NCD981475932_19890301_FCX Inc. (Washington Plant)_FRBCERCLA C_Fact Sheets 1991 - 1996-OCR

I < .......... , ............... "' ~(C •
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
Region 4
August 1996
FCX WASHINGlON SltE
OPERABLE UNIT #;2
Washington , Beaufort County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION: This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred course of action to be undertaken at the FCX Washington Supertund Site
in Washington, North Carolina. (terms in bold face print are defined in a glossary located at the end of this publication). This document
is being issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency for Site activities, and the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR), the support agency. EPA, in consultation with NC DEHNR, conducted the
Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS), and will select a remedy for site soils at the FCX Washington Site (hereinafter
referred to as the "FCX Site" or "Site") only atter the public comment period has ended and all information submitted to EPA during this
time has been reviewed and considered.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Supertund.
This document summanzes information that is explained in greater detail in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study reports and other
documents rontained in the Information Repository/Administrative Record for this Site. EPA and the State encourage the public to
review these documents to better understand the Site and the Supertund activities that have been conducted. The Administrative Record
is available for p'ublic review locally at the Brown Public Library, 122 Van Norden Street, Washington, North Carolina 27889.
EPA, in consultation with NC DEHNR, may modify the preferred rourse of action based on new information and/or public comments.
Therefore, the public is encouraged to review the administrative record and comment on the preferred rourse of action.
THIS PROPOSED PLAN:
1.
2.
Includes a brief history of the Site and the principal
findings of Site investigations;
Presents EPA's rationale for its preliminary selection of
the preferred alternative; and
3. Explains the opportunities for public to comment on the
remedial alternatives. ,
SITE BACKGROUND
The FCX Site is defined as an area located on the western edge
of Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina. The FCX facility
acted as a farm supply distribution center which repackaged and
sold pesticides, herbicides, and tobacco treating chemicals from
1945 to 1985. Based on Site investigations ronducted by the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources in July and
August of 1986, the Site was listed on the National Priorities List
in March of 1989.
PUBLIC MEETING
August 29, 1996
WHERE: City Hall Chambers
East Second Street
Washington, NC
Beginning at 7:00 PM
• RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
In Seplember 1990, EPA iniliated a Remedial lnvesligalion and
Feasibility Siudy (RI/FS): to evaluate the acluiil and potential long term
impact contamination at the Site has on human health and the
environment. The Remedial Investigation locused on five poJential
source areas (Figure 2). ,Samples were collected of surface and sub-
surtace soils,' and sediments. Contaminants determined to be al
concern were chklrinated pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, methoxychlor, DDT,
ODD, toxaphene, chlordane, etc.); Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)(chloroform, benzene, 1,2 dichloroetane, 1,2-dichloropropane,
toulene, chlorobenzene, xylene).
Surface and ground water were also investigated during the remedial
investigation (RI) conducted in September 1990. The conclusions to
that portion of the RI were published in a September 1990 Record of
Decision(ROD). The 1990 ROD also published the alternative selected
to remediate the conlaminalion presenl in the groundwaler. The aclual
design of lhat remedy will be concluded in lhe lall of 1996, and
implemenlalion lo follow shortly !here atter
Ongoing simullaneously 10 lhe Remedial lnvesligation was a lime critical
removal lhat was being conducted by the Superfund Emergency
Response and Removal Program which began in January of 1989. The
time critical removal was conducted in four slages.
In January 1990 2,200 cubic yards of peslicide contaminated soil
and debris were excavaJed and slockpiled on Sile .
In January 1992 and additional 2,000 cubic yards of contaminaled
soil were excavated and added lo the existing slockpile.
In September 1992, 3,110 cubic yards al the existing stockpile
were placed in bags and place in the on-site warehouse for
storage. Also, an additional 11,600 cubic yards of contaminated
soils were excavated at that time and stored on Site.
The final slage of the removal was the treatment of the excavated
soils via lhermal desorption, as was presented in the May 4, 1993
public meeting. The contractors completed the soil treatment on
May 20, 1996.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the RI/F Study, EPA analyzed and estimated the human health
and environmenlal problems that could result if the soil COQtamination at
the Site was not addressed. This analysis is called a Baseline Risk
Assessment. In conducting this assessment, EPA focused on the
human health effects that could result from long-term (30 years) daily,
direct exposure as a result of ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact with
soil, and air which are contaminated with carcinogenic (cancer causing)
chemicals. The baseline risk assessment also focused on the adverse
health effects that could result from long-term (30 years) exposure to
non-carcinogenic chemicals.
In calculating risks to a population if no remedial action is taken, EPA
evaluates the reasonable maximum exposure levels to Site
conlaminants for current and future exposure scenarios. Scenarios were
• developed for residents living or working at the Site. ,\I the time of the
remedial investigatiort EPA concluded lhat the mijjJr risk to human
heallh and lhe environment at the Site would result from the in;iestion of
soil conlaminated wilh pesticides. The, information 'generaieli by the BRA
was factored into the third siage oi 'the remo•iai'·:ar,ti,Jri arid. all
contaminated soils lhat exceeded the remediation goai's were excave:ed
and treated.' The soils whicfi'iemaln on .. site are within the acceptable
risk range of 1x10'', which means lhat only one perscin in.one million
would have an increased chance of contracting cancer. ii that person
came into daily contact with the contaminated soil o,·er a thirty year
period.
For more information about the risk posed by the contamination at the
Site, please refer to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and
Baseline Risk Assessment reports available for review in the repository
at the Brown Library, 122 Van Norden Street, Washington, North
· Carolina 27889.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Following the treatment of the contaminated soils EPA
evaluated the risk associated with the remaining onsite
soils, and has concluded that the soils on site present
no further risk to human health or the .. environment. ·" '·., Therefore, the preferred course of a~ion :,for the
existing soils at the FCX Washington Site is:
No Further Action
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 lhe decision-making process. Public involvement activities undertaken
at Superfund sites consist of interviews with local residents and elected
officials, a comm,mity relations plan for 2ach site, fact sheets, availability
sessions, public meetings, public comment periods, newspaper
advertisements, site visits, anc1 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 August 22,
1996 to September 20, 1996 provide an opportunity for public
involvement in selecting the final cleanup method for this Site. Public
input on all alternatives, and on the infonmation that supports the
alternatives is an important contributio_n to the remedy selection process.
During this comment period, the public is invited to attend a public
meeting on August 29, 1996 beginning at 7:00 PM in the City Council
Chambers, Washington , North Carolina , at which EPA will present
\he Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan
describing the preferred course of action to be undertaken for the soils
at lhe FCX Washington Site and to answer any questions. Because this
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet provides only a summary description, 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 housec'l at the information repository located at the Brown
Public. Libr~ry, i°22 Van Norden Street, Washington, North
Carolina 2788.~, and.offeii:ominents to EPA either orally at tne public
_meeting which"will be''iecorded tiy" a' court reporter' o'r in 'written form
• ' i· ,•.•1 -.\ •• ,. , • during this tinie·period.' ·The actual remedial action could be different
from'_ t~iJ~r.eie/ied alie(native, deperiding"'upon nevi_'in/ciriiiation or
statem~~ts _E~A may_ receive as a result of public comments. If you
prefer to submitwntten comments; please mail them postmarked no later
than midnight ·september 20, 1996 to: . .
Diane Barrett
NC Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Supertund Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
All comments will be reviewed and a response prepared in making the
final determination of the best course of action to be undertaken at the
Site. EPA's. final choice of a remedy will be issued in a Record of
Decision (ROD). A docume·nt called a Responsiveness Summary
summanzing EPA's response to all public comments will also be issued
with the ROD. Once the ROD is signed by the Regional Administrator ii
will become part of the Administrative Record (located at the Ubrary)
which contains all documents used by EPA in making a final
determination.
As part of the Super(und.program, EPA provides affected communities
by a Superfund site with ·the opportunity to apply for a Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG). This grant of up to $50,000 is awarded to only
one community group per.site 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
citizens' group interested in the TAG program needs to submit a Letter
of Intent to obtain an application package from:
, Ms. Riis~mary Patton, Coordinator
· NC Technical Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
,,, . ,:·::Atlanta, GA 30365
" . /404) 347-2234
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
Brown Public Library, 122 Van Norden Street , Washington, North
Carolina 27889, [phone]
Monday-Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Hours:
8:00 a.m. • 9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m .. 1 :00 p.m.
12:00 p.m. • 5:00 p.m.
. . • FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SITE ACTIVITIES, PLEASE
CONTACT: ~
Mr. Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager .... . . --. ' ' . '. . .-,r,1 :-, . . :.. or . _ ;~· ·: .;v,:·
Ms. Diane Barrett, Community lnvplvem~nt Coordinator., ii:
· North Superfund Remedial Branch ·
U.S. Environm.eritat Proteciion ~gency
345 Courtland Str~et, NE
Atlanta, Ga. 30365
Toll Free No: 1-800-435-9233 .
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer. An underground geological fonnation. or group of
fonnations, contain~ng usable mnounts 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 methcxl to be utilized to clean up/treat contamination
at a Supcrfund site. This file is held in the infonnation repository
for public review.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements /ARAR.1").
The federal and state requirements that a selected remedy must
attain. These requirements may vary among sites and various
alternatives.
Baseline Risk Assessme11t A means of estimating the amoU111 of
damage a Supcrfund .site could cause to human heath and the
environment. Objectives of a risk assessment are to: help
determine the need for action: help determine the levels of
chemicals that can remain on the site after cleanup and still protect
health and the environment; :md 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 Responsive, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCI..A). A federal law passed in 1980 and
modified in I 986 by tl1e Supcrfund Amendments mid
Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Acts created a special tax paid
by producers of various chemicals ,rnd oil products that goes into
a Trnst Fund, commonly known as Superfund. 1l1esc Acts give
EPA the autl1ori1y 10 investigate m1d clean up abm1doned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites utilizing money from the
Superfund Trnsl or -by taking legal action 10 force parties
responsible for the contamination to pay for and clean up the site.
Groundwater. Water found beneath tl1e earth's surface that fills
pores between materials such as sand. soil. or gravel (usually in
aquifers) which is often used for supplying wells and springs.
Because groundwater is a major source of drinking water thcrc·is
gro_wing concern over areas where agricultural and industrial
pollutants or substances arc getting into groundwater.
Information Repository. A file cormtini&:curate up•to-datc
infonnation. technical rcpo_rts. reference ct&cnts, information
about the Technical Assist,rncc Grant, and ,my other materials
pcrtinent,lo-the site; This.file--is usually-located in a pub!\~
building such <LS a library. city hall or school. that is accessible for
local residents.
Maximum Contami11a11t Level\· /MCLs). The maximuffi
pcrrnissiblc level of a contaminant in water delivered to any user
of a public wal<!_f system. MCLs are enforceable stan'dards.
National Oil and Hawrduus Substances Contingency Plan
NCI' 11w federal regulation that guides detcnnination of the sites
10 be corrected under the Supcrfund program and the program to
prevent or control spills into surface waters or other portions of
1he environment.
National l'o/Jutant IJL,charge Elimi11atio11 System (Nl'DES). A
provision of the Clem1 Water Act which prohibits the discharge
of pollutants into waters of the linked States unless a speciaJ
permi! is issued by EPA. a state or (where d,elegaied) a 1ribal
government on an Indian reservation allowing a controlled
discharge of liquid after it iias w1dergone treatment.
National Priorities List (Nl'L).-EPA's list of the most serious
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term remedial action under Supcrfund. A s_ite must
be on the NPL 10 receive money from tl1c 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 lcas1·oncc a year:··
Potentially Respo11si.arties (PRPs). Any individual or
company -inclu'ding. owners, operators, trru1spo,rtCrrS, or
generatur,, -potentiaJAy, ;esponsible.for. or contri•\ut'ing'to. u,e
comarriinal"!n problems.at ·a $uperfund site. W,hei1ev,:r possible,
EPA requires PRPS. through administrative and legal. actions, 10
clean up hazardous waste sites PRPs have conuuninateJ. ·
Remedial /nvestigatio11/l'easibility Study (Rl/FS). The Remedi,;i"
Investigatiqn is an in-depth,. extenSive sampling and analy1ical
study to gatl1er da1a necessary to determine u1e nature and exten1
of cont.unination at a SuperfWld site; to establish ·cr"Jteria for
cleaning up the site; a.description and analysis of the potential
cleanup alternatives· for remedial actions; and support the
technical and cost analyses of the 'alternatives. 1l1e Feasibility
study also usually recommend!; selection of a cost-effective
alternative.
Record of Decision (ROD).-A public docume<11 Ulal announces
and explains which method has bee~ se!~ctcd by the Agency to be
used at a Supcrfund,sitc to clean 'Up the contamination.
Removal Action: Short-terrri immediate actions taken to address
releases of hazardous suli~~fo·1ces that require eXpcdited response.
Responsiveness Summary. A summary of oral and written public
comments received by EPA during a public comment period and
EPA's responses io those comments. 1l1e responsiveness
swnmary is a key pan of the I;<ecord of Decision.
Volatile_ Orga11ic Compou11ds (VOCs). Any organic compound
tnaccvapo-ratCs readily imo the
' '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
· ~ I u.o. c-rck,ac ''"""• 1 A fv US PQSTt.G:::
N?rth Superfund Remedial Bra~ch . >--'? \ p""'''' ·--·--;;·
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coard. i ,. 1 ,6s ~
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Region 4
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager 19 '!6 ) \ ~~t;;i;,, 0 0.3 /. ; j
S/F
PUBLIC INFO. ASST.
N.C. SUPERFUNO SECTION
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES '
P. O. tlOX 27687
FCXW0113
HEALTH
RALEIGH NC, 27611-7687
(-,r-r • ,., ,_ • ._ '• I ~-!~..-' Rn-H 526407 ! c:ef:IVF.o _____ __
AUG 21 1996
SUPERFU NDS£cr,oN
1,,l,ll,,,1,ll,,,,,11,,,111,,,1,ll,,1,,l,l,,,ll,,l,l,,,lll,,,I
RECORD O~ECISION FACT SHEET
FCX, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
On September 15, 1993, the Acting Regional Administrator of the
Region IV U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed
the Record of Decision (ROD) which selected the cleanup remedy
for the FCX, Inc. Superfund Site on which the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health & Natural R'esources
concurred. After considering all comments received during the
public comment period and all technical data available, the
alternative selected as presented in the April 1993 Proposed Plan
fact sheet was Alternative 3: Groundwater Pumping and On-
Site Treatment; Discharge to Surface Water.
The selected remedy addresses current and future unacceptable
risks posed by the Site to human health and the environment.
The contaminants of concern that will be treated in the
groundwater are:
pesticides (aldrin; heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide; alpha-, beta-,
and gamma-BHC; dieldrin; 4,4-DDT; 4,4-DDE; 4,4-DDD; endrin;
tcxaphene; chlordane),
volatile organics (chloroform; 1,2-<fichloroethane; 1,2-<fichloro-
propane; benzene; toluene; chlorobenzene; total xylenes),
semi-volatile organics (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate;
pentachlorophenol; carbazole). and
metals (beryllium; chromium; nickel; led; mercury; manganese).
GROUNDWATER
Alternative 3: Groundwater Pumping and On-Site Treatment;
Discharge to Surface Water will remove site-related
contaminants in the groundwater aquifer through on-site
extraction and an above-ground treatment system. A schematic
of the process is featured below. Activities involved in this
remedy include:
Extraction
Vie I Js
Equol lzotlon
Air
Pree Ip I tot lon
September 1993
Utilizing approximately 17 extraction wells which will' be
placed in strategic positions downgradient of the
contaminated area, the groundwater will be pumped from the
aquifer for above ground treatment. Pumping rates as well
as placement of these wells will be determined during the
Remedial Design phase.
Extracted groundwater will flow into an equalization tank
which ensures that a constant, consistent stream of water
flows into the system for treatment.
The water then flows into the top portion of an air stripping
tower and is evenly distributed across the filter through
nozzles. Clean air is introduced into the bottom of the tower
below the filter using an air blower which forces the air
upward through the filter. As the water flows downward
through the filter and the air is forced upward, this action
causes the volatile organic compounds to strip from the
water and enter the air stream. The air then flows throuoh
an activated carbon filter to capture the contaminants befo-re
the air stream is released into the atmosphere. The treated
water stripped of volatile organics falls into the bottom of the
tower and exits to the next step for further treatment to
remove other contaminants.
Next. the water flows into the precipitation tank where certain
chemicals are added (i.e., sodium hydroxide, calcium
hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, or sodium sulfide)
to vary the pH, and transform a contaminant from the
dissolved state into a solid form. The solids settle to the
bottom of the tank and are captured in a filter and the treated
water moves into-the next treatment process -ion exchange.
Ion Exchancie Ce.rbon Adsorpt I on
Air -Air
Str rpper
J
CJ
7
""""=1r I no
Discharge ta
Surroce Weter Fl lter-Fl lt.e,~
· Ion exchange treatment us&ns to. re~ove dissolve/'
metals and other inorganic compounds from the water. This process takes place in a pressurized vessel where the resins react with the contaminants in the water. The reaction continues until.the resins and the water reach equilibrium;
and consequently. the resins remove the metals.
The water then flows through pressurized vessels that
contain beds of granular activated carbon to further filter out any remaining contaminants. The treated water then exits the system, and is monitored to check the effectiveness of the treatment processes.
The treated water will then flow through buried piping and be discharged into Kennedy's Creek. Any water flowing through any system must meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits set by the federal and state governments before it can be discharged. This water flow will be monitored to ensure compliance with
permitting requirements.
.. ,
. B~~-the EP-~ State of North Carofina befieve ~;-the
selected remedy is proiective of human health and tha environmen~ complies with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate, Is cost effective, and meets the other six crtteria utilized for evaluating remedial alternatives. [Note: all nine criteria are listed in the April 1993 Proposed Plan.]
A review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
A copy of the Record of Decision as well as all other documents
developed during the process that were used to make a selection of which remedy to use at this Site are located in the repository:
Brown Library
122 Van Norden Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
T,1e cost of this remedial action (based on 17 extraction wells) is e;;timated at $12,482,892, and will take up to 30 years to cc,mplete.
Hours: Monday• Thursday 9:00 am• 9:00 pm
Friday 9:00 am. 5:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am -1 :00 pm
Sunday 1 :00 pm • 5:00 pm
WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS AND WHAT IS NEXT
As can be seen ,n tne tollov.ing Supertund flow chart we are now moving into the Remedial Design. This step involves preparation of every aspect involved in designing the treatment equipment to health and safety plans to be carried out during the Remedial Action phase. The Re;nedial Design may take 6 to 9 months to complete. After that, actual construction of the treatment process can begin on Site.
Pub I le
Aemedrc. t NPC
Llat.lnQ
F•aBlbl I lt.y i------1 I nveat. 1 oat I o,r--i-..{ Study
Aecoi-d
o~ D•cle!on )-----~
A•med I e. I
Dellilgn
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE, CONTACT:
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager, or
· Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA .M365
Phone: [phone]
Aumedlc.l
Ac't.lon
. I
~--~-------------------------------------'
l\ I, • .. ·". . .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
U.S.OrFICIAL MAIL -North Supertund Remedial Branch ..,~ " ,c 1•
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Ccxif'ci .,, '\:'~~,m u.S.PU,!AGE :
Raglan '1
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Official Bu:;lness
Penalty for Private Use $300
H'~~« :tHPtllJ
SEP 2 8 l:J:JJ
SUPfRF/INnSfCnON
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Ma,nager'23·33 JG~t;;Jor, ::: O ,, 9 :: •
'I. • • 1 ,(.. -• '-,.. • P.!!.Mt;:HI I
S/F
MR. BRUCE NICHOLSON FCXW0014
SUPERFUNO BRANCH 'PROJECT MGR.
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NA:URAL RESOURCES 'HEALTH
IP. O. BUX 27687
RALEIGH
NC 27611-7687
_j
I
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
May 11, 1993
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365 t<f.t1.1'VW
MJH l ~. l!:l~::J .
Ladies and Gentlemen, in an effort to keep the public informed concerning activities a~PhMt~Lon
Suped'und Site, the following ad will appear in the May 17th edition of both the Washington Daily News and the Daily
Reflector as well being mailed to all individuals listed on the Site' R mailing list. This notice extends the public
comment period an additional 30 days due to a mix up in shipping the official records to the wrong library. The
situation has been corrected and all documents are now available in the Brown Library for public review. We
apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused you .
. J}~,6~
Community Relations Coordinator .. _, _______________________________________ _
ANNOUNCEMENT
EXTENSION OF 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD FOR THE
FCX, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
WASHINGTON, NC
Effective this date the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is extending
the public comment period for the FCX, Inc. Washington, North Carolina
Superfuod Site to June 18, 1993. This extension is because the
Administrative Record houaing the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study and other documents covering activities at the Site were
inadvertently shipped to the BHM Library instead of the Brown Library
in the City of Washington. This error has been corrected and now all
documentaticn has been placed in the Brown Library, 122 VanNorden
Street, Washington. The public comment period has been extended 30
days to allow the public the opportunity to review the Site Administrative
Record in the Brown Library.
Please submit your written comments postmarked prior to midnight J uoe
10, 1993 to:
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord.
U.S.E.P.A, Region 4
North Superfuod Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Printed on Recycled'Paper
.. ······ .. ,. ~---.. --.... -..
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET :: ....... _,.· .. ·.·:,· ·_ --·----·-···•... l
GROUNDWATER-REMEDIATION···-·-'
FCX-WASHINGTON
-•-···· . •.••''"•;·\;;:¥ :· WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH ;CAROLINA
...,. ..,~, ....... .-., ..
-·-!"-7.IL..-r,,:.:,! April 1993
J.:.::!t:, ... •····-···· . 'i. /,:t,-~
·· ::INTRODUCTION: This Proposed Plar1identifies the preferred options for cleaning up contaminated groundwater at the FCX-Washington
·superfund Site in Washington, North Carolina. {Terms in bold face print are defined in a glossary located at the end of this publication). This
document is being issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency for Site activities, and the North Car_olina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR), the· support agency. EPA, in consultation with NC DEHNR,
~-•··conducted the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS), and will select a remedy for the FCX-Washington Site only after
the public comment period has ended and all information submitted to _EPA during this time_has_~een_reviewed_ and co_nsidered._ . · _-·
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Ac,t (CERCLA), also known as, Superfund. _ _ __
This document summarizes information that is explained in greater detail in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study reports and other
documents contained in the lnfonmatlon Repository/Administrative Record for this Site: EPA and the State encourage the public to review -
.: I . , . . :-·, ~.-.:. :
·••-4~--··-·· . -·-,,,~;-
· these documents to better understand the Site and the Superfund activities that have been conducted. The Administrative Record is available . · · ... ,.,, •.
'. . for public review locally at the Brown LibfarY:, 122 .Van Norden Street, Washington,' North _Carolina. · -<--. ··•· ·•· • · · ·· '" · ·-· · ·• •• · ;,
'-"·--· .. -. . ... ~c; __ ; .•.. -..•• ,., .. ::• ...... . . ! ' ··-·-. . .:r· _... . ··: i-f,;_:_;:?.f,i}l._. " ... · ' '
EPA, in consultation with NC DEHNR, ni~y :m~dify.the preferred alternative or select anoth~r response action presented in this Pl~n and the ··
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Reports based on new information and/or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged
to review and comment on all alternatives identified here.
THIS PROPOSED PLAN:
1. Includes a brief history of the Site and the principal findings
of Site investigations; ·
2. Presents the alternatives for the Site considered by EPA;
3. Outlines the criteria used by EPA to recommend an
alternative for use at the Site;
4. Provides a summary of the analysis of alternatives;
5. Presents EPA's rationale for its preliminary selection of the
preferred alternative; and, ·.
... 6. Explains the opportunities for the public to comment on the
remedial alternatives.
PUBLIC MEETING
Date: May 4, 1993
Time: 7:00 pm -9:00 pm
Location: Washington Civic Center ·
, Corner 2nd and Gladden Streets -
Washington, North Carolina
30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD:
APRIL 20, 1993 • MAY 20, 1993
·-_..
--.
~. ~-; -· ,,!:.;;:
. •~:-
·! ,:.:;_.· :1. ~ • -;r ~:
C • R
™·a....,=c, .... _;;,.,c,..,~
◊-✓-.-~;.i{~ ✓, ,;,•:'-~-~-"'---~~=--.~-~ .
SITE. LOCATION MAP
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORll-1 CAROLINA
.... .; .•. ~-... on..-... ,,. ··:·:·O~· .. --.... .
<t><>: •.• ,,,., ••••
FIGURE NO.
1
•
COUNTY
.,rl.; •~j ~~ \ t;
-·~••:. .
,
.. ~ .
·•. ···\ ;. •'
' ' ' -•. ·. __ , •.,
""
LEGEND --x-Fl'.HCE ~""""' ---Sl/1!1".ocr•.o.m
-----~~£).
(D SOURC! AA(>.
,00
.o.PPROXIW.I[ J.kU,. Of TH( ll.UI CHCIIC>.i. 8URl,O,l 111["11.:J,
f,Jilll.M'D
CECIL CAl,IP8(U
Tl!OCDG CO. (r.,,._ ro
Wa,_)
'
SITE FEATURES MAP
2
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORll-1 CAROLINA
owructou-s
R(Sllo<J/W,'T 6:
"""""' (form« Bl<t>d"'g ....,,
. -
;-~g.
(F'"'1'T>tt rcx
toro.,• &ild"'Q)
(<
FIGURE NO.
2
'.;-.-c:.~-··-.. ·~ •·· ... .... ··. -···-
, SITE BACKGROUND --
,The FCX Washington Site (hereinafter referred to as the "FCX
Site· or the "Site")is defined as an area located on the western
edge of Washington, :Beaufort County, North Carolina, in which
soil, sediment, surfacii'water, anifgrouncfwaterare contaminated
by multiple sources. (Figure 1) Previous investigations have
•···· indicated that the former Farmers Cooperative Exchange (FCX),
Inc. facility, is one of the· major sources of concern. --This facility
..... _ _ acted as a farm supply distribution center which repackaged and
........ sold pesticides, herbicides, and tobacco.treating chemicals from
1945 to 1985:.. Five potential source areas of contaminatio·n
· related to these pesticide handling and disposal practices have
since been identified in this area .. '.' .
Based on Site investigations conducted by the·North Carolina
.Department of Human Resources in July and August of 1986, the
FCX Site was listed on the National Priorities List in March of
1989. Starting in January of 1989 EPA initiated a removal action
under (removal authority 106 CERCLNSARA). The actual
. removal of contaminated soil has taken place in three stages.
In January 1990 2,200 cubic yards of pesticide contaminated
soil and debris was excavated and stockpiled on Site.
::_·:t:i -~·::: ·-::.~,.~ ._ .. :···-i-n(:.
In January of 1992 EPA excavated an additional 2,000 cubic
-yards of contaminated soil and added_ it to the existing
. ~\ ::r~;;~:~~!?~.~ile:: ··-:;? _-;f\.,:,2? (;~_·. (::·?t.::_:r~, -~-ft~t:•,,~.-~··_.···r: ... ····; i~:r ._., ... :~;:_.:-:-~-....
· The third stage of the removal action began in September of
1992, which· bagged 3,110 cubic yards of the existing
stockpile and place ,the bags in the on-site warehouse for
·. storage, and excavated an additional 11,600 cubic yards of
. : , contaminated soil th_at was also stockpiled on-site. :,c: · . ·
To be as protective as possible of human health and the
environment a fourth. and final stage has been added· to the
removal action. This fourth and final stage will consist of
treatment of the contaminated soils stored on Site. Alternatives
. for treating the soil are discussed in a separate fact sheet being
released at the same time.as this report. EPA is also seeking
community input on soil treatment alternatives. Both soil and
groundwater alternatives will be discussed at the public meeting.
RESULTS OF TliE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
In September 1990 EPA initiated an Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), to evaluate the actual and potential long
term impact the Site has on human health and the environment.
Due to the involvement v.ith the FCX Bankruptcy hearing and
settlement negotiations with Fredd Webb Inc., the (RVFS) field
investigation was delayed until March of 1992.
3
· The ·Remedial Investigation divided the Site into five potential
.source areas ·.of contamination (Figure~·2;.c.·:.Samples were
collected in surface and subsurtace·soils, groundwater, surface
,water .:and sediments .. "" The' Contaminants· ·of· Conce'rii for
: soils/sediments will be'provided .in conjunction 'with·the :fourth
· stage· of:the removal action., Contaminants of Concern for-the
groundwater were pesticides (aldrin, heptachlor,--4,4-DDT, 4,4
ODD, toxaphene, chlordane, etc.): Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) (Chloroform, 1,2· dichloroethane, 1,2:dichloropropane,
benzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, xylene): and melals(beryllium,
nickel, zinc, mercury, manganese). ·The presence of surface
water is seasonal and corresponds to ·rainfall :events:.! For this
reason, remediation of surface water ¼ill be addressed through
· the selected treatment remedy for soils/sediments ..
... ~
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, EPA
analyzed and estimated the human health or environmental
problems that could result if the soil and ground . water
contamination at the FCX Washington Site is not cleaned up.
This analysis is called a Baseline · Risk Assessment. In
conducting this assessment, EPA focused on the human health
effects that could result from long-term (30 .years)-daily, direct
exposure as a result of ingestion, inhalation,"or dermal contact
with, soil,. groundwater, ·and air .which are .contaminated with
carcinogenic. (cancer causing) ;chemicalS:-"The baseline risk
assessment also·focused on the adverse health effects that could
result from long-term (30 years) exposure to non-carcinogenic
chemicals.
In calculating risks lo a population if no remedial action is taken,
EPA evaluates .the reasonable maximum. exposure levels for
current and future exposure scenarios to Site contamina_nts.
Scenarios were developed for residents living or working on the
Site. EPA has concluded that the major risk to human health and
the environment at the Site would result from the ingestion of
groundwater contaminated v.ith pesticides, metals; and VOC's.
For more information about the risk posed by the contamination
at the FCX-Washington Site, please refer to the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study report available for review ·in the
repository at the Brown Library in Washington, North Carolina.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES ,
Remedial response objectives were developed based on the
results of the Risk Assessmen~ examination of potential
Applicable or-. Relevant and Appropriate . Requirements
(ARARs) and threat lo groundwater. Action·, location·, and
chemical-specific ARARs were examined. Chemical-specific
ARARs for groundwater include Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) and North Carolina Groundwater Standards.
Because there are no Federal !te cleanup standards for
. contamination in soil, remediation levels are established to reduce
,soil contamination··to ,.within an acceptable risk ·range and to
,reduce the threat to groundwater.· Remediation levels at the
· JCX,Washington Site will be established at stringent health based
· .levels:; Remediation levels were also established to prevent any
Jurther"degradation .of the groundwater:· All State and Federal
. 'ARARs will be met.
:,': .... ,:;;:r:~;~-.::: ·:: ~:. -_ .
•.. An estimated 20 million gallons of contaminated groundwater will
. ,.,. :;-:requirejemediation.:,,.,_i,::··'·.,,· ,a-i,;,.:,:·•····.:""·• ya_,._,,,,.·.:. ··:'· · ..
,',1<0,·:••,I'.;> •• j
·.SUMMARY OF:REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The following ·section provides· a summary of the alternatives
developed in the Feasibility Study for groundwater remediation.
The primary objective of the Feasibility Study was to determine
and evaluate alternatives for cleaning up the Site.
Descriptions of the clean-up alternatives are summarized below.
The Feasibility Study contains a more · detailed evaluation/
description of each alternative, and is available for review in the
.information repository located in the Brown Library .....
. :··~~;~. ' ...
·The>· i:s,st · inform!lti_on. provided ': below . for 'each_'• alternative
. represents · estimatedc·capital ~·.cost;· annual· operation and
.·. maintenance (O&M).and_ present worth/' Capital cost includes
construction, engineering and .design, equipment, and. Site
development. Operating costs were calculated for activities that
continue after completion of construction, such as ·routine
operation · and maintenance of treatment equipment, and
groundwater monitoring. The present worth (PW) of an
alternative is the amount of capital required to be deposited at the
present time at a given interest rate to yield the total amount
. necessary to pay for initial construction costs and future
expenditures, including Operation & Maintenance and future
replacement of capital equipment.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
r ·•· I
The groundwater alternatives are:
· ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Capital Costs: . O
PW O&M Costs:· ,· .. · $142,635
Total PW Costs: $142,635
Implementation: .: · : None ·
CERCLA requires that the "No Action· alternative be evaluated at
every site to establish a baseline· for comparison. No further
activities would be conducted with Site groundwater under this
alternative. Because this alternative does not entail contaminant
removal, a review of remedy would be conducted every five years
4
• in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA: · Operating
costs are based on this five year review, which would include
sampling existing wells for the contaminants of concern. There
. would be no maintenance costs. . .-.• .. , . ., ..•
. ·. ':;·· ·_::-; , . . ., -•:r•. ·•::· ...
ALTERNATIVE 2: . LIMITED ACTION
Capital Costs: ... $ o •
PW O&M Costs: $142,635
Total PW Costs: $142,635
Implementation:.... Immediately .
Residents are on city water, therefore, an alternative water supply
is not required. Implementation of institutional controls to control,
limit and monitor activities on-site will be required. · This
alternative also requires the long-term monitoring of Site
groundwater based upon 30 years of monitoring. Sampling would
be conducted on existing wells on an annual basis. The five year
review CERCLA requirement would apply to this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND ON-
. SITE TREATMENT; DISCHARGE TO SURFACE
WATER
. Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs: ·
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:·
·. $3,367,813
. $9,115,079 .
$12,482,892
2 years . ·
This alternative includes groundwater extraction of all
contaminated groundwater; ion exchange; metals removal using
precipitation; carbon adsorption for removal of organics, voe
removal using air stripping; and discharge,of the treated effluent
to surface water. The .treated effluent must meet site-specific
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge criteria. Cost for this alternative is based on installation
of 17 extraction wells .
.. ~ '. · .....
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup alternative for the FCX-
Washington Site, as described in this Proposed Plan, is the result
of a comprehensive evaluation and screening process. The
Feasibility Study for the . Site was conducted to identify and
analyze the alternatives considered for addressing contamination.
The report for this Site describes, in detail, the alternatives
considered, as well as the process and criteria EPA used to
narrow the list to potential remedial alternatives to address the
Site ·contamination.
EPA always uses the following nine criteria to evaluate
alternatives identified in the Feasibility Study. While overall
protection of human health and the environment is the primary
objective of the remedial action, the remedial alternative selected
for the Site must achieve the best balance among the evaluation
criteria · considering the scope and relative degree of the
contamination at the Site.
,. • 1. Overall protection ol human health and the environment: ..
EPA assesses ·the degree to which each alternat_ive '.::.:
· · eliminates,'reduces, or controls threats to public health and -
the environment through treatment, engineering methods or... ·
institutional controls. ~ .... . . . .. -.. , ... ,., . . .,,... .
I . •
• EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The io11ov,;~~ i~~-mary pro~;e~: th~ ~~:f~r;-~{ce of.the preferred , ,
alternatives in terms of the nine evaluation criteria noting how it
.. compares to the other alterna~vesunde_r_,consideration-c,~,•,:. :·,!.::.---. . ., ,. - -. .. .......... ~·-·-· ·-..
2. Compliance· with: Applicable or Relevant and ·Appropriate,._. . . . •.-i~iii.c:/·" 'J";~1:i:•~;:~:;· ~:'";;·, '.'. :,·,;•,,
The comparative analysis outlined _below is provided for the
.,:... ... ,,.,.
Requirements (ARARs): The alternatives are evaluated for·:":·
compliance with all State and Federal environmental and
public health laws and requirements that apply_ or are
relevant and appropriate to the site conditions. ··· ·
3. Cost: The benefits of implementing a particular remedial.
alternative are weighed against the cost of implementation. ·
Cost include the capital (up-front) cost of implementing an
alternative over the long term, and the net ·present worth of
both capital and operation and maintenance costs. · . ., ·
4. Implementability: EPA considers the technical ieasibility
(e.g., how difficult the alternative is to construct and operate)
and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of coordination
with other government agencies that is needed) of a remedy,
including the availability of necessary materials and services.
groundwater remediation al'.ernatives.:,,:o·: :· :-:c· .
·.::;.'' .. , .. ' .•.
.:GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION: ..
. -•""·' ' . '. -•.':' . .:•_:!-:. ''·;··::t.' ..
The follov.;ng alternatives were subjected ·10 detailed analysis for
migration control and . remediation of the .contaminated
groundwater:
Alternative 1: No Action .
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative3: Groundwater Pumping; On-site
Treatment; Discharge to Surface Water
. !· . .:.-.... , : . · •
.. . Overall Protection: Due to the absence ol receptors groundwater s:' Short-term effectiveness: The length of time. needed to · ', ' poses no risks to huma·n' healih and ihe envir~omen(_under"
. r.:·
implement each alternative is considered, and EPA asse·sses . .. . . .. currenl conditions .. The no action and limited action alternatives
the risks that may be posed to workers and nearby resident~·':'·-" ""·woiikVrio"t'· addiess contaminant levels in groundwater· and
!: during construction and implementation. therefore would: not be. protective::·under potential future.
-, · conditioris>:'Alternative ·3 ·-would· recover".all/coritaminated
6.. Long-term effectiveness:'· The alternatives aie evaluated groundwater to meet remediation levels, therefore, it would be
based on their ability to maintain reliable protection of public protective.
health and the environment over time once the remediation
levels have been met.
7. Reduction of contaminanttoxicity, mobility, and volume: EPA
evaluates each alternative based on how it reduces _(1}:the, ·
harmful nature of the contaminants; (2f their ability to move
through the environment:' and (3) the volume or amount of ·
contamination at the site. ·
8. State acceptance: EPA requests State comments on the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study reports, as well
as the Proposed Plan, and must take into consideration
whether the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment
on EPA's preferred alternative. ·
9. Community acceptance: To ensure that the public has an
adequate opportunity to' provide input, EPA holds a public
comment period and considers and responds to all
comments received from the community prior to the final
selection of a remedial action.
5
Compliance With ARARs: MCLs and NC Groundwater Standards
are ARARs for Site groundwater. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
comply v.;th ARARs. Alternative 3 would attain ARARs. There_
· are no location-specific ARARs. Construction of the groundwater
recovery, treatment, and discharge -system_s: for:' Alternative 3 ·
. would satisfy action-specific ARARs ... -:.· .. ,._,,·.,-,hi,.,,_
Long-term Effectiveness and P-e~anende~
0
Unde'r Alt~!~atives 1 .
and 2, groundwater would continue to migrate off-site;therefore,
they are not considered to be permanent or effective remedial
solutions. Contaminant concentrations would be permanently
reduced thrc.ugh groun_dw~terrnco~ery __ for Alternative 3.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume: Alternatives 1 and 2
would not significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contaminants in groundwater. Alternative 3 would reduce the
volume of contaminants through· recovery and trealment and
comply with the statutory preference for alternatives involving
treatment.
_, .
• Short-term Effectiveness:' All of ·the alternatives can be' .
implemented without significant r'lsk lo the community or on-sile
workers and without adverse environmental impacts. •·-•.'· .. :1, ··-··.; .. ' . "';_;.::,.)-." i!~'J
Implementability: All ·of the alternatives· could be implemented:
without any significant concerns.
. Cost: Total present worth costs for the groundwater remediation
alternatives are presented below: -.. . " '. :r;.':·: .. ~.:.:.:·.:: :'··'
Alternative 1:
Altematlve 2:
· · ,: Altematlve 3:
$ 142,635
: · $ 142,635
$12,482,893
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
State Acceptance: __ The NCDEHNR has reviewed and provided
EPA with comments on the· reports and data from the Remedial
Investigation and the Feasibility Study ... · :· .. :. :·. · · · ·
Community Acceptance: Community acceptance of the p·referr~d
alternative will be evaluated after the public comment period ends
and a:_ response to "each· comment will be-included in -a
Responsiveness Summary which will be a part of the Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Site. · -.. ' ; ... , ..
After conducting a· detailed analysis of all the feasible cleanup alternatives based on the criteria described in the previous sections, EPA is proposing a comprehensive, multkomponent cleanup plan to address
~"'grollridwatef-contamin'ation at the Site: The EPA preferred alternative is: .... ~:_;;~~:;:-:_-,·-·--~:;_[..::,~,-: :-;. :i·:·-: :::.;::: .. : ·.···· .. .. . . .· . . . ' . . . . ..
Alternative 3 -Groundwater extraction; On-Site treatment; Discharge to Surface Water
TOTAL: $12,482,892
Based on current information, .this alternative appears to provide the best balance of trade-offs with -respect to the nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluate alternatives, EPA believes.the preferred alternative. will satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 121(b) of CERCLA, 42 use 9621 (b), which provides that the _sel_ected alternative be protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and treatments to the maximum extent practicable, The selection of the above alternative is preliminary and could change in response to public comments,
6
.,
..
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated by Congress under Superfund to respond to dtizen'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 Superiund sites consist of interviews_\\'ith_ 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 actioris:neeited to keep the commuiiity'infonned and involved.· . .• , . , . .
.... ,..,, , . ',..,,, . ,,, ... ,., •. ~ ... ,..-,~.;.'.";.-~;::;•• . .:.: '. ; •• ···,. :·-,;;,..!•
EPA is conducting a 30-day public comment period from· April Jri i~'M.i{20·, ,1993, to provide an opportunity for public involvement Yt __ in selecting the final cleanup method for this Site. Public input on all alternatives, and on the information that supports the alternatives ....:...-.. • ••• • --•••••"' ••·•~·•·••·•••"f.Y""•"•'-,•••• ' .,,· is an important contribution to the remedy selection process: ·During this comment period, the public is invited to attend a public meeting ·
... on May 4, 1993, at the Washington Civic Center; Corner 2nd and Gladden Streets;Washington, 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 contaminated groundwater at the FCX-Washington Superfund Site and to answer any questions. Because this Proposed
Plan Fact Sheet provides only a summary description of the cleanup alternatives being considered, the public is encouraged to consult
the 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
Brown Library,' 122 Van Norden Street, Washington, North Carolina and offer comments to EPA either orally at the public meeting which
will be recorded by a court reporter or in written form during this time period. The actual remedial action could be different from the
preferred alternative, depending upon new information or statements EPA may receive as a result of public comments. II you prefer to
submit written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight May 20, 1993 to:
.. Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.£P.A., Region 4
,iNorth RemedlaisupertundBranch :_~ ··-.·.:' •.. ·.
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 will
begin negotiations with the Potentially Responsible Parties (~_RP_s) to allo\\' 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 Triisf 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.
As part of the Superfund program. EPA provides affected communities by a Supertund site with 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 site 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 citizens' group interested in the TAG program needs to submit a Letter of Intent to_obtain an applicati_on package from:
Ms. Rosemary Patton, Coordinator
NC Technica!Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division _
U.S.£P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
/404) 347-2234
7
-... .. .. : 'i -'' ·.·" ... .-........ . .... , . .. ---, ...... •.
' .... . ·•····· .. .. .. ... ,. .. . .. .. . -.. , .... , .. . ... '·•·-·•··· ... .. ... : •,·c-·o,_, -··· .. ···-. -; ,, .. : .. .. . ,. . , .......
;,~,-'''.";, : ' .. ...... .. . . ... •,·• ' . . . . . . -,~ .. ,. ·,··
INFORMATION REPOSITORY LOCATION:
. Brown Library. ·. ·. ----·· --•----. ···-.. · ·122 vaiiNcirileri Stree1·: · ... .. Washington; North Carolina 27889 .· .
Phone: [phone]
Hours: Monday -Thursday · 9:00 am. -9:00 p.m.
Friday" ·· 9:00 a.m. ~ 5:00 pm. , .. ..
Saturday 9:00 am. -1:00 pm.
Sunday 1 :00 p.m. -5:00 pm.
•.
I I
.. .. ,,,~:-"'
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SITE ·ACTIVmES, PLEASE CONTACT:
Mr. Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager or
Ms. Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
· North Superfund Remedial Branch ·, .
· , Waste Management Division• ·· >
. U.S. Environmental ProtectioifAgency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street'NE .. . . , .. At1aiita; Ga'aoass"'. . . . . •..
Toll Free No.: f-800435-9233
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells · and springs.
Administrative Record: A file which is maintained and contains all information used by the lead agency to make its decision on the selection of a method to be utilized to clean up/treat contamination at a Supertund site. This file is held in the information repository for ~~~M ..
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs/: The federal and state requirements that a selected remedy must attain. These requirements may vary among sites and various alternatives.
·' -
•••• •• • • .. . ~-. . • ... ": .. . . . -..
Baseline Risk Assessment: A means of estimating the amount of damage a Superfund site could cause to human heath and the environment. Objectives of a risk assessment are to: help determine the need for acfion; help determine the levels of chemicals that can remain on the site after cleanup and still protect health and the environment; and provide a basis for comparing different cleanup methods.
_;~ :.', •-., \.'""!' •·:,-. • : ~:..i: . : i' •'. Carcinogenic: Any substance that can cause or contribute to the production of cancer; cancer-producing.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Uab/1/ty Act (CERCLA): A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reautho~zation Act (SARA). The Acts created ·a ·special tax paid by producers of various chemicals and oil products that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund. These Acts give EPA the authority to investigate D~ ·:;:;;·;. .. and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites utilizing money from the Superfund Trust or by taking legal action to force :•:· · ... ) parties responsible for the contamination to pay for and clean up the .site .. ·· ......... >., .... • • • •
Groundwater: Water found beneath:the earth's surface that fills pores between materials such as sand, soil, or gravel (usually in aquifers) which is often used for supplying wells and springs. Because groundwater is a major source of drinking water there is growing concern over areas where agricultural and industrial pollutants or substances are getting into groundwater. ·
Information Repository: A file containing accurate up-to-date information, technical reports, reference documents, information about the Technical.Assistance Grant, and any other materials pertinent to the site. This file is usually located in a public building such as a library, city hall or school, that is accessible for local residents.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water delivered to any user of a public water system. MCLs are enforceable standards.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP): The federal regulation that guides determination of the sites to ·· ·:.:. · .. be corrected under the Superfund program and the progiam to prevent or control spills into surface waters or other portions of the •... environnien1.······ ..... : ·•.'• . . ... ·-.. .,•--..... 1----· :·:±:':t'.~;:,_\~·-•,\-~ ·:•a•:·· '-'",~ . l~s>-'7 --~-:·:.:·a . · : : · , National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESJ: A provision of the Clean Water Act which prohibits the discharge of .. · ,_: pollutants into waters of the linked States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state or (where delegated) a tribal government· on an Jndian reservation allowing a controlled discharge of liquid after it has undergone treatment. . ' .!---:-~: ..• ,. • •
, :;,;;;. National Priorlilesllst (NPL):.EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible · long-term remedial action under Superfund:· A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action. The list is tiased prim.arily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year. .. • ...... • •• . . ·
,.,., .. , Potent/ally Responsible Pan/es (PRPs): Any individual or company .: including owners, operators, transporters, or generators • ·········potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPS, through administrative and legal actions, to clean up hazardous wasle sites PRPs have contaminated.
Remedial lnvestlgatlon!Feas/b/1/ty Study (Rl!FS):The Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive sampling and analytical study to gather d.ata necessary lo determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; to establish criteria for cleaning up the she; a description and analysis of the potential cleanup alternatives for remedial actions; and support the technical and cost analyses of the alternatives. The Feasibility study also usually recommends selection of a cost-ettective alternative.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that announces and explains which method has been selected by the Agency to be used at a Supertund site to clean up the contamination.
Removal Action: Short-term immediate actions taken to address releases of hazardous substances that require expedited response.
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.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCS): Any organic compound that evaporates readily into the air at room temperature.
9
• • ~ ~-. ,'..::(:~~
r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' '
..
'. .~':~!
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
If you are not already on our malling 11st and would like to be placed on the 11st to iecelve future Information on the FCX-
Washtngton 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: _______________________________ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ,;.-1 .··-·,~-_.: .. ::.; L ·•-• __ . -. _;· .. _________ . _______________________________________________________________________________________ J
-j\fif?.f>t:~:r~-t~\ -_-., ._ ~ ,-:-~:t~-:~_:;-;,.~•--::.!--:;.._ •. _: --~-_ _: ... --,
:.:...:..•..:..~----"'-.::.'-:._ ... --::-:..-~ . .,._ .. ·: ;,";:.-,~.;•:., :.::' -.-. :.-··-----
. ✓,;~\.A" US.OFFICIAL MAIL·.• -""i, "-"" w .,.."' r-:,-:,-;c:c=-~ • ./'fr. .· -V\PENALn I U.S.DOSTAGE 1-
,.;;;'. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency North Superfund R~m~dial 8;~11~~ .. \ . : .' '. !,'<Jf~t-;;:1/ ::: 0 .5 2 _,,/1'_ .... 345 Courtland Stree~ N.E. . .Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coor~ .QV'.~,7;;:0
~.-. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Michael Townsend/Remedial ProJectManager
glon 4 ..
'clal Business
1alty for Private Use $300
SUPERfUND SEUION
S/F
MR. MICHAEL KELLY
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SWMO
FCXWOOlS
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
C NATURAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
::: 1: -.
J.
.
EXTRACTION
WELLS
Groundwater Treatment
EQUALIZATION
BAG
FILTER
AIR
STRIPPING
BAG
FILTER
CARBON ADSORPTION
:.::•
. :•:•• ... ... . . .. . . . ..... : ... ....... . ....
DISCHARGE
MONITORING
,. • Rt.Gt.I VR:V
APR 30 l':i',J
The Superfund5tlff-l
FCX-WASHINGTON
Program
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNl'Y, NORTH CAROLINA April 1993
INTRODUCTION:
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Superfund
Emergency Response and Removal Program was created to respond to
actual or potential releases of hazardous substances that may
threaten public health or welfare. A removal action is a short
term response intended to stabilize or clean up an incident or
site. Tnese actions may include, but are not limited to, removing
hazardous substances and disposing of them off-site or treating
them on-site.
REMOVAL BACKGROUND:
In January of 1989, EPA ·initiated a removal action under 104
removal ·authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund
and the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA). The
actual removal of contaminated soil took place in three stages.
* 2,200 cubic yards of pesticide soil and debris was
excavated and stockpiled on Site in January of 1990.
*In December, 1990, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material was transported off site to a hazardous
waste landfill. Lack of funding and an EPA restriction on future
landfilling of this type of waste prevented the remainder of the
waste from being landfilled.
*EPA excavated an additional 2,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and added it to the exising stockpile in
January of 1992.
*EPA bagged 3,110 cubic yards of the existing stockpile and
placed the bags in an on-site warehouse for storage during the
third phase of the removal action in September of 1992. The
Agency excavated an additional 11,600 cubic yards of contaminated
soil which was also stockpiled on-site during this time.
The fourth and final stage of the removal action will consist of
treating the contaminated soil stored on Site. The purpose of
this :fact sheet is to inform the public of the soil treatment
technology selected by the Superfund removal program for cleanup
at the FCX-Washington Site. Soil treatment alternatives will also
be presented to the Washington community on Tuesday evening, May
4, 1993 at the Washington Civic Center on the corner of Second
and Gladden Street from 7.:00 p.m. until 9 p.m.
A public comment period will extend thirty (30) days from April
27, 1993 until May 26, 1993. At the end of the comment period, a,
written response to all pertinent comments will be prepared in a
responsiveness summary and placed in the site administrative
record file. Written comments should be sent to Paul Peronard at
the address listed under "contact" on the last page of this fact
sheet.
•
SOIL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated three alternatives for the treatment of the pesticide contaminated soil now stockpiled at the FCX Site. These are: shipping the material to an off-site incinerator; on-site incineration of the contaminated soil; or on-site thermal desorption of the· contaminated soil. The Agency's preferred treatment technology is the on-site thermal desorption of the contaminated soil. Outlined below is a discussion of these treatment options:
1. Off-Site Incineration
2.
Off-site incineration involves transporting the stockpiled contaminated soil to a commercial incinerator. There is commercial incineration capacity available in the country. but none in North Carolina. All costs incurred would be Capital Costs, with no Operation and Maintenance (O&M) needed.
Capital Costs:
O&M:
$ 30,300,000
0 Total: $ 30,300,000
This option could be implemented within six months, and would take an additional six months to complete. The cost estimate is based on off-site incineration of 14,700 tons@ $2000/ton. Loading and transportation would add approximately $900,000.
On-Site Incineration
On-site incineration would require the assembly of a mobile incinerator with the appropriate ancillary equipment. The contaminated soil would be processed through the unit and deposited back on-site, There are a large number of commercially available mobile incineration units in the country and the southeast. Again all costs would be Capital Costs.
Capital Costs: $
O&M:
Total: $
4,000,000
0
4,000,000
Contracting for on-site incineration would take six to eight months. The processing of the contaminated soil would take an additional eight to twelve months. The cost estimate is based on the incineration of 14,700 tons at a nominal cost of $250/ton. An additional $150,000 has been added in start-up costs, and another $150,000 for the handling of the processed soil. The $250/ton is based on the Agency's experience with similar wastes and volumes,
-

2

-
• •
3. On-Site Thermal Desorption
On-site thermal desorption involves physically separating
the contaminants from the soil by heating them in a
non-combustible atmosphere so that they vaporize off of the
soil. The contaminants are then either treated on-site at
higher temperatures, or collected and shipped off-site for
incineration. On site treatment technologies are typically
either a catalytic cracking or a vapor phase incineration.
The Agency is not considering a vapor phase •incineration
technology for this project. However, on-site catalytic
cracking will be considered, if a system can be designed
without an air discharge. Separating the contaminants from
the soil allows for the soil to be placed back on-site, and
yields a much smaller volume of concentrated waste to be
handled further. For example, the 14,700 cubic yards of
contaminated soil at the FCX Site would yield roughly 25
cubic yards of concentrated pesticide waste (assuming an
average pesticide concentration in the soil of 1000 ppm).
Capital Costs: $
O&M:
Total: $
4,600,000
0
4,600,000
To arrange contracting for an on-site thermal desorption
unit will take six to eight months. The processing of the
contaminated soil will take an additional eight to t~elve
months. The cost estimate is based on the treatment of
14,700 tons of contaminated soil at a nominal rate of
$285/ton, including the off-site disposal of the
concentrated pesticide waste. An additional $150,000 was
added for start-up costs, with another $150,000 to handle
the processed soil.
EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SOIL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
As stated above, the Agency's preferred soil treatment technology
is thermal desorption. The following is a discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of the three treatment
alternatives. There are many variables associated with
implementing any environmental clean-up, however this evaluation
focused on the following:
1. Risk reduction and environmental protection
2. Technical capability
3. Technical feasibility
4. Cost
5. Public/state acceptance
- 3 -
• •
For the first two criteria above, all three of the treatment alternatives discussed are fully satisfactory. All three would provide a permanent removal of the hazardous substances in question, and would therefore eliminate both short and long-term risks posed by the contaminated soil. All three technologies are capable of treating the contaminated soil if implemented properly.
There are several major differences, however, when considering the cost and technical feasibility; cost being the most obvious. As can be seen with the cost estimates above, the price of off-site incineration is more than six-fold the cost of either the on-site treatment technologies. This cost differential is also compounded by the problems of shipping the waste out-of-state. Although not a terminal risk, the potential for accidents or other spills while enroute are greater than those posed by handling the material on-site. In addition, it would take roughly 1000 truckloads to transfer all of the material off-site, which could impose scheduling difficulties with a commercial incinerator. Because of these problems, off-site incineration is .not considered a viable alternative by the Agency.
The costs of the two on-site treatment technologies are of a comparable magnitude and they are similar in implementation. Incineration has a longer history of use, is a proven technology, and by the preliminary estimates, appears to be cheaper. Thermal desorption is an innovative technology that has shown significant promise and has several operational advantages. Desorption systems do not generate fly ash or other air pollution control sludges; they can be operated to have no stack or air emissions; energy requirements are usually less than incineration; there are no products of incomplete combustion (since there is no combustion); no form2tion of soi or Nitrous oxides; the treated soil is not oxidized or •fixed', by the treatment; there is no increase in the gas phase volume due to the direct addition of fuel; and there is more flexibility in collecting and treating aqueous by-products.
The remaining consideration is public/state acceptance. In addition to being extremely more expensive than either of the on-site, there is an additional problem with off-site incineration. In 1991, then Governor Jim Martin, of North Carolina, requested that the EPA not ship any waste from the FCX-Washington Site (as well as other Superfund Sites) out of the State of North Carolina. The request was made in part because of agreements and obligations made by the State of North Carolina with other State Governments in the Southeast as part of a Regional Hazardous Waste Capacity Compact. EPA has agreed to honor this request when technically feasible. In this case there is ample reason to prefer on-site treatment of the contaminated soil.
-

4

-
/ • •
EPA also believes that public acceptance will be greater for
on-site thermal desorption than for on-site incineration. In the
past the·City Government of Washington, as well as some residents
have been openly opposed to the installation of a temporary
mobile incinerator. Most of these objections centered around
fear of potentially harmful stack emissions. Thermal desorption
simply eliminates this issue.
Taken as a whole, the EPA believes that the combination of
operational advantages and public acceptance makes thermal
desorption a better option than on-site incineration.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Paul Peronard, On-Scene Coordinator
Emergency' Response and Removal Branch (WMD)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia 30365
(404) 347,_ 3931
H. Michael Henderson, Community Relations Coordinator
Emergency,Response and Removal Branch (WMD) u. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia 30365
(404) 347 ,_ 3931
------------------------------------------------------------------MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
If you would like to be added to the removal action site mailing
list to receive future information on soil treatment activities
at the FCX-Washington, North Carolina Superfund Site, please
complete the form below and return to Michael Henderson,
Community .Relations Coordinator at the EPA address listed above:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (AC. __ _
------------------------------------------------------------------
- 5 -
FCX WASHINGTON
SITE
N O R T H
CAROLINA
'I/ashing ion
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
-----BEAUFORT COUNTY
FIGURE NO.
1-1
:......: :......c
J.,_ -
~AilONAL
S?!NNING
!Fr:.
00 ~ -. ~ \ WAS~[WATER ""
.i.. iREATMENi ...
?LANT
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
AREA FEATURES MAP
FCX WASHINµTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
1
250 O 250 :DD !SlS,«-
SCALE IN r"EE:1
LEGEND
su~rACt WAT[R C:-lANNll
~ -..!:.., W[ilANDS
7::IE:E:ur--.·::
"'
"'
% ',,
,,,_ ~
"" A
FIGURE NO.
1-2
J
,,,>-~\
, ~ '\'\
\ ~. \ ~-... ·. \ " " \~
" CD \.
\ ~··.\\
2GO
'::HARLIE mv:s
RESiAURANT &
:JYSH:R 8A2
(;armer 31e:icing
8· .. :'ilcin::;)
W.8. C::RARO
&: SONS. INC.
(Former FCX o Storcge Building)
LEGEND
-···-SURFACE w:..,rn
____ s:::: .. ;ri'CE A;:A
BOUNDARY
@ s:::~RCE A;EA
FARMLAND
CECIL CAMPBEcL
iRUCKING CO.
(Former r"CX
Worenouse) /. , ..
/
/
C'
<"i,
/
/
/ ' / ~~,-~~ ~ . ,
~~// . ~-/
~\
A::::2ox1MAiE AREA or ii-.:: V.AIN CHEMICAL
3URIAL iRENCr.
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
SITE FEATURES MAP
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
LATHAN
RESIDENCE
(Farmer FCX
Office)
FIGURE NO.
1-3
C 0
0 0 0 N
Si
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
01 ti z : v:v: w 1·,~-. r· . Cl I l· . WI.·. _, I~
Sc C
> ===
FIGURE NO.
2-8
Pesticides • •
• Aldrin: ND 0.98 µg/1
• Heptachlor: ND 2.1 µg/1
• Heptachlor epoxide: ND 0.49 µg/1
• Alpha-BHC: ND 4.1 µg/1
• Beta-BHC: ND 1.7 µg/1
• Gamma-BHC: ND 8 µg/1
• Delta-BHC: ND 10 µg/1
• Dieldrin: ND 2.6 µg/1
• 4,4-DDT: ND 4.6 µg/1
• 4,4-DDE: ND 0.42 µg/1
• 4,4-DDD: ND 13 µg/1
• Endrin: ND 1.2 µg/1
• Endosulfan sulfate: ND 0.21 µg/1
• Toxaphene: ND 110 µg/1
• Gamma-chlordane: ND 1.6 µg/1
• Alpha-chlordane: ND 0.77 µg/1
• Endrin ketone: ND 2.9 µg/1
Metals
• Beryllium: ND 21 µg/1 • Nickel: ND 140 µg/1 • Zinc: 15 370 µg/1 • Mercury: ND 2.8 µg/1 • Manganese: 25 9500 µg/1
Volatile Organics
• Chloroform: ND 14 µg/1 • 1,2-Dichloroethane: ND 35 µg/1 • 1,2-Dichloropropane: ND 390 µg/1 • Benzene: ND 830 µg/1 • Toluene: ND 2200 µg/1 • Chlorobenzene: ND 160 µg/1 • Total xylenes: ND 3300 µg/1
Semi-Volatile Organics
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: ND 68 µg/1
• Carbazole: ND 10 µg/1
• Pentachlorophenol: ND 78 µg/1
• TABLE 9-4 • REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR GROUNDWATER
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
,' '',
. -~-. REMEDIATION
CONTAMINANT . LEVEL BASIS
'' ' (in ug/1) ' '< ' ' ··<· ii,·
''
Pesticides
Aldrin 0.005 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario Heptachlor 0.076 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Heptachlor epoxide 0.038 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Alpha-BHC 0.014 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario Beta-BHC 0.047 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario Gamma-BHC 0.0265 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Dieldrin 0.0053 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario 4,4-DDT 0.25 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residen.tial Land Use Scenario 4,4-DDE 0.25 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario 4,4-DDD 0.35 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario Endrin 0.20 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Toxaphene 0,031 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Chlordane 0.027 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L)
Volatile Organics
Chloroform 0, 19 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0,38 J NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) / ,• 1,2-Dichloropropane ----o:56 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Benzene 1 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Toluene 1,000 Maximum Contaminant Level
Chlorobenzene 100 Maximum Contaminant Level
Total xylenes 400 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L)
Semi-Volatile Organics
Bis (2 -eth ylhexyl) p hthalate 6 Maximum Contaminant Level
Pentachlorophenol 1 Maximum Contaminant Level
Carbazole 4.3 Based on CSF Value Applied to Residential Land Use Scenario
Metals
Beryllium 4 Maximum Contaminant Level
Chromium 50 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Nickel 100 Maximum Contaminant Level
Lead 15 Treatment Technique Action Level Mercury 1,10 NC Groundwater Quality Standards (15NCAC 02L) Manganese 697 Average Background Concentration
(Greater than 15NCAC 02L of 50 uq/1)
9-14
/~\\ -~ ~ ~ +'
·~ ~.~
\ ~ . ·.
l
LEGEND
-x-=-:~:::
,.._....-...... •tE.::~1NE
9 MONITOR WEL~
s:-:ALLOW PES"T1C:OES
:::C:.'{I"AMINAilO.~
J::? ?£,SilC1c:s
::::;.\'iAMINATIO~
V.W2-5
MW2-DP
COM FPC ARCS IV
MWS-S!-1
MWS-OP
~
CHARLIE TOM'S
RESTAURANT &
OYSTER SAR
~
W.9. G[RARD
& SONS. iNC.
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF PESTICIDES CONTAMINATION ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS IN GROUNDWATER
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
V.W4-SH
MW4-DP
. Wl-SH
Wl-DP
/:.j,
(<
FIGURE NO.
9-1
2C8
,\ ~~'~
~\\
SCALE !N FE~T
LEGEND
-···-SURFACE WAiER
9 MONITOR WELL
0
0
S;-:Al.i.CW VE"!A'...S
:8:s;iAMINA-;'"1Q~•
:J::::? v1E'iA!.S
:'.:'.::,1.;TAMINATION
.\ ~\
V.W2-Si-t
MW2-□::i
'
CHARLIE TOM'S
-~ESTAURANT !it.
~ OYSiER BAR
~WJ-S,'1 --"<-=--""'®'
MW8-SH
MW8-0?
V.WJ-Q;::
~ ~~=-~~W6
' ~ =======~=~ ~ ---1'1-----STAFF --WMW3
GAUGE -~---_-
--w
CDM FPC ARCS IV
W.3. GERARD
& SONS, iNC.
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF METALS CONTAMINATION ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS IN GROUNDWATER
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
~W4-SH
.\AW4-0P
MWl -SH
MW1-0P
(<
THAM
RESIDENCE
FIGURE NO.
9-4
~~·~
*
-N-
I ~
SCALE IN FET
LEGEND
-X-FENCE
~ iREEUNE
-···-SURFACE WATER
& MONITOR WELL
I
\ _\\ . · ..
MW3-S:--! --~IC>'
MW3-DP
CHARLIE TOM'S
RESTAURANT &
OYSTER BAR
~
0 <::HALLOW VOLATILE
ORGANICS CONTAMINATION
<,,
MWS-SH
MWS-D~
MW8-SH
MW8-0P
STAFF
GAUGE
0
MW6-
•. , MW6-
<:::::\<::;::w··MW01
··:::::::.·:::::::/
CDM FPC ARCS IV
W.9. GERARD & SONS. INC.
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF voes CONTAMINATION ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS IN GROUNDWATER
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MW4-SH
MW4-0P
((
FIGURE NO.
9-2
~~'~
~~-.
~ '• .
• C~ARLIE !Qt,,•,'S
1
:
V.W2-
MW2-DP
)
,,wJ-Sc ---w<~
VW.3-0P
~:SiAURANi &
O':'STER BAR
' "b "b
W.8. GERARD LEGEND 7 & SONS. INC.
-x-~:::-.:CE
,........,.,..._ l~EELINE
-··--S'Jf~FACE WAiE.~
9 MONITOR WELL
~ S.-iALL□W S[MI-VOlATIL[
'2Y 8.=--IGANICS CO~TAMINA TION
_COM FPC ARCS IV
0
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SVOCs CONTAMINATION ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS IN GROUNDWATER
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MW4-SH
MW4-DP
FIGURE NO.
9-3
IGW
2GW
3GW
•
TABLE ES-3
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
. Descriptionof·Proc~s·••Optio~ Erriployed
No Action
Limited Action
Deed restrictions
Long-term groundwater monitoring
Pump all contaminated groundwater by 17 well points
Air stripping
Precipitation, flocculation, clarification, and filtration
Ion exchange
Carbon adsorption
Deed restrictions
Long-term groundwater monitoring
'J.
•
•
Extraction
Wells
Equalization
Riter
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
Air
Air
Air
Stripper
Preci pltati on
Filter
Ion . Carbon
Exchange Adsorption
Monitoring
Discharge
To
Surface
Water
PA Factl About
Incineration
What is incineration?
Incineration is one of the technologies available to
treat hazardous wastes. It cm destroy organic
compounds in wastes such as dioxins and
polychlorinated biphcnyls (PCBs). Incinerators can
handle many forms of waste, including contaminated
soils, sludges, solids and liquids. Some incinerators
provide for the recovery of energy.
Incineration, however, destroys only organic suhstanccs,
it is not effective in the frcatmc'nt of inorganic
substances such as hydrochloric acid, salts, and metals.
How does incineration work?
Incineration is accomplished by using high temperatures
(between 160{l°F and 2500"F) to degrade contaminants.
Toxic chemicals can be reduced to the basic clements
(hydrogen, carbon, chlorine, nitrogen, etc.). These combine
with oxygen to form non-toxic substances such as water
(hydrogen and ox-ygen), carbon dioxide (carbon and oxygen),
and nitrogen oxides (nitrogen and oxygen). Inert ash,
organic-free particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and small
concentrations of organic materials may also be present in
the combustion gas. Properly done, high-temperature
incineration is an effective, odorless, and smokeless process.
What happens to the residues produced by
incineration?
_-=:,:;.-.·; ·:·
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
incinerator regulations assume that all ash and
particulates removed from the stack and the bollom of
the burner unit arc hazardous. Accordingly, they must
be disposed of at a RCRA-periniucd facility; (The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA,
as it is called, is the law that regulates the handling of
hazardous wastes). In actdition,scrnbher water must
meet the Clean Water Act standards before it can be
discharged to surface waters.
June 1992
Can highly toxic wastes be destroyed hy
incineration?_
A common m_iSconccption is that the more toxic the
chemical, the more difficult it is to burn. Although some
chemical compounds arc more difficult 10 dc;trov ev
incineration than others, case ofrhcmw/ decompn.fi'tiu,1 is_nl;t
related to toxicity. EPA research has dcmonstrntc-d 1hat
Llcstruction of organic wastes occurs independent of toxicity.
This is encouraging news, because it means that chcmic:J\s
ranging "rrom complex pesticides 10 PCBs, benzene and dioxin
:di ·break down under heat; provided that specific conditions
arc met.
Are the wastes. completely destroyed b'y
incineration?
No incinerator can destroy 100 percent of the
hazardous wastes fed into it. Small amounts are·
released into the atmosphere through the incinerator
stack or are mixed with the ash. EPA requires that
each incinerator meet stringent performance standards.
A standard of 99.99 percent has been set for
destruction and removal of all hazardous wastes
processed in incinerators. For PCBs and dioxin-listed
wastes, the standard is 99.9999 percent or that cinly
one pound of an organic compound may be released 10
the air for every 1,000,000 pounds fed into the
incinerator. When operated properly, hazardous waste
incinerators can meet or exceed these requirements
which have been developed lo protect human health
and the environment.
•
What are the advantages of incjneration?
Incineration offers a permanent solution to much of our
hazardous waste problem by destroying wastes that would
otherwise require space in a landfill. Incineration has proven
effective in the destruction of !!l! organic compounds, usually
accomplishing well over 99% reduction of organics.
•
How does EPA know that standards are being
met?
EPA requires "trial burns" to demonstrate the
effectiveness of each. incinerator. The incinerator is
fed measured volumes of various hazardous wastes
which arc representative samples of the wastes
expected to be incinerated during normal operations.
TI1c trial burn is designed to test the performance of
the incinerator unit under the most demanding
operating conditions the unit may experience. For
each test batch, EPA selects up to six compounds
known to be the most concentrated and most difficult
to incinerate. If the operators of the incinerator
cannot demonstrate a destructiOn and remm1al efficiency
of 99.99 percent, the waste feed used during the trial
burn cannot be accepted for processing hy the unit.
The results oi the triai burn arc used to cstahlish
conditions under which each permitted facility must
operate. The permit defines such operating thresholds
as: the maxi~um carbon monoxide level inswck gases,
maximum feed rates, minimum combustion
temperature, maximum combustion gas vclocily, etc.
Essentially, these conditions arc designed to deliver a
"complete burn" of the hazardous waste hy ensuring
optimal operating circumstances. Safeguards arc
required which cut off the waste feed when these
circumstances do not meet 1he stated permit
conditions.
Which agency regulates incinerators?
All hazardous waste incinerators arc regulated by EPA or
state agencies acting under authority of EPA Incineration
is one of the final steps in the cradle to grave regulatory
management system . created by Congress under RCRA
legislation.
AH owners and operators of incinerators arc required to
submit information on the design, operation, and future
closure of the incinerator. They must also submit information
on their financial capacityj_!O cover the closing of the unit
and liability for bodily injiiiy or property damage to third
'' parties. The pcrmittec must specify what analyses will be
done for all hazardous ·wastes prior to incineration to ensure
that the wastes are suited to the technology. Security
measures, such as installation of a fence around the
incinerator and adequate surveillance, arc also required.
Owners and operators must develop and follow a written
inspection schedule to· assess the overall safety of the
incinerator facility, and they must employ trained pc_rsonnel.
They arc also required to prepare an action plan for
emergencies and ensure that emergency prevention measures
• arc taken. Finally, accurate rccordkeeping and reporting on
the operation of the incinerator arc required.
Glossary
Cradle to Grave: EPA requires hazardous substances to
he tracked from the. time of production to final
·. disposal or destruction.
Destruction and Removal Efficiency: A measure of the
amount of an organic compound removed or destroyed
in an incinerator relative to the amount which enters
the incinerator.
Feed Rate: A measure of the now of hazardous
substances into the incinerator.
Inorganic Substances: Materials which do not contain
c.1rban and arc generally derived from minerals .
•
Paniculate Matter: Material composed of tiny particles.
Smoke is composed of gases and airborne particulate
matter (soot). ·
Scrubber Water: Water used to remove residual inert
(non-reactive) matcrials .. and organics p_reseni• in 'the
gases· exiting the co_mbust_ion ·chamber:.. ··
Sludges: ·Thick· forms ofhazardous wastes, usually a
combination of oils and organic matter such as soil or
sediment.
Stack Gases: Gases from the combustion process which
exit the stack afte(trcatmcnt by air pollutiori control
devices ... · Th~e gases arc composed primarily of
harmless. carbori:/ctioxid,, anct· wa·tei;. plus .·small
quantities of ash.carbon c:;onoxide'arid organics.
Themwl Decon,positfon: The desti~ctioef or breakdown
of substances through ·heating; in this case· extreme
heating, i.e;, burning_Or irtciiic_ra~ion. __ _
Toxicity: A incasurc of the pois?nous or harmful nature
of a substance.
For more information about Incineration, please
,·ontact EPA at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Supe,fund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Counland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
lo
The information contained in this fact sh<.''Cl is based on two publications: "Supcrfund Fact Sheet: On-Site Incineration of Haz.ardous Wastes-· Questions and
Answers," U.S. EPA, Region IV, April I 991 and "Fact Sheet: Incineration of ifazarduus \\/aste," U.S. EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington,
D.C., Winter 1987.
EPA Facts About
Therma/Desorpllon
What is thermal desorption'!
Thl..'.rm:1! desorption is a lilW-ti.;1npcraturc hca1 line
scp:HJtion process designed tll rcnw,\.: nrg:inic
coni.aininants from soil.-; anU s/urigcs.
Con1amina1cc.J soil...; ;ire lu:.:atcd :11 rcl:iti\·cly low
tcmpn::iturcS (200°F tu 9()(J"F) so th:it only those
contaminants with low hoilin~ point\ will \';1p< rizc
hy turhing intu· a gas. Thcs<..: ,·:1pori1.cLl
con1amin:111ts rcmuvcJ from the soils or liquids :ire
colkctcd a.1d trcatl..'.d. Thermal desorption is not
an incinerator system. :ind no haz:irUous
comhustion hy-p"rnducts arc formed. Thermal
desorption technology b useful in 1rcating organic
contaminants that hccomc gases at relatively low
temperatures. These contaminants include:.; \'0!~1tilc
organic compounds ( VOC,), polychlorinatcd
biphenyls (PCBs), and some polvnuclcar aromatic
hydrocarhons (PAI-ls).
How docs thermal desorption technology work?
Thermal desorption is a three step process: first, the soil
is heated to vaporize the contaminants; n~xt, the
vaporized contaminams arc treated; and, finally, the
treated soil is tested. The contaminated soil is heated at
temperatures between 200° F and 900° F to reduce the
chance that the organic contaminants will ignite. Four
different methods of heating the soil arc availahle. Each
method is described below:
(1) In-place steam extraction (Figure 1): The
contaminated soil is left in place while steam is pumped
through the ground. The contaminants vaporize to a gas
form, move through the air spaces in the soil, and the
gases arc collected by a vacuum. Since steam. am! not a
!lame, is used ·10 vaporize the contaminants, there is no
risk that the organic contaminants will igni1c and form
hazardous comhustion hy-products.
(2) Direct heating: This heating method is like hc31ing
with a gas oven in your home. A disadvant3_gc of this
heating method is that the name is in direct.con wet wi1h
the contaminanls, and therefore, increases the chances
that the contaminants will hurn and form hazardous
combustion by-products.
June 1992
(3) lndiret:t healing: The co111;1rniruk:J soil is pl:tecd in
a kiln-type furnace. The uut:-idl..· of ihl..' ki!n i:-hl..':lll..'d
using fuel nil. anJ the hc:11 i:--ir:insfL'rr,._'.J through the
kiln·s mct:11 surface to !he .-;oil. SinCL' the :-nil is l..'!11 .. :!oscJ
in 1hc kiln. the \°ucl':-;,:omhu:-1it1n \,>·-proJuu:--:1nLI lhl·
\·apnrit.L'Ll cnnt:1111in;m!:-> do nni mix.
(➔). Oxygen free heating: The S(1i! i:,; pLtlL'J in ;1
container which is seakd ttl :1\"(1iJ any L\lfHact hL'IWl'L'tl
the S(lil :1nd D\ygcn in 1hc :1ir. ThL· ou1si(.k ur \ill'
container is hL";!lcJ u:--ing a hurncr sy . ..;il'm. :ind !hL'
contami1wn1s \'.tporit.c. \Vithout air. 1he ri:-k c1r ftlrmin.~
combustion hy-produc1s is \'irtu:d!y c!imin:i1ctl.
What happens once the contaminants arc
vaporized? · ·
Once \':tporizcd, the cuntaminants c:1n he trc;itL·d
in the same manner regardless of \1-hich hL':11ing
rnethm.1 is u:-cd. Ttlc \·apnri1.eJ contaminants m;iy
tx: cooled and condensed in10 :.J liquid, which is
then placed in drums for trc:llmcnt or di.,pnsal.
The \·aporizcd contamin;.its nwy J!so he trcatctl
using a carhon filtration system to meet applicahk:
fcd.:ral, slate, and local air cmis.sion st:incJards.
Once thermal desorption i:-completed using one
of the four heating methods described ahm·e, the
_-;oil is tested to verify that all contaminants have
hccn removed. The moisture content is adjusted
to elimin~llc dust particles and produce a solill that
i:--rcady to be placed and compacicd in its nrigin:11
location. The organic CC\lllaminants and water
·, :1por dri\'en from the solids arc transported nut or
thl· Jrycr hy a nonreacli\'C nitrogen gas. TilC inert
gas nows through a duct to the gas treatment
s\·stcm, where organk vapors, \1,.-atcr vapors. and
du>t particles arc rcmo\'cd from the g:is. This gas
trc:llmCnl system is made up of.ia high-cncrgy
·1·r,1fihcr in which dust particles and !O to :;o
pcrccnt of the organic contaminants arc rcmo\·cd.
The 1.:.ascs then pa·ss through two heat exchangers,
\,·hcr~ they ~ire cooled to bclov.' ➔O''F. Most of the
:cm:1ining water and organic \,apors :ire cond1.:n.-;cd
to liquids in the hem crchan!{crS• The clcancLI soils
anJ sludges can he returned to the site as hackfill.
•
• Why consider thermal desorption?
Thermal desorption has--e high success rate in rem,wing
volatile organic · compounds (VOG). VOCs arc
chemicals which tend .to vaporize easily into the air,
creating an exposure hazard by inhJ!ation. Existing
equipment is capable of treating up 10 Ill tons of
contaminated soil per hour. In addition. since thermal
desorption operates at low temperatures, the risk of
VOCs and other organic contaminants burning and,
consequently, forming hazardous gaseous emissions is
reduced. Finally, the low temperatures require less fuel
than other treatment technologies, and so this method is
less costly.
What kinds of waste can be treated hy thermal
desorption?
This technology was developed primarily for on-site
remediation (clean-up) of soils contaminated with
organic contaminants. The process can rcmo\'c and
collect volatiles, semi-volatiles. and PCBs, and has been
demonstrated on a variety of soils ranging from sand to
very heavy clays. Filter cakes from water treatment
processes and pond sludges have also been successfully
processed. In most cases, volatile organics arc reduced to
below I part per million (ppm) and frequently to below
the levels which the laboratory can detect.
Thermal desorption cannot be used to treat heavy
metals, with the exception of mercury. Tars and heavy
pitches cannot be processed using this technology
because they create materials handling problems.
COH'T.u.GNATCD.al.
Figure 1: Thermal Dc5Jrption Process Following Soil Exc~ivation
•
GLOSSARY
Hem Erchangcrs: A chamber used to add or
remove heat; a common example is a car radiator
which uses wa1cr (coolant) to accept the hear of
your car's engine and releases this heat to lhc
atmosphere as the heated water passc.." through the
exposed metal chambers (fins) of the radiator. An
air conditioner ,vorks on a similar principle.
Scruhha: An air pollution device that uses a spray
of water (or reactant) or a dry process ( such as
filters or centrifugal scrubhcr_s) to trap pollutants
in gaseous emissions.
Slud,l.'Cs: · A semi-solid waste product generated
frorry air or water treatment processes.
For more information ahout TI1crmal Dcsorp1ion.
please contact EPA at the following address:
Tll<ATU>
"""
""'-R<I><POO<T'fll
U.S. Em·ironmenral Protection A:-;cwy
Supcrfund Program
Cummwii1y Relations Coordinuror
.,'./5 Cou.~1/and Street, N.E.
/i1!r1t1ta. CA 30365
CCJ'IODISQII
'"" TUTil) '°" CONT ~Tl
YU
T'REA TED
""""'°""
"-'ITHf'R
T'Rf.t.TMENT
OIi """"'6Al .
'The infornrntion contained in this fact sheet was compiled from A Citizen·.~ Guide: 1l1amal Desorption, a puhlic..·11ion of the U.S. EnvironmL'nt:il
Protection Agency, November, 1991.
•
&EPA
How does EPA learn
about potential
remedial sites?
What Is the State.
role In the remedial
process?
• The Superfund Remedial
Program
Releases of hazardous substances often spread contaminants from a site into
drinking water, soils, and air. Such releases can significantly threaten human
health orthe environment and may occur anywhere over any length oftime. Under
the Superfund Remedial Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) takes long-term clean-up actions to stop or substantially reduce actual or
potential releases of hazardous substances that ate serious but not immediately life.
threatening.
EPA learns about sites that may require remedial action through a variety of
sources, includingrepons of waste generators and haulers, visible evidence, citizen
re pons, and routine inspections of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes. Citizens can notify EPA of an actual or potential release of a hazardous
substance by calling the National Response Center's 24-hour hotline at 1-800-424-
8802. Once a site is identified, EPA or the State reviews available documents
penaining to the site, in what is called a preliminary assessment, to determine if
further action is. needed. EPA may not require further action if it determines that
· a site does not threaten human health or the environment
If a potential problem does exist, EPA or the State conducts a sire inspection.
Typically, the site inspection involves collecting information about the site, such
as types of soils on site, streams or rivers on or near the site, the area's population,
. weather conditions, and who owns or operates the site. Samples of wastes, soil,
well water, river water, and air are collected to determine which hazardous
substances are present Samples also are taken nearby to determine if hazardous
substances have spread from the site.
Based on information collected during the site inspection, EPA uses its Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) to establish a score for the site. The HRS score indicates
whether hazardous substances have migrated, or may migrate, through ground
water, surface water, soil or air. Sites with high enough scores are considered for
EPA 's National Priorities List (NPL). Sites on the NPL present the most serious
problems among hazardous waste sites nationwide; only NPL sites are eligible for
long-term remedial actions through the Superfund program.
Superfund, and the legislation behind it, ensure that States play a substantial and
meaningful role in the remedial process. The EPA must involve States when 1)
conducting initial site evaluations, 2) studying sites to determine whether remedial
action is necessary, 3) negotiating with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who
may have caused or contributed to the site contamination, and 4) adding sites to,
and removing sites from, the NPL. EPA can provide money for States 10 take the
lead role in directing removal and remedial activities through a cooperative
agreement. States can also enforce any required remedial actions. Fina II y. States
What happens
during a remedial
response?
• I' •
arc responsible for long-term maintenance of a site once a remedial action has been
completed,
A remedial response has two main phases, During the first phase, the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS), conditions at the site arc studied, any
problem(s) arc defined, and alternate methods to clean up the site arc evaluated.
A typical Rl/FS takes approximately 25 months to complete. Citizens arc
encouraged to comment on the Rl/FS and the proposed clean-up plan for 30 days.
If a timely request is made, the public comment period will be extended at least 30
days,
During the second phase, the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA), the
recommended cleanup is designed and construction begins, Designing the remedy
takes approximately nine months. The time required to complete the remedy varies
according to the complexity of the site,
During a remedial investigation, EPA, the State, or the porenrially responsible
parties (PRPs) collect and analyze information to determine the type and extent
of contamination at the site. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area
may be taken to map the physical features of the land, including rock fonnations
and sources of water. A variety of techniques arc used to locate contaminated
ground water and buried drums or tanks that might contain hazardous substances.
Samples arc taken from soils, drums, lagoons, rivers, ground water, and air, for
analysis by EPA-approved laboratories to detennine the type and amount of
hazardous substances present EPA, the State, or the PRPs review and interpret
results of the laboratory analyses.
Once the extent of contamination is known, the feasibility study can begin. During
the feasibility study, EPA and the public evaluate specific alternate remedies. EPA
may consider any or all of the following options:
Destroying or treating the waste on site through incineration or other
treaanent technologies;
Containing the waste on site so it safely remains there and presents no
funher problems; and
Removing hazardous substances from the site to an EPA-approved,
licensed hazardous waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruc-
tion.
In rare circumstances, the recommended remedy may involve relocating residents
to prevent funher exposure.
Design _and construction activities arc conducted under the supervision of EPA and
the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, or the State can manage all site activities on its
own.
2
How Is the best
clean-up alternatlvo
chosen?
Can EPA make
those responsible -
pay?
How are citizens
Involved In
Superfund clean-
ups? ·
....,..IE..__ ___ ,,· ___ .'-------
The process of choosing a clean-up option involves balancing many site-specific
facton. Remedial alternatives arc evaluated using nine criteria:
Overall protection of human health and the environment;
Compliance with applicable State and Federal laws;
Long-tenn effectiveness and pennanence;
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of the hazardous waste;
S hon-tenn effectiveness;
Ease of implementability;
Cost;
State acceptance; and
Community acceptance.
The process is designed to choose remedies that will protect human heal th and the
environment, will maintain protection over time, and will minimize untreated
waste.
EPA always makes a thorough effon to identify and locate those responsible for
causing contamination problems at the site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate
with responsible parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has the legal
authority to force them to take specified clean-up actions. In cases where
responsible parties have been identified, EPA will take legal action to make them
pay the costs of clean-up actions; this allows EPA to save Superfund monies for
those cases where no responsible pany can be identified. All work performed by
responsible parties is closely guided and supervised by EPA and must meet the
same standards required for actions financed through Superfund.
Before beginning a remedial response, the lead agency mlistprcparc a Community
Relations Plan (CRP), establish an information repository, and infonn the com mu-
. nity about the availability of Technical Assistance Grants (TA Gs).
The CRP details how the lead agency will ensure that local residents arc in formed
about any actions at the site throughout the cleanup, and how local residents can
express their opinions and concerns.
The infonnation repository, also lcnown as the site file, contains both technical and
non-technical information about a site. Usually, it is located near the response site
in a public building such as a school, town lib_rary, or town hall.
3
• •
EPA can provide Technical Assistance Grants (T AGs) of up to $50,000 per site to
groups of individuals affected by the actual or potential release of hazardous
substances at an NPL site. Citizen groups can use T AGs to hire experu to interpret
technical information on site hazards and on the recommended alternatives for
investigation and cleanup. Citizen groups mustconttibute at least 20 percent of the
total cost of expen advice purchased with TAGs. In-kind services, such as
administrative suppon, may be used instead of cash to meet this requirement
Under cenain circumstances, the matching requirements may be waived.
The public must have a chance to comment before any major decisions are made
concerning remedial actions at a site. Citizens are encouraged to comment on the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and the proposed remediation plan
during a 30-day comment period. The proposed remediation plan explains in non-
technical language the preferred method of cleaning up the site and the other
alternatives under consideration. EPA or the State lead agency must publish in a
major local newspaper a brief analysis of the proposed plan, including when and
where it can be examined. If a timely request is made, the public comment period
can be extended 30 days.
During the public comment period. EPA must provide an opponunity for a public
meeting. EPA encourages and gives strong consideration to public comments on
all the alternative remedial actions being considered at a given site, and on other
site activities. EPA also considers each alternative's reliability, effectiveness,
construction cost, and maintenance cost After this consideration, EPA must
prepare a Responsiveness Summary describing the significant public comments
and responding to the issues raised. After the lead agency selects the final
engineering design, they must issue a fact sheet and give a public briefing before
starting the remedial action. ·
EPA is developing the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to
make hazardous waste cleanups more timely and efficient. This will be
accomplished ,hrough more focus on the front end of the process and
better integration of all Superfund program components. The approach
involves:
• A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the
need for action.
• Cross-program coordination of response planning.
• Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial).
• Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems.
SACM will operate within the existing statutory and regulatory structure.
As SACM develops, there may be modification of certain policies noted
in' this fact sheet. However, overall priorities will remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement opportuni-
ties; and involve the public in every phase of the process.
PA Fact About
Pump-and-Treat
What is the pump-and-treat method?
The pump-and-treat method is the most common
remedial (cleanup) technology used in purifying
contaminated aquifers. These aquifers arc natural,
underground rock formations that are capable of
storing large amounts of water. The pump-and-treat
process usually includes three steps. First, the
contaminated groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer through recovery wells. Second, the
recovered water is treated. Finally, the treated water
is discharged and the contaminants arc disposed of.
Groundwater collection systems are designed to
capture contaminated groundwater by removing it
from the aquifer. These collection systems arc also
used to prevent the spread of contamination. As the
contaminated groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer, the contamination is prevented from moving
deeper into the aquifer or spreading into surrounding
clean aquifers.
Why not simply treat water at the weU?
Another form of the pump-and-treat process, called well_.
head treatment, is sometimes used when drinking water
wells are contaminated. In some cases, it has been found
to be cost-effective to continue to recover contaminated
groundwater, but to remove the contaminants before
delivering it to users.
There are several variations of this approach. At some
sites, the source of t~~ntamination is known and an
auxiliary recovery syst~.been installed. This auxiliary
system is intended to qljjnup the contaminated aquifer or
may operate simplyY':\i,"" prevent further spread of
contamination. The contaminated water is drawn away
from the drinking water well and redirected. In 01hcr
cases, the source of contamination is not known and the
well-head treatment system may be the only prac1ical
alternative.
The system may use a varic1y of tools to move and redirect
groundwater, including extraction wells, injection wells, drain
intercepts, and barrier walls. Extraction wells arc designed
to pump groundwater out of the aquifer and to redirect the
remaining water. Injection wells use the opposite method;
pumping water into an aquifer to change its now paltcrns.
June 1992
Drain intercepts arc surface features that arc designed 10
capture and redirect the groundwater now. Barrier walls
may be _installed in the cleanup area to_ create physical
barriers to groundwater flow.
Why do we want to pump groundwater'!
The treatment of a contaminated aquifer, or "aquifer
restoration", is not the only goal of groundwater extraction
systems. Another goal is the control of contaminant
migration (movement). Groundwater pumping techniques
involve the active management of groundwater to contain
or remove contaminants. These techniques c~1n also he
used to adjust the groundwater level so that no migration
will occur.
The area of contaminated groundwater associated with a
site is called a plume, and is the groundwater equivalent of
smoke from a fire. A water barrier may be constructed by
causing the water in an aquifer to move in such a way as to
prevent lhe plume from moving toward a drinking well.
Pump-and-treat technology is used to construct these water
barriers to prevent off-site migration of contaminants. ln
most aquifer restoration systems, plume con,ainment is
listed as secondary goal. It is usually necessary to es1ablish
control of contaminant migration if the aquifer is lO be
cleaned up. Exceptions to this general rule arc sites where
the aquifer can restore itself naturally by discharging to
surface water bodies or through chemical or biological
degradation (breaking down) of the groundwater
contaminants to render them harmless to human health and
the environment.
Control of groundwater contamination involves one or
more of four options: (!) containment of a plume; (2)
removal of a plume after the source of contamination has
been removed; (3) reduction of groundwater now to
prevent clean groundwater from flowing through a source
of contamination, or to prevent contaminated groundwater
from moving loward a drinking well; and (4) prevcnlion of
a plume by lowering the water table benca1h a source of
contamination.
Why do we use pump-and-treat?
Groundwater collection and treatment has proven effective
over a wic..le range of site conditions and contaminants.
Well collection systems can remove groundwatcrfrom the
great depths. In addition, the costs associated wi1h this
technology arc generally moderate.
• • What pumpmg systems are used?
Almost all remediation of groundwater at contaminated
sites is based on groundwater extraction by wells or drains.
This process is usually ~mpanied by treatment of the
extracted water prior to disposal.
Well collection systems consist of a line or circle of wells
placed around the contaminated area or in the path of the
contaminated groundwater now. This type of well system
limits movement of the plume and collects groundwater by
pumping it from the ground faster than it can be replaced
from nearby areas. This ensures that the now of
groundwater is toward the well area and not away. The
groundwater is pumped IO the surface where ii is treated to
remove the contaminants.
Drain collection systems consist of horizontal pipes with
holes along the length that arc placed in the ground below
the groundwater level. These drains are placed around the
contaminated area or in the path of the contamination
plume. This system uses gravity now to collect
groundwater, or can be pumped to accelerate the now.
What methods are used to clean up groundwater?
Once the contaminated water is collected, it can be treated
by using one or a combination of the following proven
methods:
Biological Treatment • This treatment is similar 10 that
used in normal sewage treatment plants using beneficial
microorganisms such as bacteria and protozoa to break
down contaminants into non-hazardous substances.
Carbon Adsorption -This treatment involves passing the
contaminated water through carbon filters. Contaminants
are adsorbed (cling to the surface) of.the carbon particles
and arc removed from the water. This is the same water
treatment used by mos! household aquariums.
Air Stripping -This treatment uses an air stream that
moves across the surface of the water to. capture and
remove VOCs from t~ter.
I.$'\:--
u11ravio1e1/0xida1ion·'S::fiiW· treatment uses high intensity
light and chemicals (ozone and peroxide) to destroy
contaminants.
What site conditions hamper pump-and-treat
technology?
Several physical features of a hazardous waste site have
been identified that_ can interfere with the cleanup process
of pump-andlu sites. One is that the contaminants tend
to adhere (stick to) the surface of the materials that make
up the aquifer. If this adsorption is neglected in the
planning stages, the effectiveness of the pump-and-treat ·
method will be _over-estimated. Second, variations in the
size and pore space of the aquifer can also reduce the
effectiveness of this technology by making it difficult 10
control the now of groundwater. Third, if the contaminant
is still present, it can continue to spread hazardous waste
into the aquifer, perhaps faster than the pump-and-treat
method can remove it. Finally, if the contaminant is a
petroleum based product, ii will not dissolve in the water
and will not be removed from the aquifer when the water
is pumped out.
GLOSSARY
Aquifer: An underground geological (rock) formation
that can store and transmit large amounts of water.
Barrier Walls: Walls installed in the· cleanup area to
create physical barriers for groundwater now, causing
redirection of the now.
Drain Intercepts: Surface ch·annels of trenches
installed at tbe ground surface of the cleanup area
designed to capture and redirect groundwater now.
Extraction Well: A well where water is pumped out
of the well in order to redirect groundwater
movement (by changing the hydraulic gradient).
Injection Well: A well where water is pumped into
tbe aquifer in order w redirect groundwater
movement.
Microorganisms: · Microscopic animal or plant life;
particularly any of the bacteria, protozoa, viruses, etc.
For more information about Pump-and-Treat, Y""
may contact EPA at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Counland. Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
1-800-435-9233
The information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Basis of Pump and Trea1ment: Groundw;iter Remediation Technology, a puhlic:11i"n .,f the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
• ~~EDBT~~~. PA Facts About
\~} Groundwater Monitoring
PR June 1992
What is !,>TOundwater monitoring?
Water that has collected naturally and is stored in
porous soil and rock under the earth's surface is
aillcd groundwater. Nearly half of the population
of the United States depends on
groundwater for their daily water needs, either
from private wells or large public water systems.
Everyone wants to be sure that their groundwater
supply is safe. To ensure this, samples of water
are taken and analyzed for a· wide variety of
chemicals. It is often necessary to install specially
designed wells to obtain the samples. These
monitoring wells are installed in and around
known or suspected contamination sources such as
landfills, waste dumps, and industrial sites. These
special monitoring wells arc usually laid out in
such a way as to intercept any contaminant
migration (movement) away from a site. The
visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant
from it's source is often called a plume, as it is the
groundwater equivalent of a smoke cloud coming
from a fire. Figure I shows a landfill with a plume
moving away from it that should be monitored.
Figure 2 shows _the parts of a typiail monitoring
well.
QRQtJN)WU'tR "I.OW .
-+ -+
Fi.gun: 1: Spill Site Showing Contaminant Plume
Figure 2 Typical Monitoring Well
What does monitoring tell us ?
The monitoring wells in and around a site are sampled
periodically, typically several t_imes each year. The wells
arc locked between sampling to prevent tampering which
could affect sample results. The samples arc taken by
specially trained people using sterilzcd equipment to he
sure that the sample truly represents what is in the
ground. The water samples are analyzed by a certified
laboratory for a large number of chemiails. The results
are usually expressed in parts per million or pans per
billion. These numbers represent the relative
concentration of the chemical in the groundwater, arn.J
are the ratio of units of chemical per million or billion
units of groundwater. This information is compiled
using computer programs which keep track of the re-suits
and compare them to established standards. These
programs are designed to look for changes over time,
and to make predictions of how the plume of
contamination may migrate through the ground in the
future. Using this information, scientists and regulators
C3n decide on the be-st method of controlling, containing
and remcdiating (cleaning up) the contamination.
Monitoring is also essential in detcrminig if a rcmcdv is
working. This information is vital if they are to properly
protect human health and the environment.
•
How is monitoring well sampling performed?
The sampling of moruioring wells is usually done by
trained field personnel from the testing laboratory or by
groundwater consultants. In general, a sample is taken
only after the pH, electrical conductivity, and
temperature of the water being pumped from the well
· have stabilized. (pH is a numerical measure of the
relative acidity of the water; zero to seven indicate
decreasing acidity, seven to fourteen indicate increasing
alkalinity, while seven is considered neutral.)
How is contaminant movement predicted?
In many instances of groundwater contamination, the
ability to predict how the contaminant plume will behave
in the future can only be based on the results of
expensive drilling and sampling programs. Many
scientists interested in the movements of contaminants
in groundwater beli,ve that it will soon be possible to
use mathematical modeling techniques to estimate the
spread of a particular contaminant and its concentration
at any point in the plume.
How are the locations of monitoring wells
determined?
Once the general limits of the plume have been
identified, several monitoring wells arc installed in or
near the plume. The purpose of these monitoring wells
is to:
o Determine the properties of the rock formation
in which the contamination is found and the
surrounding aquifers.
• Determine the level of groundwater of all
aquifers in the area.
o Provide sa111p!es. of groundwater for the
detection oC:~il,taminants. · s~:r"··:·
• Monitor the';'.]!iovement of the contaminant
plume.
Usually one monitoring well is located near the center of
the plume in the path of the groundwater as it moves
away from the site. Another is installed farther away,
but in the path of the plume. Background conditions are
r~corded from a third monitoring well that is located in
an uncontaminated area (see Figure 3).
•
The most difficult decision is usually not where to place
the monitoring well, but at what depth the samples
should be taken. Selection of the most appropriate
depths depend on the characteristics of both the
contaminant and the aquifer or soil surrounding the site.
The design of the well and sampling plan arc extremely
important if meaningful and accurate information
concerning the extent of contamination is to be obtained.
Proper placement of the monitoring wells is also
important and must be based on accurate information
concerning the pattern of groundwater flow and the type
of contamination. ·
(XPLAt.'ATIQt,•
A Up9•0d1en1 'T'IO'\o!O• ~ 0 ... 11
B Lond!ill mo,..ro,,na; 0 ..,ell
A
C Oown9•od•en1 mcw-,,tO'rq 0 ,.ell
0
Ftgtm: 3: Typical Arrangement of Monitoring Wells
For more information
Monitoring, please contact
address:
about Groundwater
EPA at the following
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Supeifund Program
Community Relations Coordinator
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
The information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE), a publication of the U.S. environmental Protection Agency, November 1991.
• •
SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. l 1 • I llfTE
DISCOVERY FEJ.SIBIUTY )---( Cl.£J.NUP PU.Nl)--11►-f
DESICN
' LONG.TERM
STUDY CLEANUP
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IN 1980, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPONSE, COMPENSATION. AND LIABILITY ACT.
(CERCLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
-SUPERFUND". TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT(SARA), THE ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO RESPOND TO
RELEASES OR THREATENED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR
WELFARE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE 1982 SUPER FUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP), REVISED IN 1988,
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBIT PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
OF HOW A LONG-TERM SUPERFUND RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SITE IS DISCOVERED, IT IS INVESTIGATED, USUALLY BY
THE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR ITS REPRES0ENTATIVE THEN RANKS THE SITE
USING THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS), WHICH TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT: ' I
-POSSIBLE HEAL TH RISKS TO THE HUMAN POPULATION
-POTENTIAL HAZARDS (E.G .• FROM DIRECT CONT ACT,
INHALATION. FIRE, OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SITE ,
•POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO POLLUTE
OR OTHERWISE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
. '
IF THE PROBLEMS AT A SITE ARE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE
STATE AND THE EPA. THE SITE Will BE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL .
PRIORITIES LIST (NPL). A ROSTER OF THE NATION"S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL SUPERFUND MONEY. .
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT
TO PUBLIC HEAL TH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AT ANY TIME. EPA MAY
CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
3. NEXT, EPA USUALLY CONDUCTS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(RI). THE RI ASSESSES How:sERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONTAMINANTS ARE PRESENT, AND
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS
PART OF THE RI, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AT THE SITE
AND THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SITE.
•· FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE RI, EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PUBLIC HEAL TH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS),
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, AND COST. THE FINDINGS ARE
PRESENTED IN A DRAFT FS REPORT.
5. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT FS REPORT, EPA
HOLDS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES. CITIZENS ·
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS EITHER CRALL Y AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO EPA
6. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, EPA
RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS IN THE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WHICH
IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC CLEANUP PLAN.
7, ONCE THE DESIGN IS FINISHED, THE ACTUAL REMEDIAL
ACTIVITIES OR CLEANUP OF THE SITE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WITH EVERY SITE. IN GENERAL. AN RI/FS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP PLAN MAY TAKE
SIX MONTHS AND IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDY -THE ACTUAL
CONTAINMENT OR REMOVAL OF THE WASTE -MAY TAKE FROM
ONE TO THREE YEARS. IF GROUNDWATER IS INVOLVED, THE
FINAL CLEANUP MAY TAKE MANY MORE YEARS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED AND TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT, THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROLIGHOUT THE SUPERFUND PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EPA'S COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES.
• ~~tf'o
. • J.l v41' ~~~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY~~ '-~;'. ~
REGION IV ~4t, 1..1;1(;, ~~-345 COURTLAND STREET NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
In an attempt to
should appear in
will be occurring on
keep citizens informed, the following is a new release that
local newspapers advising citizens of upcoming activities that
the FCX, Inc. site in Washington, NC.
The Removll Branch will excavate additional recently discovered contaminated soil
and add it to the stockpile already at the site in anticipation of the Remedial
Branch long-term cleanup process which is underway. Removal actions can occur at
any time 1during the long-term· remedial process when contamination is found that
poses an immediate threat to health or the environment. once the Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility study have been completed we will prepare and distribute a fact
sheet outlining the results of both studies.
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Remedial superfund Branch
Region IV -Atlanta, Georgia
January 15, 1992
EPA BEGINS SECOND PHASE OF REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE FCX, INC.
SUPERFUND SITE IN WASHINGTON, NC
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency will begin excavation of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
contaminated materials from the FCX, Inc. Superfund site in
Washington, North Carolina. The EPA project is scheduled to begin on
January 22, 1992.
In addition to the excavation, EPA will rescreen and secure an
existing 800 cubic yards of currently stockpiled materials with the
proposed excavated material. The ex_cavation and stockpiling are
being conducted to remove the immediate threat to groundwater from
the contaminated material. A new cover for the stockpile and fence
repair will also be performed. EPA expects this phase to take five
to seven days. ·
· In January 1989, EPA excavated approximately 2,200 cubic yards
of contaminated debris and pesticide contaminated soils from two
trenches at the site. Beginning in December 1990, approximately
1,600 cubic yards of the contaminated debris were removed from the
site before operations ceased because of difficulties encountered in
locating a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility to accept the
material. 1 All the contaminated soil and debris currently at the site
are being_stockpiled for future treatment by EPA under the·Superfund
process.
The FCX Washington site occupies approximately 12 acre's near the
intersection of Grimes Road and Whispering Pine Road just inside the
city limits of Washington. From 1945 through 1985, the company
repackaged and distributed agricultural chemicals. In the early
1970s, a large trench on the property was filled with pesticide
wastes and other agricultural chemicals. Samples collected by EPA
indicate soil and groundwater contamination. The site was placed on
EPA's National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites in March
1989. -o.:.
CONTACT:
January 15, 1992
'Charlis Thompson of EPA Region IV at [phone]
• •
FCX, INC. -WASHINGTON
SUPERFUND SITE
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
September 1991
FACT SHEET OBJECTIVES
This fact sheet has been prepared by Region rv of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as _part of EPA's Superfund public outreach
efforts and provides a description of the FCX. Inc.
Washington Superfund Site, a swnmary of the
site's history, past and present removal activities,
· planned site activities and an overview of the
Superfund process.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The FCX, Inc. Washington Site occupies
approximately 12 acres located near the
intersection of Grimes Road and Whispering Pine
· Road just inside the city limits of Washington,
Beaufort County, North Carolina. The FCX
property is bordered by a railroad on the oortheast, -
by a wetland leading to the Tar River on the
southwest, and by agricultural land on the
northwest and southeast. A large warehouse, a
block building and a tank farm are located on the
site.
.. The FCX Site property was initially conveyed to
·_ Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc. (FCX, Inc.) as
· two parcels of land and was later divided, through
'. conveyances, into six separate tracts. 'The first
parcel containing Tracts I, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were
obtained by FCX, Inc. on October 17, 1945. The
second parcel, Tract _4, was obtained on October
16, 1957. The main warehouse and former waste
burial trench are located on Tract 4. The location of
the block building was documented to be located
on either Tract I or 2. (Figure I}
FCX, Inc. operated from I 945 until the early
1980's as a pesticide storage and blending facility
for repackaging and sales of pest:icicles, herbicides,
· and tobacco treating chemicals. In the late 1960's
and early 1970, some wastes were buried in a
trench on site. Correspondence from the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources on the
site's Preliminary Assessment Report stated that
wastes from pesticides, herbicides and tobacco
treating products were buried in a 12 foot by 250
foot by JO foot trench. Little information was
found on site activities from 1945 through 1984;
however, from information gathered, waste
material burials occurred between 1960 and 1981. .
On September 18, 1985, FCX, Inc. filed a petition
for reorganization wxler Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District" of North
Carolina.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
. Date: October 3, 1991
Time: 7:00 p.m.
•
Location: Washington Civic Center
Corner 2nd and Gladden Streets
Washington, North Carolina
•
I
N
N O R r H
CAROLINA
--8(AuroRr COUNTY
Figure 1
National Prior;ties ~ 4'
I
Supeifund hazardous waste site listed under the
Comprehensive E~vircinmental Response. Compensation. and liability Act (CERCLAI as amended in 1986
FCX, INC. (WASHINGTON PLANT)
Washington, North Carolina
FCX, Inc.', began repackaging and selling agricultural chemicals in 1945
on a 6-acre s\te at the intersection of Grimes Road and Whispering Pine Road
just to the west-northwest of the city limits of Washington, Beaufort County,
North Carolina. FCX, Inc., filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal
bankruptcy code and began liquidating its assets in September 1985. The
Washington site was sold in two parcels. In August 1986, Fred Webb, Inc., of
Greenville, NC, bought the main warehouse and 4 acres of land, including a
pesticide buri!al trench. In August 1987, the remaining 2 acres, which contained
two buildings, were sold.tow. B. Gerard and Sons, a fertilizer distributor
next door to t_he FCX facility.
In the early 1970s, the pesticide trench, which measured approximately
12 by 250 feet: and 10 to 12 feet deep, was filled with waste pesticides and
other agric:ult.ural chenicals. Soil collected fran the trench in August 1986
contained chlordane, aldrin, DDT, DDE, dieldrin, carbon disulfide, hexachloro-
benzene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene, and mercury, according to tests
conducted by t~e North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. These chemicals
may move into the Post-Miocene ·surficial ~uifer, which, together with the
Miocene Yorktown ~uifer, locally recharges the underlying castle Hayne Aquifer.
The castle Hayne ~uifer, which starts at about 30 feet below the land surface
at the site, is the major source of drinking water in the area. All three
aquifers are interconnected. An estimated 2,850 people draw drinki~g water
fran wells within 3 miles of the site. The wetland adjacent to Tar River and
Kennedy Creek begins 300 feet fran the trench area. The surface waters are
used for recreational activities.
I
FCX, Inc., has hired contractors to study on-site contamination and recommend
cleanup procedures for the trench area and the main warehouse. The chemical
storage building has been cleaned up.
I
·u.s. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program
•
June 12, 1986, a Notification of Hazardous Waste
Site was filed--hy . FCX, Inc. for its
FCX-Washington facility. It described the facility
as a warehouse containing bags, bottles, etc .... ., to
be removed by a licensed operator, the waste types
as pesticides and heavy metals, and a landfill
containing an unknown amount of waste.
July 14, 1986, a Preliminary Assessment of the
FCX Site was prepared by the North Carolina
Deparnnent of Human Resources. The report
stated that pesticides in the form of toxic powder
and liquid wastes were reported to be buried on
site, and a potential for groundwater, soil and
drinking water contamination existed.
August 18, ·1986, FCX, Inc. deeded a parcel of land
including Tract 4 to Fred Webb Grain, Inc., which
is comprised of approximately 4 acres of land,
containing the main warehouse and the burial ·
trenches. The warehouse continues to be used for
storage of grain.
The FCX, Inc. Site was inspected by the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources on
August 26, 1986. Samples taken during this site
inspection indicated that the soil was contaminated
with pesticides, organic chemicals and mercury.
Sampling of soils, groundwater, and sediment
suggested that there is potential for groundwater,
surface water, direct contact and drinking water
contamination.
A Site Inspection Report by the North Carolina
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch
dated May 20; 1987, stated that samples of the
smface soil from the burial trench area showed
measurable concentrations of chlordane, aldrin,
DDT, DDE, dieldrin, carbondisulfide,
hexachJorobenzene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
acenaphthylene; fluorene, dibenzofuran,
2-methylnaphthalene, and mercury. According to
the inspection report. fu!re is potential for these
chemicals to move into area aquifers, one of which
was stated as the major water supply for wells in
the vicinity ..
Removal and remedial actions as of May 20,
1987, included FCX, Inc. employing the
• 3
•
engineering firm of Rose and Purcell, Inc. to help
study the on-site contamination and GXS, Inc. to
clear the chemical warehouse and to recommend
action concerning the buried wastes.
On August 17, 1987, FCX, Inc, deeded a parcel of
land to W. B. Gerard & Sons, Inc. This parcel of
land within the railroad right-of-way, included two
acres of land, a block building, and another small
building.
In December of 198i the Vice President of FCX,
Inc. informed the North Carolina Department of
Human Resources that GSX, Inc. cleaned the FCX
warehouse of residual chemical materials, but had
no information regarding cleanup of the block
building.
The FCX, Inc. Site was proposed for inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in June of
1988, and was listed in March of 1989.
SITE ACTIVITIES TO-DATE
The Region IV Emergency Response and Removal
Branch initiated a Removal Site Investigation on
September 29, 1988. This investigation confirmed
the presence and location of pesticide contaminated
trenches, and was used to develop plans for the
excavation of the pesticides, debris and
contaminated soils.
In January of 1989, EPA excavated approximately
2,200 cubic yards of contaminated debris and
pesticide contaminated soils from two trenches.
The material was partially shredded, screened and
stockpiled on protective liners in anticipation of
on-site incineration. The covering was secured and
the storage area was fenced. In addition to the
excavated trenches, several exploratory cross
trenches were dug to identify whether other
trenches within the immediate area existed.
A review of aerial photographs was also performed
to attempt to identify additional burial areas. The
results of the on-site exploratory trench and
additional findings from the aerial photography
required the extension of the one-year statutory
limit under the Comprehensive Environmental
•
•
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) oneinergency removal actions.
Under Superfund, removal actions can last no
longer than I 2 months in duration or cost more
than $2 million unless additional removal actions
are required to respond to immediate threats to
human health or the environment Removal actions
that exceed the I 2 month limit require approval
from EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Removal activities of the stockpile began in
December of 1990. Due to the inability of
obtaining a contractor within a reasonable time to
perfonn on-site incineration of the wastes, and the
objection of local residents to placement of an
incinerator at the site, off-site disposal was initiated
to expedite the removal.
A hazardous waste facility in South Carolina
agreed to accept the material. However, prior to
shipment the facility rescinded the approval.
Chemical Waste Management in Emelle, Alabama,
was then contacted and agreed to accept the
contaminated soils. The State of Alabama gave
their approval on December 11, 1990.
Arrangements were finalized with the
transportation company and shipments began on
December 26th, with the final shipment occurring
on December 28th. Shipments were suspended
due to weather delays and the landfill closing for
the holidays. After the beginning of the new year
further . shipments fiom North Carolina were
•
refused due to North Carolina's failure to
implement the Capacity Assurance Plan which
became effective January I, I 99 I. Surrounding
states also refused to accept contaminated wastes
from North Carolina for this same reason.
Currently, EPA has removed and disposed of
approximately 1,600 cubic yards of contaminated
materials at the Chemical Waste Management
facility in Alabama_ There are approximately 600
cubic yards of stockpiled materials, and an
estimated volume of approximately 1,500 cubic
yards of contaminated soil from the two discovered
trenches stored/buried at the Site. These two
trenches were not excavated or stockpiled with the
previous unearthed trench materials due to limited
storage and handling space on-site, and a lack of
on-site contract technology.
On-site survey work will be conducted in early
October to better define these two additional
trenches. Samples for determining the extent of
buried wastes will be collected in mid-November
1991. Removal of this material will be conducted
as soon as analytical and engineering work plans
are finalized which should be no later than January
1992.
THESUPERFUNDPROCESS
The following Superfund flow chart outlines the
various major steps in the process. We are at the
beginning stage of the Remedial Investigation.
REMOVALS
I ENFORCEMENT I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Site NPL Ranking Remedial Feuibillty Public Record Cleanup Plan Long-Term
Ola.covery Listing ln\'&atlgatlon Study Comment• or Oecl•lon Design Cleanup
• ►1COMMUNITI' RELATIONS I
4 • +
• EPA will begin their investigative work at the site
during the later p~ · of September and early
October.
A Remedial Investigation (RI) is an intensive
study designed to determine the existence and
exact nature of any hazardous waste
contamination, and the boundaries or extent of any
contamination found on and around the site. EPA
utilizes the expertise of environmental specialists
such as hydrogeologists, engineers and biologists
as well as many other professionals to conduct the
investigation. The RI report describes the type and
extent of on-site and off-site contamination, effects
of contamination of surface water and ground
water, and the degree of contamination in the soil.
To achieve these findings, samples are taken of soil
and water at various locations at a site and review
records compiled from earlier sampling.
Frequently, the sampling process includes
installing monitoring wells at the site.
Samples are sent to laboratories to be analyzed for
various contaminants, including metals and
organics. The site is also studied to determine
whether or not the contaminants are moving
through the land or water, where they might go and
what sensitive areas they might reach.· Based on
this information, a risk or endangerment
assessment will be conducted to estimate the
contaminants' potential impact on human health
and the environment.
During the Remedial Investigation should
contaminants be found that pose an immediate or
imminent threat to public health or the
environment, the Emergency Removal Branch
would initiate an immediate removal operation at
the site. Should this occur, we would promptly
notify the community of such necessary actions
and what to expect. As indicated on the Superfund
Process chart, removal actions can occur at any
time during the process when a threat is apparent
Once the RI has been completed, the information
gathered is used to develop a Feasibility Study
(FS). At this phase, EPA environmental engineers
and other technical staff consider, describe and
evaluate options for cleaning up the site based on
• 5
•
the RI information. Feasible alternatives are those
that:
Meet and/or exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate state and federal public health or
environmental standards.
Provide overall protection of human health and
the environment: adequate elimination,
reduction or control of all current and likely
potential risks posed by the site.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence of
the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of
hazardous substances or contaminants.
Implementability, that is the administrative or
technical capacity to carry out the alternative.
Cost-effectiveness, considering the cost of
construction, operation and maintenance of it
.over the life of tlie project
Acceptance by the State and the community.
The normal length of time required to complete a
RI/FS is between 12 to 18 months. At that time
EPA will prepare a· Proposed Plan outlining the
preferred metlxxl of treating/cleaning up a site. A
30-<lay public comment period is provided at that
time with a 30-day extension available if requested.
During the 30-<lay public comment period a public
meeting is held for EPA to make an oral
presentation of the Proposed Plan and to receive
public comments on the proposal. Following this
step of the process, the EPA Regional
Administrator will make a determination on the
proposed remedy after full consideration of all
comments .. This selection becomes the Record of
Decision (ROD) document designating the
selected method A Responsiveness Summary also
becomes part of this document which incorporates·
all public comments received during the process
and our response to those comments. A public
notice of the Record of Decision's availability to
the IXJblic will be issued by EPA. Next comes the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action · (RD/RA)
•
•
phase of the process which involves designing the
remedy, constructing the remedy and
implementation of remedy beginning the actual
cleanup/treatment of contaminants on site. The
RD/RA process normally takes between 12 to 36
months to complete, depending upon the site.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
EPA has developed a community relations
program under Superfund to respond to citizens'
concerns and needs for information as well as to
enable residents and officials of a site community
to participate in decision-making activities for the
site. ' Before. EPA carries out or authorizes
technical work on a site, EPA staff or contractors
prepare a Community Relations Plan (CRP) that
identifies interested parties, site history and the
facility's operation background, and the concerns
•
and questions of citizens in the area. The CRP is
based upon discussions in the community with
local leaders and private citizens. In response to
their concerns and the level of interest present, this
plan identifies techniques EPA will use to
communicate effectively with the community as
the Superfund process proceeds. These
communication efforts often include telephone
contacts, small informal meetings or formal public
meetings, news releases, correspondence, and fact ·
sheets. EPA also establishes an information
repository where reports and other documents
concerning the site are made available to the
public. EPA encourages the public to utilize the
information provided so that they will have a better
understanding of what is involved in the Superfund
process at the site and how the community can stay
involved.
The Information Repository for the FCX, Inc. Superfund Site is:
Brown Library
122 Van Norden
Washington, NC 17889
[phone]
Hours: Monday -Thursday 9 a.m. -

9

p.m.
Friday 9 a.m. -

5

p.m.
Saturday 9 a.m. -1 p.m.
Sunday 1 p.m. -

5

p.m.
Community relations are vital to the Superfund process. Citizen involvement is stressed in the Code of Federal Regulations governing Superfund site activities. As part of this program EPA provides communities with the opportunity to apply for a Technical Assistance Granr(T AG) for funds up to $50,000. This grant is available to one community group per site for the purpose of hiring a technical advisor or other knowledgable person to assist them in interpreting and/or commenting on the numerous documents developed during the Superfund process. For more information on the TAG program please contact:
Ms. Rosemary Patton
N.C. Technical Assistance Grant Coordinator
Waste Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
•
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone] .
6 •
• GLOSSARY
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) • A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by SARA. The Acts created
a special tax on oil and chemical manufacturers which
goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund,
to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Under the program, EPA can
either:
I) Pay for site clean up with Trust Fund monies when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be
located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work.
2) Take legal action to force parties responsible for site
contamination to clean up the site er pay back the federal
government for the cost of the clean up.
Feasibility Study /FS) -Analysis of the practicability of a proposal; e.g., a description and analysis of the potential
cleanup alternatives fer a site er alternatives for a site on the National Priorities List The Feasibility Study usually
recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative. It usually starts as soon as the remedial investigation is
underway: together, they are commonly referred to as the
RI/FS.
Groundwater -Water found beneath the earth's surface
that fills pores between materials such as sand, soil, or
gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient
quantities which can be used for drinking . water,
irrigation and other purposes.
Information Repository -A file containing information,
technical reports, and reference documents regarding a
Superfund site. The information repository is usually located in a public building that is convenient for local
residents --such as a library, public school or city hall.
National Priorities List /NPL) -EPA's list of the most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for possible long-lerm remedial response action
using money from the Trust Fund. The list is rosed
primarily on the scoce a site receives on the Hazard
Ranking System which evaluates risks to public health
and the environment based on potential or actual releases
of hazardous substances into the air, soils, surface water
or groundwater.
Preliminary Asussment -The process of collecting and
reviewing available information about a known or
suspected waste site er ·release.
• 7
•
Record of Decision (ROD) -A public document that
explains which cleanup alternative(s) will be used at
National Priorities List sites where the Superfund Trust
monies pay fer the cleanup. The ROD is based on
information and technical analyses generated during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study and consideration
of public comments and community concerns.
Remt!dia/ Action /RA) -The actual construction or
implementation phase that follows the Remedial Design
where physical site cleanup begins.
Rerru:dial D,sign (RD) -.An engineering phase that
follows the Record of Decision when technical drawings
and specifications are developed for a site cleanup.
R,rm:dia/ lnv,stigation /RI) -An in-depth study designed
to gather the data necessary to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at a Superfund site; establish
criteria for cleaning up the site; identify preliminary
alternatives. The remedial investigation is usually done
with the Feasibility Study. Together they are usually
referred to as the R.1/FS.
Rtmt!dial r,sponu -A long-term action that ·stops or
substantially reduces a release or threat of release of
hazardous substance that is serious but not an immediate
threat to public healtl1.
R,mova/ action -Shoo-term im,nediate actions taken to
address releases of hazardous substances that pose a
possible threat to human health, or the environment
requiring an expedited response to remove
contamination.
SARA • Modifications made to the CERCLA law enacted
on October 17, 1986 (Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act).
Swfac, wata -Borues of water that are above ground. such as rivers, lakes and streams.
Supufund -The program operated under the legislative
authority of CERCLA and SARA that funds and canies
out the EPA solid waste emergency removals and long-term rerhed.ial activities. These activities include
establishing the National Priorities List, investigating
sites fer inclusion on the list. determining their priority
level on the list, and condocting and/or supervising the ul~ly detamined cleanup and other remedial
actions.
•
• •
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
To be placed on the mailing 11st to receive Information on the FCX, Inc.
Washington Site, please complete this form and mall to:
Ms. Diane Barrett·
Community Relations Coordinator
USEPA -Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Name
'
Address
Affiliation
Phone No.
• 8 •