remove the heavy
metals from the groundwater which includes
precipitation/flocculation/filtration. These tech-
nologies are described below:
-8-
AIR STRIPPING
In the air stripping system, the groundwater is
pumped from the well and sent to the top of an
air stripping tower. While the water cascades
down through a large tube, a high-powered fan
literally blows the contaminants from the water.
The fan then sends the contaminanted air out of
the top of the air stripping tower. The volatilized
,,
•
contaminants are treated by an off-gas system.
The air stripping system is most effective in
removing voes; it is not as effective with other
contaminants, such as heavy metals.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
The chemical treatment process used in this
alternative involves precipitation/floccula-
tion/filtration for the removal of the heavy metals
of concern (lead, zinc, chromium). Precipttation
involves addition of chemicals to the
groundwater to transform dissolved con-
taminants into insoluble precipttates. Floccula-
tion then promotes the precipitates to
agglomerate or clump together which f acilttates
their subsequent removal by filtration.
During this chemical process, the filtered
material or sludge will be collected and stored
in a dumpster and will have to be hauled off-stte
· •tor treatment (tt required) and disposal in ac-
cordance wtth applicable regulations.
Cost: Total present worth: $ 5,300,000.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS SOURCE CONTROL
The remedial action must address contaminant
source areas that currently are accessible to the
public, or that become accessible during the
remedial action. These must be remediated to the
exjent necessary to reduce the risks attendant to
exposure to chemical residuals, or they rrust be
isolated to prevent exposure. The response actions
to address source control at the Potter's Ptts Stte are
presented in seven different alternatives.
SC-1: No Action
In the No Action alternative, no further remedial
actions would occur. A slight level of remedia-
tion may OCQJr through natural processes. Site
soils would not change signtticantly over time,
and would contirue to contribute chemicals to
the groundwater. Operating costs would in-
volve review of remedy every five years.
Costs: Total present worth: $140,000.
SC-2: Institutional Controls
The lnstttutional Controls alternative would include
the following:
•
-The current resident would be moved.
-Those areas of the Stte containing soils with
waste constituent concentrations exceeding
remedial cleanup standards would be fenced.
-The fence would be placarded at twenty-five-
foot intervals along tts perimeter with a warning
about Site condttions.
Costs: Total present worth:$ 1,400,000.
SC-3: Soll Removal and Off-Site Disposal
This alternative consists of the excavation of
soils (surface and subsurface) that exceed soil
cleanup standards which is approximately
10,100 cubic yards. If the contaminated soil
passed TCLP, soils removed would be
transported to an off-stte permitted landfill for
disposal. tt the contaminated soil does not pass
TCLP, the soil would have to be treated and
disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill. The
excavation area would be filled wtth clean soil,
and compacted and graded to original contour.
The aerial extent assumes a 50 It. by 50 ft. area
surrounding each location exceeding cleanup
levels.
Costs: Total present worth:$ 8,100,000
[Note: This cost does not include costs of
having to treat the soil before disposal.]
SC-4: Soll Stablllzatlon/Solldlflcatlon
Stabilization/solidttication is a treatment tech-
nology that mixes the contaminated soil wtth
another substance such as cement, kiln dust,
lime, fly ash, silicates, and clay. This admix
converts the contaminants into their least
soluble, mobile, or toxic form thus minimizing
their potential migration off-stte. This mixture of
material is then placed back where tt was ex-
cavated. A low permeability clay cover would
be placed over the stabilized/ solidttied, con-
taminated materials to minimize the potential for
leaching.
-9-
Treatabiltty Studies would be required to deter-
mine the best admix to use and whether to treat
the soils In-situ or ex-situ.
Costs: Total present worth:$ 5,500,000.
•
SC-5: On-Site Incineration
This alternative consists of the excavation of the
contaminated soils, on-stte incineration of the
excavated soils, and disposal of the treated
soils. A transportable incinerator would be mo-
bilized to the site to perform the incineration.
Rotary Kiln incineration is a process in which
solid and liquid hazardous wastes are fed into a
rotating chamber where they are exposed to
temperatures ranging from 1500 to 3000
degrees Fahrenheit. The heat reduces organic
(carbon-containing) compounds into their basic
atomic elements, for example, hydrogen,
nitrogen, and carbon. In combination with
oxygen, these form stable compounds such as
water, carbon dioxide and nttrogen oxides.
Costs: Total present worth:$ 12,400,000.
sC:6: Soll Washing and Ott-Site Incineration
Soil washing is a batch process in which the
contaminated soils are thoroughly mixed wtth
successive rinse solutions formulated to
remove waste constttuents from the soils. Acid
rinses are frequently used to solubilize metals,
transferring the metals from a solid or scrbed
state to an aqueous phase. The aqueous
phase is then separated from the solid matrix by
decanting. The rinsate from this s1ep is then
treated using conventional wastewater technol-
ogy for metals removal, such as pH adjustment,
, flocculation, clarification, and dewatering.
Process waters would be temporarily stored in
on-site tanks until recycled. Wastewater
sludges would be dewatered and stockpiled.
Dewatered sludges would be transported to a
RCRA-approved facility for treatment and
landfilled in the event waste characterization of
the sludge materials indicated they were a char-
acteristic hazardous was1e.
Costs: Total present worth is$ 12,300,000.
SC-7: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
and Stablllzatlon
This alternative consists of excavating con-
taminated soil and treating It by thermal desorp-
tion. Treatment would consist of volatilizing the
organic contaminants at temperatures usually
between 300 -1000 degrees F, wtth the ott-
gases being treated to prevent the release of
•
contaminants. The waste stream would be
treated by stabilization ij needed.
Costs: Total present worth:$ 4,700,000.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following summary profiles the performance of
the preferred alternatives in terms of the nine evalua-
tion crtteria noting how tt compares to the other
alternatives under consideration.
The following comparative analysis is provided for
the groundwater remediation• alternatives and the
soil remediation alternatives.
Groundwater Remediation:
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for migration control:
GW -1 : No Action
GW -2: lnstttutional Controls
GW -3: Groundwater Recovery and Treatment
Oyeran protect100: Under potential future condi-
tions the No Action alternative would not address
contaminant levels in groundwater, and tt would
allow for possible ingestion of groundwater from
wells drilled in the contaminated area. Since the No
Action alternative does not meet this criteria for
overall protection of human health and the environ-
ment, tt will be dropped from the rest of the evalua-
tion. There is a question with the Institutional Control
alternative on how ettective this alternative would be
over time. Alternative GW - 3 would prevent migra-
tion of contaminated groundwater and recover
groundwater to meet the groundwa1er standards.
CompUance With ARARs: MCLs and North
Carolina Groundwater Standards are ARARs for
Stte groundwater. The lnstttutional Controls alterna-
tive would not comply with ARARs. Alternative GW
- 3 would reduce the levels of contaminants in the
groundwater and comply with ARARs. The treated
water would be discharged into Chinnis Branch and
would meet the respective pretreatment or National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting limlts. tt, at completion of the action,
ARARs cannot be met, a waiverfortechnical imprac-
-10-
•
ticability would be obtained and groundwater use
restrictions would continue.
Long-Tenn Effectiveness and Permanence:
Under the Institutional Controls (GW-2) alternative,
groundwater would continue to migrate off-site;
therefore, It is not considered to be a permanent or
effective remedial solution. Contaminant concentra-
tions would be permanently reduced through
groundwater recovery for Alternative GW-3. Air
Stripping and Chemical Treatment is considered the
best available treatment for heavy metals and
volatile organic compounds in groundwater.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobuttv or Votume: The
GW-2 alternative would not signHicantly reduce the
toxicity, mobillty, or volume of contaminants in
groundwater. Alternative GW-3 would reduce the
volume of contaminants in the aquifer through
recovery and treatment and comply with the
slalutory preference for alternatives involving treat-
ment.
Short-tenn Effectiveness: All of the alternatives
can be implemented without signHicant risk to the
community or on-site workers and without adverse
environmental impacts.
lmplementabmty: None of the alternatives would
pose signHicant concerns regarding implementation.
Construction of the treatment systems would not be
conducted until discharge requirements for the
lrflaled water were defined.
Cl2sl: Total present worth for the groundwater
remediation alternatives are presented below:
GW-1: $ 140,000
GW-2: $ 1,400,000
GW-3: $ 5,300,000
Source Remediation:
The following alternatives were developed for Site
soils and were subjected lo detailed analysis:
SC -1: No Action
SC -2: lnstltutional Controls
SC -3: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
SC -4: Stabilization/SolidHication
•
SC -5: On-Site Incineration
SC -6: Soil Washing and Off-Site Incineration
SC -7: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
and Stabilization
OVeran Protectton: Potential risks due to Site soils
under current and potential future conditions are not
within the acceptable risk range as specified in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). Alternatives SC-
1 and SC-2 would not decrease the risks associated
with the soils. Alternatives SC-3 through SC-7 would
all decrease the risk and mitigate any further
degradation of the groundwater by leaving the
source in place.
Compliance with ARARs: Alternatives SC -3
through SC - 7 would meet RCRA closure require-
ments for waste in place n applicable. Also any of
these alternatives would have to comply with Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) through a treatability
variance or by meeting BOAT standards or
treatabillty variance levels.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Pennanence: Al-
ternatives SC - 1 and SC - 2 would not be effective
in reducing contaminant levels. Alternatives SC - 3
through SC -7 would result in a permanent reduction
in Sile risks.
Reduction ot Toxicity. MobUlty. and Volume:
Contaminant levels would remain unchanged for
alternatives SC - 1 and SC -2. There is a question
to how effective stabilization/solidHication (SC -4)
alternative would be in preventing the organic con-
taminants from migrating on a long term basis. The
rest of the alternatives would reduce or eliminate
contaminant levels, mobility, and the effective
toxicity of the contaminants.
Short-Tenn Effectiveness: Alternatives SC - 3
through SC - 7 would pose some physical risks to
the workers on-site during the excavation phase of
the cleanup of the contaminated soil. The com-
munity would be protected from short term risk by
dust control measures. The volatilized con-
taminants in alternatives SC - 5 and SC - 7 would be
treated by an off-gas system.
lmplementabmtv: No implementation is needed for
the no action alternative. Off-Site disposal to a
RCRA-approved landfill and incineratt>r have been
-11-
•
conducted successfully at other Supertund Sttes.
Implementation of Alternatives SC - 5 and SC - 7
may depend on the availabiltty of a mobile thermal
desorption equipment and mobile incineration
equipment, respectively.
CJ2St: Total present worth costs for the soil alterna-
tives are presented below:
SC-1: $ 140,000
SC· 2: $ 1.400,000
SC· 3: $ 8,100,000
SC· 4: $ 5,500,000
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
•
SC· 5: $ 12,400,000
SC· 6: $ 12,300,000
SC· 7: $ 4,700,000
Community Acceptance: Comrnuntty acceptance
of the preferred alternative will be evaluated after the
public comment period ends and a response to each
comment will be included in a Responsiveness Sum-
mary which will be a part of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Site.
State Acceptance: The State is currently reviewing
EPA's proposed plan.
After conducting a detailed analysis of all the feasible cleanup alternatives and based on the crtteriadescribed
in the preceding section, EPA is proposing a comprehensive, multi-component cleanup plan to address
groundwater and soil contamination at the Stte. The EPA preferred alternatives are:
Groundwater Remediation
GW • 3: Groundwater Recovery and Treatment
Costs: $5,300,000
Source Remediation
SC • 7: Low Temperature Thermal Desorption and Stab/1/zatlon
Costs: $4,700,000
TOTAL: $10,000,000
On-Stte Incineration, Alternative 5 for Soil Remediation ($12,400,000) has been chosen as a contingency
alternative.
The preferred remedy for soil remediation (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) will involve some testing
to vertty that the cleanup standards can be reached. If treatabiltty studies show that the cleanup standards
cannot be .met, and/or the remedy is determined not to be cost effective in relation to on-stte incineration,
then the more conventional incineration technology would be utilized.
Based on current information, these alternatives appear 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 provide that the selected
alternative be protective of human health and the environment, comply wtth ARARs, be cost effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and treatments to the maxim.Jm extent practicable. The selection of the above
alternatives is preliminary and could change in response to public comments.
-12-
• •
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
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 are 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 public comment period from April 30, 1992 to May 30, 1992, to provide an
opportunity for public involvement in selecting the final cleanup method for this Site, and the use of a Treatability
Variance to comply with LDRs for each of the alternatives for which one is required. 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 12, 1992,
at the Hood Creek Community Center, Sandy Creek 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 for
treatment of the contamination at the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits 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 information repository for a more detailed explanation.
During this 30-day period, the public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the information
repository located at the Columbus County Library, East Columbus Branch, Highway 87, Reigelwood 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 information or arguments EPA may receive as a result of public comments. If you prefer to submit
written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight May 30, 1992 to:
Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations COOrdlnator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Superfund Branch
345 Courtland Street, 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 once again
begins negotiations with the Potentially Reponsible Parties (PRPs) to allow them the opportunity to design,
implement and absorb all costs of the remedy determined in the ROD in accordance with EPA guidance and
protocol. If negotiations do not result in a settlement, EPA may conduct the remedial activity using Superfund
Trust monies, and sue for reimbursement of its costs with the assistance of the Department of Justice. Or EPA
may issue a unilateral administrative order or directly file suit to force the PRPs to conduct the remedial activity.
Once an agreement has been reached, the design of the selected remedy will be developed and implementation
of the remedy can begin.
-13-
Ii
• •
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides affected communities by a Supertund stte wtth the opportunity to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). This grant of up to $50,000 is awarded to only one community group per stte and is designed to enable the group to hire a technical advisor or consultant · to assist in interpreting or commenting on site findings and proposed remedial action plans. A cttizens' group interested in the TAG program needs to submit a Letter of Intent to obtain an application package from:
Ms. Rosemary Patton, COordlnator
NC Technical Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
INFORMATION REPOSITORY LOCATION:
Columbus County Library
East Columbus Branch
P. 0. Box 27, Highway 87
Relgelwood, North Carolina 28456
Phone: [phone]
Hours: Monday -Thursday -12:00 -5:00 p.m.
Friday -10:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
Saturday -Closed
Sunday -2:00 p.m. -5:00 p.m.
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Ms. Darcy Duin, Remedial Project Manager or
Ms. Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Ga 30365
Phone: [phone]
Toll Free No.: 1-800-435-9233
-14-
• •
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or
group of formations, containing useable 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 Su•
perfund site. This file is located in the information
repository for public review.
Appl/cable or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
ments (ARARs): The federal and state require•
ments that a selected remedy must attain. These
requirements may vary among sites and various
atternatives.
BaSlil.llne Risk Assessment A means of estimating
the amount of damage a Superfund site could cause
to human heatth 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 heatth 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.
' Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Llablllty Act (CERCLA): A federal
law passed in 1980 and modttied in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Ad
(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 Super•
fund. These Ads give EPA the authority to inves•
ligate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites utilizing money from the Su•
perfund Trust or by taking legal action to force parties
responsible for the contamination to pay for and
clean up the site.
Decanting. To pour off without distrubing the sedi•
ment; to pour from one container into another.
Downgradlent: The direction that groundwater
flows, similar in concept to "downstream· for surface
water, such as a river.
Electromagnetic Survey: This survey method
provides a means of measuring the electrical con-
ductivity of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater.
Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR): Method using
high frequency radio waves to acquire subsurface
information. From a small antenna which is moved
slowly across the surface of the ground, energy is
radiated downward into the subsurface, then
reflected back to the receiving antenna. This
produces a continuous cross-sectional profile of
shallow subsurface conditions.
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 waier
there is growing concern over areas where agricul•
tural and industrial pollutants or substances are get•
ting into groundwater.
Hydrology. The science of dealing with the proper•
ties, movement, and effects of water on the earth's
surface, in the soil and rocks below, and in the
atmosphere.
In-Situ: Means to keep in place, treatment ccn•
ducted in Its original place; ex-situ is removal from
place of origin.
Information Repository: A file containing accurate
up-to-date information, technical reports, reference
documents, information about the Technical Assis•
lance 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.
Land Disposal Restriction (LDRs): Any place•
men! of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface im•
poundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, satt dome formation, underground mine,
cave and concrete bunker or vautt.
Leachate: A contaminated liquid resulting when
water percolates or trickles through waste materials
and collects components of those wastes. Leaching
may occur at landfills and may resutt in hazardous
substances entering soil, surface water or
groundwater.
-15-
•
MaxlmumContamlnantLevels(MCLs): The max-
imum pennissible level of a contaminant in water
delivered to any user of a public water system.
MCLs are enforceable standards.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contin-
gency Plan (HCP): The federal regulation that
guides detennination of the sites to be corrected
under the Supertund program and the program to
prevent or control spills into surtace waters or other
portions of the environment.
National Pollutant Discharge Ellmlnatlon Sys-
tem (NPDES): A provision of the Clean Water Act
which prohibits the discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless a special pennlt
is issued by EPA, a state or (where delegated) a
tribal government on an Indian reservation allowing
a controlled discharge of liquid after It has undergone
treatment.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the
most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Supertund. 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.
Parts per Bill/on (ppb)!Parts per MIii/on (ppm):
Units commonly used to express low concentrations
of contaminants.
•
Reasonable Maximum Exposure: 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.
Remedial lnvestlgatlon!Feaslb/1/ty Study (RIIFS):
The Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive
sampling and analytical study to gather data neces-
sary to determine the nature and extent of con-
tamination at a Supertund site; to establish criteria
for cleaning up the site; a description and analysis of
the potential cleanup alternatives for remedial ac-
tions; and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The Feasibility study also usually
recommends selection of a cost-effective alterna-
tive.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that
announr.es and explains which method has been
selected by the Agency to be used at a Supertund
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.
Volatlle Organic Compounds (VOCs): Any or-
ganic compound that evaporates readily into the air
at room temperature.
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to be placed on the list to receive future infonnation
on the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits 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:
AFFILIATION (H any):
-16-
• •
SUPERFUND SITE UPDATE
POTTERS SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS
Sandy Creek, Brunswick County, North Carolina
November 14, 1991
We are sending this notice to inform interested citizens of a change in the Remedial
Project Manager for the Potters Septic Tank Service Pit Site.
Mr. Steve Nahrstedt, Project Manager for this Site, has left the Agency and is now working
with the Corps of Engineers. He will be an asset the the Corps as he has been for this
Agency. We wish him much success in his future endeavors.
To ensure that all Site activities continue working smoothly, Ms. Darcy Duin has assumed
responsibility as the Site's Project Manager. Ms. Duin is a qualified, experienced
Superfund Remedial Project Manager who looks forward to· working on resolution of this
Site's cleanup.
The Agency is currently working on the Feasibility Study which is the process of analyzing
various potential cleanup alternatives based on the data we received from the Remedial
Investigation, and will make a recommendation as to which alternative would be the most
cost-effective and technically sound to implement. We expect to present this Proposed
Plan information in a fact sheet outlining our findings to the public in either January or
February of 1992. A public meeting will also be held during the 30-day comment period so
that we can respond to questions or concerns and receive any suggestions you might have
concerning our recommendations.
In the meantime, if you need more information or have questions please contact either:
Darcy Duin, Remedial Project Manager or
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
UNITED STATES
_ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NORTH SUPERRN>DfEW. IRANCH
87
•
PnTR007fl
:-/ASTE W1Gi'~T •
H!:1\L TH A . .',JO
•
. '
...
SUPERFUND FAi SHEET • t-.1ARCH 1991
EPA
REGION IV
POTTER'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE PITS SITE
SANDY CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA 1
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet on the Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits Superfund site in Sandy Creek, Nonh Carolina,
has been prepared by the Region IV Office of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
purpose of this fact sheet is to inform interested
citizens and local officials of the nature and status
of EPA's activities at the site. This fact sheet
provides a brief background and history of the site
and describes the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RUFS) process that EPA is cur-
rently directing. Opponunities for public involve-
ment are also discussed.
SITE BACKGROUND AND
HISTORY
The Potter's Pits Site is located in a rural section of
Brunswick County, Nonh Carolina in a residential
community known as the Town of Sandy Creek
(Figure 1). Sandy Creek is subdivided into one to
two acre lots, each with a private domestic water
well. The Potter's Pits Site was divided into three
study areas: Area 1 and 3 are located in residential
lots within Sandy Creek, and Area 2 was located
approximately 1.5 miles nonh across U.S. Highway
7 4n 6 (Figure 2). Area 1 comprises the actual
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Superfund Site.
Area 3 was included in the investigation because
historical aerial photographs suggested that this area
might have been used as a disposal site. Area 2 was
not well defined and was removed from funher
investigation after an extensive search indicated that
no additional information regarding its location or
existence could be found.
Sources of site contamination are waste disposal pits
used by waste haulers between 1969 and 19S0.
Septic tank sludge, oil sludge, and other waste
materials were rrucked to the Potter's Pits Site and
placed in shallow unlined pits or directly on the bnd
surface (Figure 3).
In August 1976, an unlined pit in Area I failed and
allowed approximately 20,000 gallons of oil to es-
cape. The oil flowed into Chinnis Branch and then
to Rattlesnake Branch. The U.S. Coast Guard
responded pursuant to the Clean Water Act 311.
The propeny changed ownership between 1980 and
1982 and was developed as a residential sub-
division. The present site owners purchased the site
lots in 1982 and 1983. They found waste materials
buried in their yard (Area 1) in July 1983. The State
of North Carolina sampled the soil and
groundwater. Analysis of these samples confirmed
the presence of contamination. The site owners
water well was condemned and they were connected
to a neighbor's well.
In September I 983, EPA and the Region IV Field
Investigation Team performed an electromagnetic
survey of the site, monitored the air under the
present owners home, and collected soil, surface
water, and groundwater samples for laboratory
analysis. In February 1984, EPA-Region IV used
ground penetrating radar (GPR) to funher define
the site boundaries.
In March 1984, an I.cdiate Removal Action
(RA) at the Potter's Pit (Area I) was requested
by the EPA Office of Emergency and Remecdial
Response. The IRA consisted of the excavation and
removal of approximately 1,770 tons of oily sludge
and soils.
In May 1984, EPA-Region IV installed and sampled
nine monitoring wells in the vicinity of Area I. The
samples were analyzed for volatile organics. Rela-
tively high concentrations of benzene, ethylben-
zene, toluene, and xylenes (BETX) were detected in
some of the groundwater samples.
The wells were resampled in 1988 by the State of
North Carolina. These samples were analyzed for
volatile organics, phenols, priority pollutants me-
tals, and several nutrients. BETX and phenols were
the predominant contaminants detected.
The Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site scored
29.14 out of a total of 100 on the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). Any site with a HRS score greater
than 28.5 is proposed for the National Priority List
(NPL). Potter's Pits was proposed for addition to
the NFL in June 1988. The site was placed on the
N-PL in March 1989 making it eligible for federal
money for cleanup under Superfund.
EPA' s contractor prepared a RI/FS Work Plan for
the Potter's Pits NFL Site in 1989. This Work Plan
ensures that the studies and analyses of the site are
conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines and
requirements. The RI field investigation was con-
ducted from January through April 1990.
OBJECTIVES OF THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
The primary objectives of the Potter's Pits RI were
to assess the nature and distribution of contaminants
at the site and to characterize the site hydrogeology
and geology. The types of analyses included in the
RI were selected to characterize these factors to the
extent requ_ired to evaluate potential risks, if any, to
human health and the environment, and to evaluate
alternatives for site remecdiation. Toward this end,
2
the RJ an.~ four potential sources of contamina-
non:
Soils
Air
Ground water
Surface water/stream sediment
APPROACH TO REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
The RI field program consisted of the following
activities:
Conducted soil gas survey to locate and
define study area boundaries
Conducted soil boring program to collect
geologic and hydrogeologic data and soil
samples for chemical analysis
Installed monitoring wells
Collected and analyzed residential air
samples
Collected and analyzed groundwater, sur-
face water, and sediment samples
Identified receptor locations which, when
combined with flow characteristics and
present or precdicted contaminant con-
centrations, will be used to estimate risk.
SUMMARY OF RI FINDINGS
Geological Conditions
The Potter's Pits site geology generally consists of
surficial secdiments which vary from 20 to 40 feet in
thickness overlying an impure, sandy limestone.
These surficial deposits are primarily composed of
silty fine sands, clayey sands, and poorly graded
sands, except in lower lying drainage ways where
organic clay and muck are prevalent A 0.5 to 5 foot
thick, gray to dark gray, clay was encountered at
depths ranging from 5 to 19 feet in some locations.
Below the surficial secJant at depths of 24 to 42
feet the impure, sandy -stone was encountered.
Hvdrogeological Conditions
Three local aquifer systems have been identified in
the site vicinity: the surficial sand aquifer, the lime-
stone aquifer, and a deeper aquifer which is
hydraulically separated from both the surficial and
the limestone aquifer systems. The limestone
aquifer is locally semi-confined but may be in
hydraulic connection with the surficial aquifer.
The principal direction of groundwater flow within
the surficial aquifer is to the east-southeast toward
Chinnis Branch in the vicinity of the Potter's Pits
Site. Hydraulic head differences in shallow and
deep monitoring wells upgradient of the site indi-
cate a potential for some downward movement of
groundwater.
Soils Analvses
Prior to the RI subsurface investigation, a soil gas
survey ·was conducted to identify and define waste
disposal areas. One hundred and four soil gas
samples were collected from Area 1 and Area 3
(Figure 4). The highest volatile organic com-
pound (VOe) concentrations were located to the
north and south of Joe Baldwin Drive. No VOCs
were measured in soil gas samples collected from
Area 3. Based on these results soil borings and
monitoring wells were located to determine the
extent of VOCs and other potential contaminants.
Analysis of sixty subsurface soil samples revealed
two areas of contamination. Both areas are within
the vicinity of the waste oil pits (Area 1). Elevated
levels of VOCs (primarily BETX), semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOes) and metals were
detected in both areas. Pesticides were detected in
four samples. No polychlorinated biphenyls
(PeBs) were detected in any of the subsurface
samples.
Twenty-three surface soil samples were collected at
the site .. , Very low levels of four. voes were
detected in five of these samples. Elevated levels
-of three SVOCs were 'detected·in five samples in·
3
both formilil,,isposal pit areas. Four pesticides were
detected i.ee surface soil samples. The metals,
barium, chromium, lead and vanadium were
detected in almost all surface soil samples but were
highest in samples from the waste disposal pits.
Residential Air Analyses
Five residential air samples were collected from
within the crawl spaces and interiors of the Gurkin
and Grainger homes. Sampling was conducted on
these two residences since they are situated on or
near the former waste disposal pits. Analysis of the
samples indicated three low level VOCs at the
Grainger residence and no VOCs within or beneath
the Gurkin residence.
It does not appear that these chemicals are site
related because none of these chemicals were found
on site. Numerous studies have indicated that
. various household products and materials, are sour-
ces for voes in indoor air, including cleaners and
pesticides, carpets, glues and adhesives, wallpaper
paste, paints, and certain building materials.
Groundwater Analvses
Groundwater sampling included fifty-nine residen-
tial wells and nineteen monitoring wells.
Laboratory results for the residential wells found no
voes, svoes, pesticides, or PCBs. Analysis of
the various monitoring well samples indicated that
the groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the
Potter's Pits site contained significant concentra-
tions of VOCs, SVOCs and metals. The extent of
the groundwater contamination in the surficial
aquifer is limited to Area 1.
Surface Water/Stream Sediment Analvsis
Five surface water and five stream sediment
samples from Chinnis Branch were evaluated for the
potential presence of contaminants. No YOCs, pes-
ticides, or PeBs were detected in any of the surface
· water samples. With regard to the SYOCs only one
·1ow concentration 1· mpound was detected
downstream from the . Besides the metals oc-
curring naturally, no metals were detected except
for one anomalous sample upstream from the site
which had significant levels of silver, cadmium,
copper and lead.
No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides or PCBs were found
in any of the sediment samples. The high concentra-
tions of metals detected in the sediment were mostly
common elements and levels which cannot be con-
tributed directly to site source contamination.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The extent of contamination at the Potter's Pits Site
is limited to the immediate vicinity of the two
former waste disposal areas (i.e, north and south of
Joe Baldwin Drive) and the areas immediately
downgradient of each toward Chinnis Branch. The
dominant constituents detected dilling the RI in-
clude compounds associated with petroleum
products or wastes and metals.
The following conclusions can be made regarding
the extent of contamination at the Poner' s Pit Site.
Area 3 is not an area of concern.
The extent of soil contamination is
limited to the immediate vicinity of the
two former waste pits and seems to be
restricted to the upper 15 feet of soil.
Petroleum constituents (BETX, naph-
thalene, etc.) and barium, chromium, lead,
and vanadium were prevalent throughout
Area 1.
Residential air within the house overlying
one of the former waste pits was not im-
pacted.
No residential well is being impacted by
contamination from the Potter's Pits Site.
The extent of groundwater contamination
in the surficial aquifer is restricted to the
area encompassing .the former disposal
pits and an area extending toward Chinnis
Branch. Concentrations of contaminants
4
cJa.ease dramatically toward Chinnis
-ch.
Contamination of both surface water and
sediment within Chinnis Branch is
restricted to metals, of which most arc
naturally occurring elements.
Additional information about the RI findings and
supporting documents are available at the infonna-
tion repository.
NEXT STEPS
The RI phase of the RIJFS is near completion and
an RI Report will be made available for public
review at the information repository. A Risk As-
sessment is also under development by EPA and
will be made available to the public at its comple-
tion. EPA will conduct a public meeting to discuss
the results of the RI Report and discuss future plans
at the Potter's Pits site. (See Public Meeting Notice
on page 1.)
The next step is a Feasibility Study (FS). The FS is
a report that summarizes the development and
analysis of remedial alternatives that EPA considers
for the cleanup of Superfund sites. In conjunction
with the FS the monitoring wells on and around the
site will be resampled. Also, in order to better
delineate contaminated areas and depths of con-
tamination identified in the RI, a few additional
monitoring wells and soil borings will be installed
on the site during April 1991. When the FS is
complete, EPA will hold another public information
meeting to present a summary of the entire RI/FS
process, including the results of the FS, and explain
the proposed plan to remedy contamination at the
site. During this time, EPA will also announce a
30-day comment period dilling which citizens can
submit written comments on the remedial alterna-
tives considered in the RIJFS study and EPA's
proposed plan. The meeting to discuss the com-
pleted RI/FS and proposed plan will be recorded to
assist EPA in preparing a Responsiveness Sum-
mary, a report that summarizes community com-
ments and concerns and EPA responses. After the
comment period, EPA will summarize the decision
process and describe the selected remedy for the
Pmter's Pits Superfum.: in a document cailed a
Record of Decision (R ). The ROD will include
the Responsiveness Summary and will be submitted
to the EPA Regional Administrator for approval.
Upon approval, the design of the remedy will be
developed and the implementation of the remedy
can begin.
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
EPA has developed a community relations progran1
under Superfund to respond to citizens' concerns
and needs for infonnation and to enable residents
and public officials to participate in decision-
Columbus County Library
East Columbus Branch
P. 0. Box 27, Highway 87
Reigelwood, NC 28456
Hours: Monday -Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
ma.king .• r. lie invOIH:ment activities th::[ :w..: l:!-
dertaken uperfund sites rrtngc from fact sheers
such as this, to meetings and public cornment
periods.
In order to allow the public access to information
they can understand and use, EPA establishes an
infonnation repository near the site. An informa-
tion repository contains documents such as the
Community Relations Plan, fact sheets, and other
documents about the site. The inforrnrition
repository for the Potter's Pits site is located at the
Columbus County Library (the address is given
below). The infonnation repository is a useful
resource for interested parties to obtain infom1ation
about the Potter's Pits Superfund site or about the
Superfund program in general.
Jodi Bordeaux, Librarian
[phone]
12:00 -7:00 pm
10:00 -5:00 pm
Closed
2:00 -5:00 pm
5
• GLOSSARY
Aquifer
A layer of rock or soil below the surface of the eanh where water collects. Aquifers are capable of collecting,
storing, transmitting, and yielding water to wells and are often a source of drinking water.
Clean Water Act (CW A)
The Clean Water Act of 1972's goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and bilogical integrity
of the nation's waters as mandated by Congress.
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Also known as Superfund, this law authorizes the federal government to respond directly to releases or
potential releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare or the environment.
Down gradient
The direction that groundwater flows, similar in concept to "downstream" for surface water, such as a river.
Electromagnetic Survey
This survey method provides a means of measuring the electrical conductivity of subsurface soil, rock and
groundwater.
Feasibility Study (FS)
The study identifies and evaluates cleanup alternatives that are designed to address contamination problems
found during a Remedial Investigation at a Superfund site. (See Remedial Investigation)
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Method using high frequency radio waves to acquire subsurface information. From a small antenna which
is moved slowly across the surface of the ground, energy is radiated downward into the subsurface, then
reflected back to the receiving antenna. This produces a continuous cross-sectional profile of shallow
subsurface conditions.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
A scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the environment from re leases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and states use the HRS to calculate a site score, from
0 to 100, based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface
water, or groundwater to affect people. This score is the primary factor used to decide if a hazardous waste
site should be placed on the National Priorities List.
6
Hydrogeology • •
The study of groundwater occurence and movement in earthen materials.
Monitoring Well
Special wells drilled at specific locations to sample groundwater from various depths. Samples from
monitoring wells are analyzed to determine groundwater movement and the amount, type, and spread of
contaminants.
National Priority 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 Trnst
Fund for remedial action. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking
System. EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.
Organic Compounds
One of two classes of chemical compounds. Organic compounds are distinguished from inorganic
compounds because they contain carbon. Examples of substances which contain organic compounds are
petroleum, solvents, and pesticides.
Polychlorinated Biphenyis (PCB)
A family of organic compounds used in electrical transformers, lubricants, and adhesives. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment and do not break down into less harmful substances. EPA banned
the use of PCBs in 1979 because long-term exposure to PCBs can cause liver damage and other adverse
human health effects.
Record of Decision (ROD)
A public document that explains which cleanup altemative(s) will be used at an NPL site where, under
CERCLA, Trust Funds pay for the cleanup. The Record of Decision includes EPA's responses to public
comments on the Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan.
Remedial Investigation (Rn
The first part of a two-part study called a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study. In a Remedial
Investigation, irtformation is collected and analyzed to define the nature and extent of contamination at a
Superfund site; establish criteria for cleaning up the site; identify preliminary alternatives for remedial
actions; and support the technical and cost analyses of the alternatives. The remedial investigation is
usually done with the feasibility study.
Removal Action (RA)
An immediate action taken to stablize or clean up a site over the short-term to address a release or
threatened release of hazardous substances that threatens public health and/or the environment.
7
Responsiveness Sum.y
A summary of oral and/or written public comments received by EPA throughout the entire remedial process,
and the Agency's replies to these comments. The Responsiveness Summary includes EPA's responses to
public concerns in a variety of forms, such as fact sheets, information repositories, public meetings, lc1ters.
telephone calls, and briefings. This summary is especially valuable during the Record of Decision phase
at a site on the National Priorities List because it highlights community concerns for EPA decision-m:i.kers.
Sediment
Materials such as sand, soil, mud and decomposing animals and plants that settle to the bottom of ditches,
streams, lakes, rivers and ponds.
Sel)li-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Carbon-containing chemical compounds that, at a relatively low temperature, fluctuate between a vapor
state (a gas) and a liquid state.
Sludge
A generic term that describes a highly concentrated, thick, heavy, mud-like mixture of solid/liquid
by-product. Sludge is formed from solid materials settling out of a liquid.
Soil Boring
A techr,ique used for soil testing that involved drilling a hollow cylinder into the earth at various dep,hs to
study the extent of soil contamination.
Soil Gas Survey
A technique used to provide data on sources of chemicals within underlying soils and groundwater.
Samples are collected by driving a hollow probe into the gound and extracting a small amount of gas. The
samples are analyzed for VOCs. ·
Surface Water
Bodies of water on the earth's surface that are exposed to the air, such as streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
A sub-group of organic (i.e,, carbon-containing) chemicals characterized by their greater tendency to
evaporate into the air from water or soil.
8
• • SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES l ,
lfTE
DISCOvt;R't'
• FE..l9BlUTY
!TUOY'
I
P\/BUC
COMMENTS
LOMC-TEFI"'
Cl.E..ANUP
COMMUNrTY RELATIONS
IN 1980, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AEPONSE, COMPENSATION, mo LIABILITY ACT
(CEACLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
"SUPEAFUND". TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SrTES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPEAFUND 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 SUPER FUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP). REVISED IN 1988.
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBrT PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
OF HOW A LONG-TEAM SUPEAFUND RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SrTE 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 .. FAOM DIRECT CONTACT,
INHALATION, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SrTE
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SrTE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SrTE 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
PRIOArTIES LIST (NPL), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SrTES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL SUPERFUND
MONEY,
IF A SrTE 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
(Al). THE RI ASSESSES HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONTAMIN!WTS ARE PRESENT, ANO
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNrTY. AS
PART OF THE Al, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
9
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AT THE SITE
AND THE POTENTIAL HEAL TH ANO ENVIRONMENT Al
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SrTE.
<. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE Al. EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILrTY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
AL TEANATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILrTY, PUBLIC HEAL TH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INSTrTUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WrTH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS).
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNrTY, 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 CrTIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECCMMENOEO .AJ.:"rC:RNATIVES. CiTIZENS
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS ErTHEA ORALLY AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO E?A
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 SrTE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WrTH EVERY SrTE. IN GENERAL. AN AI/FS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP PLAN MAYT AKE
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.
COMMUNrTY RELATIONS ACTIVrTIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS ANO OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CrTIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED ANO TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT. THESE ACTIVrTIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROUIGHOUT THE SUPEAFUNO PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVrTIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNrTY RELATIONS ACTIVrTIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EPA'S COMMUNrTY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SrTE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW ANO COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION AEPOSrTORIES.
J . I ! }.
.I
I_
1"!1
:: 111 ·t'' II 1~··· l !t
p11111 C Ii I I I I I l)
I
Ii n
•1
--=== -===--~ ----~-°"'"'"-oir,.
~ ----~---
• MAILING LIST EDIT.NS
To be placed on the mailing list to receive information regarding the Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits Site,
please complete this form and mail to:
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
North Remedial Superfund Branch
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Name _________________________________ _
Address-------~-----------------------
City, State, ZIP-------------------~----------
Affiliation _______________________________ _
Phone _________________________________ _
T?
◄ UNirEcl"STATcS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlcAGcNCY
REGION IV -~io;:~h Rem~l B;:ar.ch
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENAL TY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
87
.,~ (:·it~LJ7~0 VA~l.A\H!T~
:; i. ! ~) ~: :;_ r: U •·,! ,-, 'S F C. T J ti \i , ::; iJ L T ~
·:;:-:-~~PT .. -,-,::-c:-_;v1 :z::-,~. v:::r;T ~
•
·::~;e:~:~/nves-ation
n
ca,.~PA
Potter's Septic Tank Service
.>its Superfund Site
Sandy Creek, Brunswick County
North Carolina•
Region IV ----------·········--····-··~--·-·-······--'"·~ .... l t.?!1rua1y
_...; ___________________ ,.,,,,.,,v.,.:~~.K..iU~~lla.'..'llta!:tllr-U:1~~,1AU.----
1990
-This fact sheet is one in a series designed to inform residents and local
offici"1s of the ongoing clean-up efforts at this site.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Em~ronmental Protection Agency (EPA)
currently Is conducting Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) activities for
the Potter's Septic Tank Se.rvice Pits Superfun<l Site in
Sandy Creek, Brun.sv.ick County, North Carolina The
U.S. EPA Reginn rv office in Atlanta, Georgia, has
assumed lead responsibility for Rl/FS activilies at the
Potter's Pits site. The EPA Remedial Project
Manager for Uus site is Mr. Steve Nahrstedt, who will
be respollsible for all technical and community
relations activities at this site,
The R!/FS for the Potter's Pits site will be performed
by a contractor hired by EPA. EPA perso1rnel will
oversee the work done by the contractor and any
subcontractors, and ensure that all tasks are
performed in accordance v.~th EPA guidelines,
standards and policy.
This fact sheet provides an introduction to the field
activitios being performed at the site for the.RI, and
inch,:-,-; brief description of the site, the nature of
the :, i :' FS, public involvement during the RI/FS
"· ,,-.,:,c;, and future activities to be conducted by EPA
at the sire.
SITE llESCRJM'ION
The Potter's Pits site occupies 5 acres of land in tJie
residential communily of Sandy Creek, approximately
18 miles west of Wilmington, North Carolina, in a
rural area alnr.g State Highway 74/76. A stream
known as the Chinnis Branch crosses at the back of
the site as It nows to the Rattlest1ake Branch.
The area of investigatiot1 consists of one developed
and one undeveloped residential lot and nearby areas
where four shallow pits were used for the disposal of
septic tank sludge, creosote, oil sludge and other waste
materials during 1969 to 1980. Originally thi.1 5 acre
property was part of the 217 acre Skipper Estate and
was incorporated as the Town of Sandy Creek in
September 1988.
1
SITE IIISTORY
PO'ITER 'S Pmi SrrE
LOCA 110 N MAI'
SA.'IOY OU-:J-:,C, NC
In August 1976, rhe U.S. Coast Guard was notified of
an oil spill in the Rattlesnake Branch creek. The U.S.
Coast G11ard and the North Carolina Departmenl of
Natural and Economic Resources traced the. oil spill
to the Chiruiis Branch to one of the four disposal pits.
The two agencies removed 20,000 gallons of oil from
the stream and pits and 150 truck loads of oil sludge
and oil stained dirt. Thick oil sludge which could not
be removed was mixed with sand and buried on site.
The Skipper Estate becMne the Sandy Creek Acres
subdivision around 1981. Soon alter purchasing lots 85
and 86 in 1983, the present property owners discovered
oily substances surfacing on their property. Stale and
U.S. EPA pemmnel identified creosote, oil spill
A4 to A4
• re<idu~, tar\): bottom slurl~e aud s,p(k 1bdge., on and close to the surface, and high Je,·•ls or cont:uni.rnwt, In their shallow well water.
£PA Region lV Offi"<! or Emer&•ncy and Remcdlal Re,pon.,o conducted a.ii Imme<.llatc Rt111u"<I! Action
ttnler.c<l around thb property l1ou1 March 21, 19&4 to April j, 1984, during v.·luch three resldenr familie,
Were relocated. A total of 1,770 tons or oily sludge and contaminated solli were exca11ated and transportell to a hazardous waste landli!l in Pine"·ood, South Carolina. Reru~ topsoil, gradlr,a and seeding completed the removal operation. The e¢nlamlnaled well was C{,nderuned end the owner~ have b-!~rt roMecte<l to a neighbor'$ well upgra<lien! from the di~pn-~ 11i1~.
In Ma;,o 1984, EPA developed a groundwater mon!torlni plan to determine II the Potter's Pits site · pte.$enlcd a threat to 1uaow11JU1g groundwater •our~s. Nine monitoring w,ll., were subsequently Installed and roodto1ed by the EPA Environmental Responso Team and the Stale of North Carolina
Samples taken fror.i lhese wells during monitoring in 1988 detecte-O the presenc~ o( volatile organic contaminants (benzene, toluene, ethvlbenzene, and
Xjicne) in the slio!luw aquifer. On M;vch 31, 1989,
Pot1er's Piu wa., 1L<ted 011 the N11lium1l Pilorhles List (NPL), the roster ur I.he nation's haz.ardous wa.ste shes whlch meet federal •tandards for SupcrfunJ monie,;.
CURRE~'T SITE STATl1S
During lhe SU!lliller of 1989, EPA initiated the RI phase or the cleanup process. T~ purpose of the RI is to determine the pre,eot nature artd c>tcnt o( the
contamination a( the site. Durl1ig thls time, wurk and ticld operation pla,~1 Were developed. An aerial iurvey was ,onducted (or ·mawing purpoies. Ground survey marke,i u,nsi,ti~ o( whik 13;,c crosses wete plactd lhroi:ghout the community for th•~ pU!pose only. Tho aerial photography ha.i now bee11 completed. A.'ly remaming mru'kei> wUI be remoYed.
Dur\ng January 19':C, the rieh.1 operatlor.s team anl•ed on-site lo beg)n approximately 10 weeks of >¢ii, waler and stream sedlc:,ent SM1plins aroum.l the ,ite, Slate
and local cfficial5 and pro~rty owners have been contacted and informed or activitie; 1xing initia:ed on•
2
,lte. Comm t,el•tlons acti\lties included •.elephone and site lmer.iews dudng Janu;;ry. Additional attMUes are beln& sc.~eduled.
lU ACm1TIES
Beeau5e of the ldentiJic.arion of l'Olarile organic contaminants ar lhe sire, the initial field effort was the Sui! GM Survey. The field team 1o.il1 use this data 10 help dcte:rulne loc..tions of potential contamination. During the month of February w,d early March, soil borlrfiS and sam piing will oe taking place using a drill rt& Bild ,;.rew, Monitorill8 well installation will alsu be r,erformed when, appropriate.
Du~ to the cl= and conll1rnotc, exposure to a filHS• of hazardous 11'&.,le tc wltlch field te=s are subjected, occupational health a.1d sa!'cty stamJ<1.ds require the team to wea: dilposablc protecti,-e clo:!~n&,
Depending upon we;ither, wind, and uthcr workir.g rondilion.s, respirators may be reqllire<l for ruember.1 working directly over bore holes or sample areas where a,tual or potenlia! org>tnlc vapors coulu Le present. Protective. iear ls an occupational requirement protectir.g the person taking the sample. Its use does not indicate any health roncern lo the public c: an>·one away rrcm the lmmeaia1e ,1clnity or the. lample location.
FLrn.'ll£ ACT1'1TIES
Scheduled (or late February and e;;rly March are air 6-0lllPWl,!; and a public health 1W=<me11t. The •n~r• Sandy Creek coinmunlty "'ill be a.sked to partlclpate lu a survey to identify domestic well locations, sp,:dn .... t\urJ,, and water use.s.
Donni: :,far,1', blologicsl oa.'!lpUng and surface waler and stream sediment ,i!lllp!Lig on the Chinnis Branch wlU be performed. Drillers will aga:n be present during i,,Jd-March to Cuclize monitoring w<:11 b,Wlation and for performance of iioundwater wmpling and aquifer tests.
Upon complet!on or the RI report, exp«:~d In July
1990, EPA will conduct the Feasibility St\:d)' (FS). ,ne FS U..'"" the resuhs of the RI as the ba,is for de.veioping the most apprnpriate clertJl-Up ill:ema1i,es
for lht Sile.
• COM!I-IL'NIIT COOPERATION
EPA requec,I~ the cooper&1io11 of the commwiity In respecting the equipment and activities talrJ.n8 pl~ In the ,ltc vicinity, n1e u.st or priv,ile pro~ny and any lnconv,onience the Superfund pruc,,"" m1i;h1 create to the e<:>mmunlty will be kept to 11 minimum. Such cooperatlon would Include Informing others or the
Importance of the efficient wwplelion o( 1hc RI e!'tort to allow ro, the quick resolution ror lhe s!te cleanup. l'lc"-'4 notify )'Our !own Mayur, mur,cu or C:P A or any vandalism or concern., whlch could impact the success of the investigation.
runuc l!'lfORMATJON
The A<l,nlnhtr;,.(lve Record Is the omcial compUa1lon
of docu:nenh, data reports and otl1er ln/o,wation
import/Int lo th, stolu., c,f ai1d dcd,i~n.s mat.le relative to a Superfuud site. This lrJormallon !or the Poner's Pits site will I,,, 0,1,llable for public vicwln~ >111~ cop,lng at a loenl Wormation repository. The public will be noti.Jied as soun a., lhh loc~don ls eS:abllshed,
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC PAl!.TICIPATlo:-;
A public ltiform11tlon meetlnj Ls pla.'tJl~d for late Ftbruary, early Mwch 1990 ro update the cornmunlty on actlv\tlcs ot the site. Tltls will indut.le " que5tlon and aruwer period ror odJ,~lull curnruunlty C<>ncerns,
3
• A second putili~ meetrns will be held 10 present ll.:c Jll/FS result, lllld to reeei,·c comm•nts a:.d qu,.tion.>
auuul the propose~ ahernarlves for file c!eanup.
fOl'l. FURTHER 11't'OK,'1ATJON CO!'oiACT:
Mr. I. Stephen Nohrstcdl
Remedial Projeel Mana.ier
U.S. ErA, Re~on JV
.>45 Counland Slreet, N.E.
Atlanta. GA 30~
H. ~,hoe! Henderson
Community Refa1ioru Coordin.&lor
U.S. E'.PA. Region IV
3'5 Counland Street, N.E.
Alllillla, GA 303-SS
or
(404) :.47-7791
[phone]
(800) 24J-l7.s4
ADDITIONAL 11'-TQfl..l\olATION IS AYA.ILADLE
FROM:
Ms. Ch11rlotte VarlaJhkin
NC Dept. or En,irorunent, Healih and
Na1ural Rer.ourc.s
Solid Waole Mi;mt. Div., Supcrfund Section
401 Oberlin Road
.l',0, Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 276!1 (,19) 73~2801
liN~OACEMENT ACTWIT.
I am
CLSCO'fERY
I
Cl..EANUP Pl.AN.•·~----{
DliS!OH
,
LCfiCl-TEAM
Ct.EAHUP
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
1~ ,'-M. eoNOtl.Gss ENACTED THf:. COMPRE.l-ll;N$1VE: fNVIR.ONMCt•{fAl AEPC',SE, COMPE.NSATICN, '-ND LIABILITY ACT (CEAC;J.), THIS ACT CASA reo .. TRUST F'\JNO, KNOWN AS ·SU?ERFUNl:r'' TO INVESTIOA TE AfiO CLt:AN ur A6ANC>CNED 0~ UNC¢NTAOcLEO KA.:ARDO~S WASTE 81T:S. M¢01f1EO IN I~ BY THE SCJPERFlJNC AME.,O.,.ENT6 •110 RV.Ui>iOn!ZA~ON AOTISARA), THE AC1 AUTHORIZ:S EPA TC RES"'ONO TO FiE·"fASES 0~ THREATENED RELEASl;S OF H..Z.A~OO'JS sue,:.-_~:.-~::s ™A.i MAY ENOANGi:R PUBUC HEA.L. Tii 0~ WE.Lt ARE, CR ThC ! ;:•;,..-'.<,)t~MENT.
Th/i I .82 SUPER FUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARCOUS SU.,STAI,: ES CONTl'iOENeY Pt.AN iNC"l, REVISED IN lll68, DESs;;A16E6 HCW .~ .. w:LL RESPOND TO MEET THEoE MANDATES THIS EXHlo!T PROV1Dl;S A S!l,APslF'.ED EJ:PWIATION OF HOW A LONG-TERM SVPERFUNO AESPONSI; WO.C\J\S.
I. AFTf;R ',,, SITE IS D1:SCOVEAED, IT IS INVESTIO.A T:D, USUAU. Y 8YTHE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR fTG Rf;P~[:SE.~TAT1VE THEN l'ANKS THE SITE UtlNG rrlE HAZARD AANKINCI SY~TEM !HAS), WHICH TAl<E9 ;NTC ACCOUNT;
-Po~:9lE HlaAL Tl I n1~K3 TO THC HUMAN l'OPuLATION; -i'CTENTIAL HAZIIRDS (E.OJl'lOM DIRECT CONTACT, INHALATION, ARE, OR iaXPl.06ic,.,/ OF SUBSTANCl;S AT THE $1TE; -PO,,NTIAL FOR TH£ SUB~TANCES AT THE SITE re, CONT~MINAI e OR•NKI~ WATER llVPP\.IE$:
-PCTENTIAI_ FCR THE SUGSTANCES AT 111E SITE 10 POU.UTE OR OTHc8'NIS; HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE PRCi'!LoMS AT A SilE ARE DEEIA~DSERICVS SY THE STATI; .•NO THE e>A., ';1,£ SITE WILL BE LISTED ON TllE NATIQNA!. PRIORITIES LIST (NPl), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S H~ADOU$ WASTE SITES WHICH A9a WOIOI.C roR FEDERAi. $1JPEAP'\JNO MONE~·.
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THi;Al;OF POSE$ AN IMMl'IENT TH REA r ro P'J!!LIC HEAL TH OR THE Ei<Vl~ONMENT AT N<Y Tl!.<E, E~A MAY CCN~UCT AN EVEROENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN l"'"'EDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
,. NE.XT, EFA USLl.4.U. Y CONDUCTS A REl.<EOl.<i, INVES,lc.,\ TIGN (A~. THE RI A6So6SE8 HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINAnCN 19, WHAT KIND OF CONTAMINANTS AAE PRESENT, ANO CHAR/ICTE~IZES l>~TENTtAL HISKS TO TJ-'E CCUMLININ. AS PART OF THE RI. EPA TYP>;AJ.1. Y CONDUCTS AN e1,o•NCERMENT ASSESSMENT ™"T DESCAIOES 1'H~ PROllc£.ws
A"': T'Hf: SITE ANO NE. PQTfN 1 IAl... HEAL TH AND EN\'IRCNME.NTAL CONSEOVISNCE, I~ NO RJRTHER ACTION IS TAKE!' AT THE SITE.
""· Fou,OW!fJ.O GO~P-.. ETION OF THt RI. EPA P~fl,f().-},t.',S "· FE.As-~•.:..:rv sn;ov \FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARtC:.JS CLE..'-NU.0 A.I_ Tc'.Rt~AilVE.S A.ND EVAL~•TE~ Tl<E!-1 ON THE ~ASIS OF Tl:CHNICAL J';.,s1a1L1TY, PV!li.lC· HE.ALTii EFFECTS, ~VIRCNlv'ENiAL IMPAC"':'"S. lNS"ilTWT IQNAL CONCERNS {fNCLUD:NU COMPl!ANCE W!T'h STA.TE j~:J S.OCAL U'W!J. 11,APACT ON TliE COM>.IUNll'Y, ANO COST. Tl<E ,:f;~11;o5 •~E PnGSENTEO IN A DMP'T ~s AEl>::RT.
C, R;!.,LOWiNG CC1.>1P:..E'TION CF 1HE :,::.A~ F=S ;1EPORT, EPA HCLO-'> A P\J!lUC COIWE.'11' FEP.IOD TO A~<IVE CITIZEN INf"UT GCNCl;RN:,;J n.e AECQM>.IE.~DE, ALTERNATIVES crnw1s M/. Y •RCVIDE COMMENTS EITHER ORAU. y AT THE P\JE>LIC f.lrEnNO OR THROUGH WAITT".;N CORl'.E9"¢NCENCE TO f;~,.
1. AF'T'EA F)UBI..IC COMMC-•H~ HAYE BEEN ~ECEIVl:0, EPA AESPONO.S TO TI-IE: COMMGNT8 tN THE RES.POl~S1Ve.N=" SU.V.1.-tt.,AY F'A.l'n Of TH~ A!:CORC OF oec:SION (ROD) 'NJ--11"'...;H 1cE..•-ntc1i;s 'rME SPEC:~1¢ ct=..4,Nt.J? PLAN.
7. ONCE Tl-IE OES~N 1S FINISHEC, TH!; ACTl.,JAl REY.E~:AL ACT1\.'ITiCS OR etEAAuP OF n;e SITE CA.N 8f01S,
THE Tli,E NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF T\<ESc s~eos 'IARil:S WlnJ EVERY SITE. IN ~En"L AN Rl'FS T;KJ;S FRC•iJ ONE re TWO VEAF\S. OESIC>NINO T~E C!,laN',UP Pt),.~ MAY TA"E SIX MCNTHS >ND IMPL!a"E~TINO Tl,E AEMEOY • ll'i~ ACTWL CON7M,'MENT Cl'. REMQYA:. Or. THE WA$1E · iJAY TME FROM ONE TO ThRC! YEARS. IF QROUNCWATEA IS INOLVED, THE FINAL CLEAIW~ I.IAY TME MAf;Y MOA~.,.....RS,
CO~UNlfYAE.L.An:,).'.16 ACTiVrT!i:S OURlNG A CLE.AJj(.,'F~ lf◄CLUOe P'JOWC ),O:.CTtNQ$ •"IC OiHEA .4..C1"!VITJES 1NT/;~OED TO ,<l;~f-' Cll:.l!:!."S ANC, OFFICIALS INFCAMEJ AN!) TO E.\JCOl:FV<!E PU8l1::; lt-ffUT. T"1E:S: IICTl'ilTl;S ARE $CHEDUlEO THRC\/O'<OVT ™E $;,;PE"l'vND PF.CCESS. $P8:lFiC ACTMil!:!, VAAY FROM $!TE TO Sl~E :JSP;t.iOlNO VN TI-:E L;'JEL Of INTEREST .. ,~ N~TURE orcoNC£R~. T~E MNG: OF COMl.lUNll'Y AWrrCI-'$ ACTIVITIE5 Tri!'.T C~N ,:,CCUA ,s OcS<.:H,~>:C !N THE EFA·SCOMMV~:JY RELATIONS "'-''I ,·c~ The SITE.
~ COCU~ENT& RE:...,,\71NG TO THE SITE AFlE AV.•JLA&.E ~OR f:.,!8UC REVIE\V MD COPYit•tG IN 'ThE DES;GtiATED lt~FOFv~ATiQN AEPCo.fOAIE,.
POtTER'S SEPTJC TANK ScFWICE PITS SlJPl:.AFUND SITE
If ycu did not rtcalve thi~ fiyer In lh., rr.ai' snd .,.;~h to be placed en the me:lln~ !1st to ri;cel•,e ln:ormatlon per.a:nlnQ to this site, p'.ea,e provlca me l0II0wln~ lnformaUon s.nd 8'r.d to:
Mr. J, Stephen Nohr51adt
RemGdial Projec! Managar
U.S. EF'A, R~lon IV
3•S Courtland St~el, N.E.
A!!anta, aeorg:a 3¢Ji,~.
Nl'.ME _____________________ _
ADDRESS
STA7c ___________ -. ZIP ___ _
. ' . . . .• •
SUPERFUND BRANCH OFFICE FAX NUMBER
FTS 257-4464
COH..~ERCIAL ~'UMBER [phone]
DATE,_~_-_ _,_/__.2'----1'-"-CJ----~-------
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): s
FAX MES SAC E TO : _i:::;: t'---"...<. . .1!.,ec..Lf..,-l_.e."--'-V."'"'--"v-'!'-'""--'-'"'t....1.lr.:....c;," o:i.' __ _
ADDRESS: Ne r2 Hr?
TELEPHONE NUMBER: "/11-7-.JJ-2T'()/
FAX MACHINE NUMBER1 "'I I 1 -1..l .1 -4-? I I
CONTACT PERSON i, TELEPHONE NUMBER!
MESSAGE FROM:
TELEPHOKE NUMBER,
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS1
4o+-.11: ;z -~ ;;z..11
IF THE FOLLOWING l-'.ESSAGE rs RECEIVED POORLY OR INCO/frLETE, PLEASE NOTH"/
----'5'--'-f---'.'--'Y<-=."--'N-'---'o'-t.-'-', =-' ..ct...;~c.:L;,c, ..:.f ___ h T OF FI CE NU HB ER 1: c •1-•. .J -4-? -1 r 71
THANKS AND HAVE A NICE D/\Y l
• INFORMATION FROM EPA NEWS RELEASE DATED MARCH 16, 1984
Removal of contaminated soil and sludge from the Earl Gurkin property, also
knows as the "Potters Pits" Site in Maco, NC, will begin on Wednesday, March 21,
under the federally financed Superfund program. The Environmental Protection
Agency {EPA) will supervise the removal operation and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources will provide sampling and analytical support.
The pits which contain a sludge consisting of creosote, oil and septic
wastes have been covered and filled for the past several years. Excavation and
removal of the contaminated material is expected to take about four to six weeks
and may cost as much as $400,000. The waste material will be disposed of in a
secure landfill out of state.
One shallow well has been contaminated from the material on site; a series
of monitoring wells will be installed to determine if contaminants threaten
other supplies.
Some residents living closest to the. site may be relocated during part of
the operation because of odor associated with the clean-up. Air monitoring will
be conducted to assure that no unsafe conditions occur while the work is in
progress. After the excavation, the pits will be backfilled and the land
contoured to its original condition. Some traffic will be temporarily rerouted
to avoid contact with the site.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of
1980, popularly known as Superfund, is a $1.5 billion tax on oil and chemical
products administered by EPA to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites.
• •
FACT SHEET
Rem:wal of contaminated soil and sludge fran the Earl Gurkin property,
also known as "Potter's Pits," will begin Wednesday. The U.S. Environrrental
Protection Agency (EPA).will supervise the.operation and the North carolina
Depart:Irent of Human Resources will provide sarrpling and analytical support.
The pits, which have been covered and filled for several years,will
be excavated and the material rem:wed from the site. The following infor-
mation may be helpful to residents of the area:
-the pits contain a sludge consisting of creosote, oil, and septic
tank wastes. No other materials are suspected of being in the pits.
-the clean-up will take fran four to six weeks;
-because sare of the pits lie underneath the roadway, the road will
be temporarily closed and traffic re-routed around the area of the
clean-up to avoid contact with the area;
-three families will be relocated during the operation. The Gurkins,
the Grangers, and the Churchs will be relocated at governrrent _
expense;
-se=ity guards will be posted on the site during evening hours to
protect the hemes of the evacuees and to discourage trespassers;
-wells in the area have been tested for contamination. One well was
identified as having contaminated water. Other wells have been
determined to be safe. If you should notice a peculiar odor or color
in.your water, please notify your county health depart:Irent;
-you may notice sare odors associated with the clean-up. Air rronitoring
will be conducted throughout the clean-up to insure that the air does
not becare contaminated. · The odor may Irake you nauseous, but the odors
are not toxic;