The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCD000813592_20060116_GA-Pacific Corp Hdwd Saw_FRBCERCLA C_General Correspondence 1997 - 2006-OCRSuperfund Information Systems -GER._: Site Information_ 1 of 2 CERCLIS Database Site Documents Data Element Dictionary (OED) Order Superfund Products U.S. envlr@nBNMtt@l Pt@t@eti@¥1 A@@ftCf Superfund Information Systems \ Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search:! ,, __ ,,_,,,, l3:i] EPA Home> Superfund > Sites> Superfund Information Systems> Search CERCLIS > Search Results> GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL CERCLIS Database GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL Site Information Site Info I Aliases I Operable Units I Contacts Actions I Contaminants I Site.Specific Documents Site Name: GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL Street: PLYWOOD DRIVE City/ State I ZIP: PLYMOUTH, NC 27962 NPL Status: Withdrawn EPA ID: NCD000813592 EPA Region: 04 County: WASHINGTON Latitude: +35.874440 Longitude: -076.740900 Federal Facility Flag: Not a Federal Facility Incident Category: Dioxin HRS Score: 50.00 Return to Search Results Return to Search CERCLIS DISCLAIMER: Be advised that the data contained in these profiles are intended solely for informational purposes use by employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for management of the Superfund program. They are not intended for use in calculating Cost Recovery Statutes of Limitations and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA reserves the right to change these data at any time without public notice. OSWER Home I Superfund Home EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us URL: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm This page design was last updated on Friday, August 25, 2006 Content is dynamically generated by ColdFusion 9/22/2006 10:23 AM Superfund Information Systems• CER.: Aliases • 1 of 1 CERCLIS Database Site Documents Data Element Dictionary (DED) Order Superfund Products U.S. E:¥r11irannNtnt@l .Protection Agency Superfund Information Systems Recent Additions J Contact Us J Print Version Search: !. fim EPA Home> Superfund > Sites> Superfund Information Systems> Search CERCLIS > Search Results> GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL CERCLIS Database GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL Aliases Site Info I Aliases I Operable Units I Contacts Actions I Contaminants I Site-Specific Documents Alias Name I Street I City I State I ZIP GA-PACIFIC CORP HDWD SAW WASHINGTON, NC GA-PACIFIC CORP HDWD SAW GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP. HARDWOOD SAWMILL PLYWOOD DR PLYMOUTH, NC 27962 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL PLYWOOD DRIVE PLYMOUTH DRIVE, NC 27962 Return to Search Results Return to Search CERCLIS DISCLAIMER: Be advised that the data contained in these profiles are intended solely for informational purposes use by employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for management of the Superfund program. They are not intended for use in calculating Cost Recovery Statutes of Limitations and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA reserves the right to change these data at any time without public notice. OSWER Home I Superfund Home EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us URL: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/calinfo.cfm This page design was last updated on Friday, August 25, 2006 Content is dynamically generated by ColdFusion 9/22/2006 10:23 AM Superiund Information Systems -CER.: Contacts 1 of 1 CERCUS Database Site Documents Data Element Dictionary (DED) Order Superfund Products U.S. ££11vironmentat Pto#*ction AJency Superfund Information Systems · Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search: \. ·--· @3 EPA Home> Superfund > Sites> Superfund Information Systems> Search CERCLIS > Search Results> GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL CERCLIS Database GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL Contacts Site Info I Aliases I Operable Units I Contacts Actions I Contaminants I Site-Specific Documents Title Name Phone Number Remedial Project Manager (RPM) JON BORNHOLM (404) 562-8820 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Luis Flores (404) 562-8807 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) KEN LUCAS ( 404) 562-8953 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) KEN MALLARY (404) 562-8802 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) MICHAEL TOWNSEND (404) 562-8813 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) SAMANTHA URQUHART F (404) 562-8760 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Phil Vorsatz (404) 562-8789 Site Assessment Manager (SAM) Jennifer Wendel (404) 562-8799 Return to Search Results Return to Search CERCLIS DISCLAIMER: Be advised that the data contained in these profiles are intended solely for informational purposes use by employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for management of the Superfund program. They are not intended for use in calculating Cost Recovery Statutes of Limitations and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA reserves the right to change these data at any time without public notice. OSWER Home I Superfund Home EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us URL: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/ccontact.cfm This page design was last updated on Friday, August 25, 2006 Content is dynamically generated by ColdFusion 9/22/2006 10:23 AM Superfund Information Systems -CER.: Actions • 1 of 2 CERCLIS Database Site Documents Data Element Dictionary (DED) Order Superfund Products U.S. K:nvirQnrti~nt@i Pr@t%'@tion Ag-ency Superfund Information Systems Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search:! ... EPA Home> Supertund >Sites> Supertund Information Systems> Search CERCLIS > Search Results> GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL CERCLIS Database GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION HARDWOOD SAWMILL Actions Site Info I Aliases I Operable Units I Contacts Actions I Contaminants I Site-Specific Documents OU Action Name Qualifier Lead Actual Start Actual Completion 00 DISCOVERY F 08/01/1980 00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT L s 12/24/1985 00 SITE INSPECTION H s 07/11/1991 06/15/1992 00 EXPANDED SITE G s 12/02/1995 02/06/1997 INSPECTION 00 HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM 0 F 07/14/1998 PACKAGE 00 PROPOSAL TO NATIONAL F 01/19/1999 PRIORITIES LIST 00 UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER FE 06/16/1999 00 REMOVAL p F 04/21/1999 08/04/1999 00 FINAL LISTING ON F 10/22/1999 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 00 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS F 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 00 WITHDRAWN FROM THE F 09/28/2000 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 00 Notice Letters Issued FE 10/26/2004 00 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER FE 04/27/2005 ON CONSENT 00 NON-NATIONAL PRIORITIES FE 10/01/2000 04/27/2005 LIST POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH 00 POTENTIALLY p RP 08/16/1999 RESPONSIBLE PARTY REMOVAL 01 COMBINED REMEDIAL EP 05/08/1998 INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY Return to Search Results Return to Search CERCLIS 9/22/2006 10:09 AM • • Georgia-Pacific Corporation ~ & @ !!'_. ''. WI ~{n) January 16, 2006· s~_•za~]!Dh SUPERFuivo· ,SfCTtoN Mr. William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 160 I Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 C:::o /" , -,. s .:>"a a.:;. ,-,,c :3.-,-,,:-:::, P.O. Box 589 --· -~:7'.'/.._C-Q Whiteville, North Carolina 28472 L ,~ L Telephone (910) 642-5041 <'-'-..- Fax (910) 642-9091 RE: MERGER OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION AND KOCH FOREST PRODUCTS INC. Mr. Ross: On December 23, 2005, Koch Forest Products, Inc. (KFP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, Incorporated, completed its purchase of the outstanding shares of Georgia Pacific Corporation (Georgia-Pacific). KFP and Georgia Pacific have now merged, with Georgia Pacific as the surviving entity. Prior to this transaction Georgia-Pacific was a publicly held corporation. With the completion of this transaction Georgia-Pacific is now a privately held, wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, Incorporated. We are writing to inform you of the completion of this transaction and to advise that the direct . . ownership of our facility by Georgia-Pacific Corporation, is unchanged by this transaction, and that we intend to continue operating under the name listed on our environmental permits. As such, we do not believe it is necessary to modify or change the permits listed below for our facility. Should you believe otherwise, please let us know, and also consider this a request to appropriately change our permits. Listed below are the environmental permits issued to our Complex: Tvne of Permit Permit Number Title V (Plvwood & Chio-N-Saw) No. 00007T 15 (Title V) NPDES (Plywood) Ncoooseo1 NPDES (Wet deck) NC0072168 Wastewater Recycle Svstems (Plywood) WQ0002564 Drinking Water Svstem 04-24-813 Wastewater Recycle Svstem (Chio-N-Saw) WQ0008087 Storm Water (Chip-N-Saw) NCG210165 We appreciate the good working relationship we have enjoyed over the years and look forward to continuing that relationship in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me at (910) 642-5041 ext 246. Sincerely, 1-------~¥.-~ Norman R. Hiers Plant Manager Cc: • • NCDNR Division Directors: Alan Klimek, Harlan Frye, Keith Overcash, Dexter Matthews, Charles Jones, Gary Hunt, Terry Pierce, Stan Adams, Manly Wilder, Preston Pate, and Jim Simons Georgia-Pacific Corporation: Paul J. Vasquez, GA09 Royce Nobles Steve Wilson •. OCT 2 0 1999 Mr. Jack Butler UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-8960 G c North Carolina Division Waste Management North Carolina Department of Environmental, and Natural Resources P.O. Box 29603 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 SUBJ: National Priorities List Proposed Rule #30 RECEIVED OCT 271999 SUPERFUND SECTION Final Rule #26 Dear Mr. Butler: The Agency plans to announce on October 21, 1999, in the Federal Register, Proposed Rule #30 and Final Rule #26 to the National Priorities List (NPL). This rule proposes to add 9 sites to the NPL and finalizes 10. The Region 4 sites are as follows: Proposed Rule #30: 1. Trans Circuits, Palm Beach County, Florida 2. Macalloy Corporation, Charleston County, south Carolina Final Rule #26: 1. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Hardwood Sawmill, Washington County, North Carolina Various background and supplementary information pertaining to the rule is located on the Internet. The information can be accessed fr6m the Superfund homepage under "What's New• and "Auxiliary Information•. The exact addresses are listed below. Map with clickable States with a link to narrative summaries and FR notices: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm Map with clickable States with a link to Regional fact sheets: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsites/index.htrn If you have any questions, please contact me at 404/562-8817. cc: Mr. Dan LaMontagne, NCDENR Sincerely, ~-7u~~1lfl1~ Region 4, NPL Coordinator Site Assessment Process Owner Internet Address (URL)• http://www.apa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OIi Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) OPPENHEIMER • OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP I -, I I c:::-,--:r-,•,·-~ · ... , ... .. ' ~mstt!rll.im: ·::: ~: ~ 1':"e~-Y?.~/ Br~~~i;·· -0range County 1350 Eye Sm:.:t N.W., Suite 200 \Vruhington, D.C. 20005-3324 FEB 2 3 2cr,J 202.312.8000 F,Lt 202.312.8100 I' ---._:.:1-=----- Direct Dial: ~~f,;a'.,:i~:::i,cnhdmcr.co ,,crui~W-~}~:;,;L\'~sGJ[:(;~S E-i\foil: February 22, 2000 Carol M. Browner, Adrninistrator. United States Environrnental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Adrninistrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response United States Environrnental Protection Agency Mail Code 5101 401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Gary S. Guzy, General Counsel United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Mail Code 23 10-A Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agcncv Our File No. 11533/25 Dear Sirs/Madarns: Bill Holrnan, Secretary North Carolina Departrnent of Natural Resources 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice Tenth Str_eet and Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 RECEIVED'- cFF1cE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Enclosed and served upon you by hand-delivery, please find enclosed the following docurnents filed on February 22, 2000 in the above-captioned action: (!) Docketing Statement; (2) Staternent of Issues To Be Raised; OPPENHEIMER • OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP February 22, 2000 Page 2 (3) Certificate of Counsel ( 4) Statement Concerning Deferred Appendix. MS:sf Enclosures cc: Ronald T. Allen Gaiy P. Genge! Sincerely, )~.tl~~ J;Ji.Ju•A Margar&. Strand ·' ;;-• • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Petitioner V. ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The issues to be raised in this matter are as follows: No. 00-1014 STATEMENT OF ISSUES TOBE RAISED l. Whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") failed to establish a valid Hazard Ranking System ("HRS") score of at least 28.5 for the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill site in Plymouth, North Carolina ("Sawmill Site" or "Site") such that EPA has no authority to list the Sawmill Site on the National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites ("NPL") pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") Section 105(a)(8)(b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 2. Whether EPA's unsupported assumptions regarding the overland flow at the Sawmill Site, EPA's errors in evaluating the sample results for the Sawmill Site and in calculating the factors required for the Site's HRS score, and EPA's failure to show that the Sawmill Site was the source of an observed release to the Roanoke River invalidate EPA's HRS score for the Sawmill Site such that EPA has no authority to list the Site on the NPL pursuant to CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 3. Whether EPA failed to properly consider certain material in the record before the agency when it made its decision, which invalidates the HRS score for the Site such that EPA • • has no authority to list the Site on the NPL pursuant to CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Date: February 22, 2000 r Respectfully submitted, Gary P. Genge! Minnesota Attorney License No. 158598 Variessa L. P. Johnson Minnesota Attorney License No. 0269906 · OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP 3400 Plaza VII Building 45 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 2 .. • • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Petitioner V. ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 00-1014 Pursuant to the January 20, 2000 Order of this Court, Petitioner Georgia-Pacific Corporation hereby submits an original and one copy of the following documents: (I) Docketing Statement; (2) Statement of Issues To Be Raised; (3) Certificate of Counsel (4) Statement Concerning Deferred Appendix. Date: February 22, 2000 Respectfully submitted, Gary P. Genge! Minnesota Attorney License No. I 58598 Margaret District Columbia Circuit Bar No .. 25262 Vanessa L. P. Johnson Minnesota Attorney License No. 0269906 OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP 3400 Plaza VII Building 45 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER l. CASE NO. 3. CASENAME (lead parties only) 4. TYPE OF CASE: United States Court of Appeals • District of Columbia Circuit • DOCKETING STATEMENT Administrative Agency Review Proceedings (To be completed by appellanVpetitioner) 00-1014 2. DA TE DOCKETED ___ J=-a=.nccu=.accr=-y,_l:..:8=-,'-'2""0:..:0:..:0'-· __ _ Georgia-Pacific Corporation V. Environmental Protection Agency (lg Review [ ] Appeal [ ] Enforcement [ ] Complaint [ ] Tax Court 5. IS TIIlS CASE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO BE EXPEDITED? YES ____ NO X IfYES, cite statute: ------------------------------------- 6. CASE INFORMATION: a. Identify agency whose order is to be reviewed: _____ E=n..:.v,,cic.:cr..:eocemn=ecenc:ctcea,_,l'---"P-'r"o"t'-'e'-'c"t""i"'o"'n"--'A"'g"e"-n=c.z.y ____ _ b. Give agency docket or order number{s): _,F"R2=2=-0=-C=-9=-9=---=-l=.l ______________________ _ c. Give date(s) of order{s):· _ ~O~c-"t-"o-"b-"e~r~2~2~-"1~9~9~9 ______________________ _ d. Has a request for rehearing or reconsideration been filed at the agency? YES ____ NO _ ___,,X'-- If so, when was it filed? _____ By whom? _______________________ _ Has the agency acted? YES____ NO___ If so, when? ________________ _ e. Are any other cases involving the same underlying agency order pending in this Court or in any other Court? YES · NO X* If YES, identify case name(s), docket number(s), and court(s): To the best of Georgi a- Pacific's knowledge and belief, there are no other cases involving the listing of the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill site on the National Priorities List pending in this Court or in any other court. f. Are any other cases, to counsel's knowledge, pending before the agency, this Court, another Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court which involve substantially the same issues as the instant case presents? YES____ NO X IfYES, give case name(s) and number(s) of these cases and identify court/agency: g. Have the partieS attempted to resolve the issues in this case through arbitration, mediation, or any other alternative for dispute resolution? YES ____ NO X If so, provide the name of the program and the dates of participation. -------------------------------------- Signature Ji}i~4µ__LJ/ ~ J. Name of Party (Print~ orgi a-Pacific Corpora ti on Date February 22, 2000 Name of Counsel for Appellant/Petitioner (Print):iary P. Genge l /Margaret N. St.rand Firm OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP Address Plaza VII, 45 South Seventh Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 554D2-1609 Phone_....1{..s6.:.12"")'--"'60e.,7....:-.!..70,,.,0,.,,0'------------------FaxNo. (612) 607-7100 ATTACH A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Note: If counsel for any other party believes that the information submitted is inaccurate or incomplete, counsel may so advise the Clerk within 10 days by letter, with copies to all other parties, specifically referring to the challenged statement. An original and three copies of such letter should be submitted. USCA FORM 7 (Rev. 1/99) • • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Petitioner V. ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 00-1014 PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF· PETITIONER GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(l) of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the January 20, 2000 Order of the Court, Petitioner Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific") submits this Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases. A. Parties and Amici This case involves review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") decision to list the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Hardwood Sawmill site ("Sawmill Site"), located in Plymouth, North Carolina, on the National Priorities List ("NPL") for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") Section 105(a)(8)(b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The undersigned counsel of record for Petitioner certify that the parties appearing in this action are Georgia-Pacific and "EPA. Georgia-Pacific is a company incorporated in the state of Georgia for the purpose of doing business as a manufacturer and distributor of building products, pulp, paper and related chemicals used in papermaking and the production of building products. Georgia-Pacific is one • of the former owners of the Sawmill Site, which Georgia-Pacific operated as a sawmill from approximately 1959 until I 980. Georgia-Pacific has no parent company or any publicly-held company that has a 10% or greater ownership interest. B. Ruling Under Review Petitioner Georgia-Pacific seeks review of EPA's order lisiing the Georgia-Pacific site located in Plymouth, North Carolina on the NPL. This listing is set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 56966 (Oct. 22, I 999). C. Related Cases To the best of Georgia-Pacific's knowledge and belief, this case was not previously before this Court or any other court, and no other related cases involving the listing of the Georgia-Pacific site located in Plymouth, North Carolina on the NPL currently are pending before this Court or any Court. 2 Date: February 22, 2000 • Respectfully submitted, Gary P. Genge! Minnesota Attorney License No. 158598 . 'trand olumbia Circuit Bar No. 25262 Vanessa L. P. Johnson Minnesota Attorney License No. 0269906 OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP 3400 Plaza VII Building 45 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 3 • • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Petitioner V. ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 00-1014 STATEMENT CONCERNING DEFERRED APPENDIX Petitioner Georgia-Pacific Corporation intends to utilize a deferred appendix pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 30(C). Date: Febmary 22, 2000 Respectfully submitted, Gary P. Genge! Minnesota Attorney License No. 158598 ij~ -~ Margar. District of Columbia Circuit Bar No. 25262 Vanessa L. P. Johnson Minnesota Attorney License No. 0269906 OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP 3400 Plaza VII Building 45 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 : Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY UNITED ST ATES MAIL I hereby certify that I have this day served upon the following by hand delivery a true and correct copy of the foregoing: (1) Docketing Statement; (2) Statement of Issues To Be Raised; (3) Provisional Certificate of Petitioner as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases; and, ( 4) Statement Concerning Deferred Appendix: Carol M. Browner, Administrator · United States Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response United States Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 5101 401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Gary S. Guzy, General Counsel United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Mail Code 2310-A Washington, D.C. 20460 Bill Holman, Secretary North Carolina Department of Natural Resources 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 OPPENHEIMER WOLFF DONNELLY & BA YH LLP 1350 Eye Street N.W. Suite 200 ·washington, D.C. 20005-3324 Telephone: (202) 312-8000 Dated at Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of February 2000. U. STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE.N AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-89 o OCT 1 5 1998 Mr. Wayne McDevitt North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687. Subject: State Support for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Listing oftbe Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill c~ tbe :Nati0!1al Priorities List (NPL) Dear Mr. McDevitt: RECE\\.tEr, OCT 2 9 199B Thank you for your letter dated September 22, 1998, to Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerning the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) providing support for EPA's proposed listing of the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site on the National Priorities List (NPL). Your letter was forwarded to EPA Region 4 for response. I would like to thank NCDENR for supporting EPA's proposed listing of the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site on the NPL. This support is a good example of the vital role that NCDENR serves in the Superfund process. EPA Region 4 also looks forward to continuing our working partnership in the future. IfI may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me or McKenzie Mallary at (404) 562- 8802. Sincerely, (,,.. / Richard D. Green, Director \)....,. Waste Management Division cc: Julia Mooney, EPA Region 4 Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Aecycled'Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) JAMES 8. HUNT JR."' GoVERNOR WAYNE MCDEv1rr· .·· ~·.: ··~-~ ~-·.-. ....... • • NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES SEP 2 2 1998 Ms. Carol M. Browner, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40 l M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Subject: Proposal for NPL Listing Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site Plymouth, Washington County, NC NCD 000 813 592 Dear Ms. Browner: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV has solicited North Carolina's position on proposing the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). Continued response action is needed at the site due to contamination of soils and surface water sediments with various dioxin/furan isomers, inorganics, pesticides, and extractable organic compounds. Therefore, if the EPA proposes this site for listing on the NPL, North Carolina would support such an action. We appreciate the EPA's requesting our input on such sites and look forward to continuing our working partnership with Region IV on CERCLA issues. WMcDWLM cc: Bill Holman, NCDENR Wayne McDevitt Secretary William L. Meyer, NCDENR, D\VM Jack Butler, NCDENR, DWM Richard Green, US EPA, Region JV Cynthia Gurley, US EPA, Region IV Phil Vorsatz, US EPA, Region JV P.O. Box 27687, RA.LEIGH NC 27611-7687 I S 12 NORTH SALISBURY STREET. RALEIGH NC 27604 PHONE 91 9-733-4984 FAX 91 9·715-3060 WWW.EHNR.STATE.Nc.us/EHNR/ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· 50% RECYCLED/10% POST•CONSUMER PAPER • Georgia-Pacific Corp. Hardwood Sawmill site NCO 000 813 592 Plymouth, Washington County, NC Site Summary The 24-acre Georgia-Pacific Corp. Hardwood Sawmill site is an inactive, unoccupied, former lumber mill located on Plywood Drive within the city limits of Washington County. Georgia-Pacific (G-P) purchased the facility in 1950 from the Atlas Plywood Company and operated at the site until 1983 when a catastrophic fire led G-P to permanently close the sawmill. The site is currently owned by Waff Contracting Company. The site property is adjacent to the Roanoke River, the Plymouth High School athletic fields, a residential neighborhood, and the local troop of Boy Scouts of America (BSA) meeting lodge. During the operational period of the facility, application of a wood treatment solution to wood products was done as rough lumber was passed through a dip vat. An Expanded Site Inspection (ES!), conducted at the site by the North Carolina Superfund Section on June I 9-20, 1995, confirmed the presence of elevated levels of various dioxin/furan isomers, inorganics, pesticides/PCB's, and extractable.organic compounds in soils at the dip vat area. Some of these compounds are present at levels exceeding health based benchmarks for soil exposure. Analysis of sediment samples collected from the Roanoke River indicates that site specific contaminants have migrated off-site. A background soil sample collected from the adjacent BSA property contained pentachlorophenol at levels similar to those found at the site source area. The US EPA initiated formal negotiations ofan Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) on June 12, I 997 with the submittal of a Special Notice letter to Georgia-Pacific. Throughout the negotiation process, Georgia-Pacific was unwilling to cooperate with EPA in formulating an investigation plan that would adequately characterize the on-site source areas and identify off-site areas of contaminant migration. On April 27, 1998, EPA ended the AOC negotiations and notified Georgia-Pacific that the agency would proceed with a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) financed with funds provided by the Superfund The EPA sponsored kick-off public meeting was held at 7:00 PM on August 24, 1998 at the Plymouth High School, Rl/FS sample collection began at the site the following day. ID: APR 27'98 u& STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT.AGl;NCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET, SW ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-89D9 April 27, 1998 Mr. Ronald 1'. Allen Georgia Pacific Corporation 133 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5605 12:06 No.004 P.02 Subject: EPA's Response to Gary Gengel's Letter Dated April 7, 1998, Regarding the G~orgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site, Plymouth, North Carolina Dear Mr ... .r.fi'en : ·,.·,;,,/f'C-1 . /1·Ul;" The'purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter eent to EPA by Gary Gengel of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, dated April 7, 1998, regarding the "Plymouth Site" located in Plymouth, North Carolina. First, I would like to respond to statements made about the draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan, and reiterate EPA's position regarding the Draft RI/FS Work Plan. In the second paragraph you state, "As indicated in Georgia Pacific's March 23, 1998 correspondence though, Georgia Pacific understood that the scope of the Work Plan already had been agreed to, with the exception of "limited" significant and appropriate comments that Ken Mallary might distill from the four commentors." While EPA and Georgia Pacific had agreements on the phase I sediment sampling in the Roanoke River and the Phase l off-site soil sampling, EPA has never had an agreement with Georgia Pacific regarding the remainder of the Draft RI/FS Work Plan. EPA never agreed to "limited" significant and appropriate comments. -.;{'ro the contrary, due to the inadequacy of the off-site sampling proposed in BBL's Draft Work Plan dated January 1998, -EPA had.concerns about the quality of the entire Draft Work Plan. EPA's ¢orjcerns were justified. Twenty-seven (27) pages of comrnents··were generated by EPJ\ and the State during the review of the work Plan. EPA continues to believG that using a 100' by 100• grid for the on-site soil sampling, especially in the areas fonnally used for lumber storage, is necessary to provide an adequate characterization of the Site. These areas have never been sampled in the past, and are located adjacent to the source areas R1tcyclfd/Rtoyol1bl1 • Prlntad with VtQete.nle 011 Based Ink& on 1 oo,;,, Regyc:led Pap8f (40% Postoon1umer) NORTH SUPERFUND ID: • RPR 27'98 • 12:06 No.004 P.03 where high levels of contamination have previously been identified. EPA believes a conservative cost estim,,te for using the 100' by 100' grid area for the areas formerly usod for wood storage, would be apprmdmately $326,000. The amount of time it talrns to complete the RI/FS and RD/RA at any given site generally depends on the size and complexity of the Site. Based on the limited amount of information available for this Site, EPA estimated the length of time to conduct the RI/FS, and to conduct the Remedial Deaign and Remedial Action (RD/RA), to take from 3-5 years. EPA and the State believe that it ie imperative to charactGrize all site-related contamination, both on-site, and off-site, and to take all appropriate response ' \>),-actions whi!,ch may be necessary to ensure the protection of human health anci!:j'i:he environment, especially considering the proposecl future ;u~e,r{of the Site. '.,,,o,/ :·11i'fV-4.0°-' /!11.t,,: ' As•'EPA stated during the !U/FS negotiations, if Georgia Pacific elects not to proceed with RI/FS work on the Site under a consent order, EPA will conduct the RI/FS as provided under section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Under section 104(a) (1) of CERCLA, EPA is authorized to provide for remedial action relating to a hazardous substance released into the environment and presenting an imminent and substantial. endangerment to public health or the environment. When EPA determines that remedial action will be conducted properly and promptly by a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), EPA may allow such party to carry out the action, or to conduct the RI/FS pursuant to agreement entered into in accordance with the provisions of CERCLA section 122. The PRP-conductod RI/FS will only be authorized upon a determination by EPA that the PRP is qualified, willing and able to conduct the RI/FS properly. ,, ,,i, Sect:i,i;>~' 122 (a) provides that EPA, in its discretion, may erter into,\)ui agreement with a PRP for performance of a response _ action. ;(:J,'.:E,, EPA agrees for PRP ·perforni.,.nce of a response action, EPA musci:;,fssue an order or enter into a consent decree setting ••ff ' forth the obligations of the PRP providing the response action. Section 122(d) (3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622 (d) (3) EPA firmly believes, based on the comments of its expert advisors and the State of North Carolina, that the 100 foot grid/2 sample per grid sampling protocol is necessary to provide an adequate characterization of the Site and its contllll\inants. Mr. Gengel's April 7 letter states very clearly that Georgia Pacific believes this approach is financially excessive and 2 NORTH SUPERFUND ID: RPR 27'98 12:07 No.004 P.04 • • wasteful, and, for that reason, Georgia Pacific will not sign EPA's proposed consent order requiring a 100 foot grid sampling protocol. Based upon these facts, EPA can only conclude that Georgia Pacific is unwilling to properly conduct the RI/FS at the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site as contemplated unaer sections J.04 (al and (bl and 122 of CERCLA. EPA will, therefore, proceed with RI/FS work on the Site financed with funds provided by the Superfund .. ,;:EPA will periodically apprise Georgia Pacific of the pr::ogress be;ing made during the JU/FS. Once the Record of Decision '.fo'i< the Site has been signed, EPA will contact Georr;ria Pacific1'f~~.•·arding Remedial Design/Remedial Action negotiations. '1,;j>-" !: .~" ,,j Georgia Pacific ahould not take any actions which will interfere with EPA's RI/FS activities. Furthermore, any environmental characterization conducted by Georgia Pacific at the Site will not supplement or replace EPA's RI/FS activities. You can contact me at (404) 562-8802 if you have any questions or comment2 regarding this matter. cc: Doug Rumford, NCDENR . .ilr~, ·.·~lJ" jf;/0]5i!::- Sinct':rely, JM~~ McKenzie Mallary North Site Management Branch 3 i • · Georgia-Pacific Corporation Ronald T. Allen Assistant General Counsel, Environmental Mr. Jack Butler, P.E. Chief Superfund Section North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Waste Management 40 I Oberlin Road Suite 150 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 April 22, 1998 Re: Plymouth, Washington County, Site· NCO 000 813 592 Dear Mr. Butler: • Law Department 133 Peachtree Street NE /30303-1847) P.O. Box_.105605 Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5605 (404) 652-4377 Telephone /404) 584-1461 Facsimile RECEIVED APR 2 8 1998 SUPERFUND SECTION I want to thank you and the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources ("DENR") for your efforts to move the Plymouth Site ("Site") forward. Unfortunately, as you know, Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific") and USEPA Region IV ("EPA") were not able to come to terms on an Administrative Order on Consent. I appreciate your correspondence of March 30, 1998 commenting on my March 23, 1998 correspondence to Reuben Bussey of EPA. We understand DENR has a concern that if Georgia-Pacific conducts a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("Rl/FS") at the Site it would not be consistent with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") because the Site is "NPL-caliber". However, we do not find any language in the NCP which precludes Georgia-Pacific from performing the RI/FS on an "NPL-calibcr" site. In our view, such a provision would be directly contrary to the policy of the NCP to encourage parties to undertake investigation and cleanup. Georgia-Pacific intends to undertake the RI/FS in a manner entirely consistent with the NCP. The question concerning whether direct oversight of an RI/FS is a requirement of the NCP should not slow the process down. Georgia-Pacific simply wants to move forward to address the Site, an objective on which we hope all parties agree. Mr. Jack Butler, P.E. April 22, 1998 Page 2 • • I apologize if my March 23 letter to Mr. Bussey left DENR with the impression that Georgia-Pacific was seeking to perform the investigation under direct DENR supervision. Although Georgia-Pacific believes working with DENR would be the most appropriate manner for handling this Site (as exemplified by Georgia-Pacific's discussions with DENR in the summer of 1997, and DENR's subsequent efforts to have EPA return the Site regulatory lead to DENR), we understand that EPA's unwillingness to release the Site to DENR may effectively preclude Georgia-Pacific and DENR from working directly together on any formal basis. Georgia-Pacific continues to believe the most appropriate and expeditious method of addressing this Site is by working directly with DENR. As you know, Georgia-Pacific did work diligently to negotiate an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with EPA. However, Georgia-Pacific and EPA have been unable to come to an agreement on some key terms, and therefore Georgia-Pacific has decided to address the Site on a purely voluntary basis, i.&,_, without contractual or consent decree oversight. We hope DENR and EPA will review the RI/FS Work Plan and provide comments, and also review the analytical data and other results of the RI/FS and any other activities Georgia-Pacific may undertake. Georgia-Pacific sincerely hopes to move this Site forward as though the work were being conducted under an AOC. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time with any questions you may have. RTA:ads/193367 cc: Mr. Doug Rumford Mr. Reuben T. Bussey Mr. Gerald E. Ritter Mr. James J. Holmes Ronald T. Allen FROM OPPENHEIMER (tl.PLS I • OPPENHE!l-,1ER WOLFF & DoNNELLY LLP Pla:aVIl (':'UE) Jt 07' 98 1-3/3':' 16: 02/ND. 356]0678 I 8 P 2 r; C • ,-U'ffl(/'1flWOl.CVJ11Ce:I 15 South Sevo_';ch Street .,· Suite 3-400 .\,·:.. ;: . Min.neapoli<, MN 55407., I 609 Cblcaeo G:neva Irvine (61 Z) 607 ,7000 · .. ,.·::.•:>· FAX (612) 607-7100 ''.ti,!/ LosAngda M;m,,,,p,;,Ha . ',,: GARYP. Gm=. ·i>> -": N.., Yodc~~ -:,:: --=:;,,.,:· VIA FAC.filM]LE AND U.S. MATT, Mr. Reuben T. Bussey Assistant Regional Counsel USEPA, Region IV 61 Forsyth Street NE Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Mr. McKenzie !v'iallary RPM.fNorth Sit~ Management Branch ,0SEP A, Re~~I!' rv 61 Forsyth:Stteet NE Atlanta, dK4j0303..g909 Dlr= Dial (612) 6-07-7456 ggcngel@owdtnr.ccm April 7, 1998 Re: Plymouth Site, Plymouth, North Carolina Our File No. l 1333-25 Dear Reuben and Ken: ' O' •' ' ' ' " i! •~•I• I ~ ,•• 1 f 'I '; '') 1~• I' >, ',,, ~~:1,~ij -~s,•i~•f--• •1':j•,,;1°1!~.~-q{,(J~,• ;_i This correspondence is in response ici J::.J:'A's couiiterprdposaJ io'ucorgia•Kacinc Part, Saine Paul s.n Jo,e Wl!Sltingn,n, D.C. Corporation's ("Georgia-Pa.cific'') M.a,ch 16, 1998 submittal of an executed Administrative Ordei:- on Consent ("AOC") for the Plymouth'l:ite'loc~ie;ffu'p[ymouth)·foith cirolirui ("Site"). EPA's oral cou!l!erproposal was con.fumed by Reuben Buslley's correspondonce of April 2, 1998. · EPA's counterproposal is "that Georgia-Pacific and EPA meet and attempt to agree, by.April 3, 1998, as to which EPA comments shqwd be incoij:,orated'mto tlie RJ/FS workp1an. If agreement can be reached, by April 3, as to comments to be 0inl'.l!¥6i'ated illto the wmkplan, Georgia-Pacific will execute the March 5 draft consent order, without alteration or amendment, on or before April 7 .. Follov.ing execution of the consent order, Georgia-Paci.fie will provide a workplan not later thanApril 21, 1998." ·,:: :.~~i?'' ·'.?--_;~ - .>·,:'' Georgia;P&:ific appreciate; the Agency's counterproposal and its willingness to~ with Georgia-Pacilic~o review the comments ;with EPA and its consultants. As indicated in Georgia- Pacific's Mafch 23, 1998 correspondeA'ce thoi,gri;"'mo~~Paci':lf c urideistooo ffiat fhe scope of the Werle Plan already ha.cl been agreed to, with the exception of"Iimite,r significant and (~UE) J4 07' 98 ,3/~~ 16: 02/NO. 356]067818 P 3 apJ)Topriate comments that Ken Mallary might distill.from the four commenters. While Georgia- Pacific was prepared to agree to many of the procedural comments which we viewed to be limited, very significantly EPA has insisted that 100 foot grid 5ampling with two (2) samples per grid point be implemented as part of the Work·Plan. Georgia-Pacific does not believe that a· 100 foot grid protocol is a limited, signiJicaru: and appropriate comment; rather, Georgia-Pacific believes that this comment represents a wholesale change in approach to investigating the Site. The investigation approach, which we U1Jdcrstood to have been agreed to after the extensive negotiations llrilo~ Georgia-Pacific, EPA and State, was to use the knowledge of Site opernti.011!; (hardboard sawmill, with a se,asonal penta.chlorpbemrte dip tank operation), focus the investigation oil the areas. whe~e impacts could be e:,i:pected to ci~~}dip vat ai;~ and drainage ditches), and condui;t only conlirmatory sampling in the raw log and>1:ihlshed go6distorage areas. This approach is consistent with the preamble in EPA' s piaposed ruJe,i:,ii6~ood surface protection at sawmill sites. ~. 58 f.R. 25706, April 27. 1993. In contrastJ-lEPA' s insistence that I 00 ·fuot grid sampling is necessary, ignores all knowledge of Site operations and requires extensive ·sillllpling tlitoughou't the Site, even in areas only used for storage of raw logs or cut lumber. Georgia-Pacific lielieves this approach is eii:cessive and • wasteful. Assuming that a laboratory which meets Georgia-Pacific' s'quafity control standards is used to analyze the samples, the cost difference between the origipaJ inv.estigative concept we understood EPA to have agreed to, and the concept of grid sampling now being sought, is about $750,000 for laboratory costs alone. Georgia-Pacific has experien~ with sawmill sites and well understands the types of · contamination at such sites and locaticin!; where such contamination may be found. Based upon· personal observation of the Site and our'tiriowledge cif the type of contamination which may be found at a sawmill, we believe it is totally unreaso·nable to take the 3 to 5 years EPA estimates it will take to conduct the Rl/FS. We have been advised that the City of Plymouth intends to develop the waterfront area, and it is iXJ tl:Je best interests of all parties to take an expeditious approach. Even EP A's own proposed rule supports Georgia-Pacific's understandings, and the appropriate approach to expeditiously and cost effi:!ct'ively perform a RIIFs at the Site. EPA's dc:~an.d f~r grid,sa.mpling i.5 exces5ive and unwarranted; and it certwnly i~ not the type of limited, ,-.... ,. -.-'4--• _ •sign(fjcant and npptopriate comment .-:lll'eh we had'uildcrstood tlia.t Ken Mallary might develop .· fro$ those of th];four commenters. ·-- ' ·;;;-~i~t,--·. Sinilt~ understand EPA' s comment requiring 100 foot grid plan sampling is non-. negotiable, Georgia-Pacific must reluctJmtly decline tb sign th~ open ended AOC which.is imxinsistent with our agreement. Geo1Wa-Pacific again intends to proactively address the Site consistent with the NCP and Region IV SOP on if sown !IS iridicafed in its March ·23, 1998 Jetter. Mr. Reuben T. Bussey Mr. McKenzie Mallary April 7, 1998 Page 3 (':'UE) )4 07' 98 14/r I 6: 02/NO 356)067818 P 4 Georgia-Pacific will submit its final Work Plan to EPA and the State prior to commencing its investigation of the Site. Georgia-Pacijic again invit!!S both EPA and the State ofNorth Carolina Lo submit comments on or otherwise participate in Georgia-Pacific's performance of tbe IU/FS to the full extent desired. Regardless of the level of participation by North Garolina and EPA, Georgia-Pacific; will keep both EPA and the State apprised of the process, analytical data, and results. GPGlmks cc: Mr. James E. Bostic, Jr. Mr. Ronald T. Allen Mr. Gerald E. Ritter Mr. James J. Holmes . Mr. Doug Rllrnford (via facsimile) ♦TCZ: 2752D3 --C1 .d/7,'8& JAMES B. HUNT JR:;,:, GoVE:RNOR ,. -~-. ~~~';.';;t:' .... ~ .. l:'.'il[:,._ 1"~;:-~I:'.!.~," 1--,.. ~ .... __ i~~~ ,-=---,::.':~~,,_.. 1;,.~~t~•.:r.~--1::-_~.:c.,.~..; .. 1~ .• ,,. •'>-,-~';!Mi. .,.-... ~ .... ~m,-<".,-,;...::i~;~i~~ti.l: ·~,P. :.~~~'(;~~-:.,,~;;~~-~~'.j • ...;-~ .,.~~~~--:..-::-• .....,,r,;--· ~ -.,_ .. -.,,,~ ., ="""'··=,,"""""', ... ;;;;;;. -,, .:~ .... ~~~ ·~ . ........ . ,• -. 4.;;,;.• -~" i~i:,,. \I~, :~i:~f~:.. .:,. '-~ ~-.. ...,~ ... .,., . ~-~ , " ~ l tr.,~~-::-;:;;~~~~~-~~li· ~,t,if•~-~--c-: .. -_:a-~ .. -~;,.. !ii~ ---ir • Mr. Ronald T. Allen Georgia-Pacific Corp. Law Department 13 3 Peachtree Street NE P.O. Box 105605 Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5605 • NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT March 30, 1998 Subject: Georgia-Pacific Corp. Hardwood Sawmill Site NCD 000 813 592 Plymouth, Washington County, NC Dear Mr. Allen: I am writing in response to your letter of March 23, 1998 to Reuben Bussey, Assistant Regional Counsel, USEP A Region IV in which you expressed Georgia-Pacific Corporation's (Georgia-Pacific) intention to proceed on its own to implement a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work plan at the subject site. As you are aware, the site is currently considered to be "NPL-caliber" in that it qualifies for proposal to the National Priorities List (NPL). Therefore, any remedial action activities which are not conducted in conjunction with a sif,'11ed Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between EPA and Georgia-Pacific, would not be consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Your letter also states that Georgia-Pacific will keep both the State of North Carolina and the EPA "apprised of the process, analytical data, and results" of a voluntary remedial action. Since the Plymouth site is "NPL-caliber", it is considered to be a cleanup priority for EPA and not a candidate for an AOC with the North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Sites (IHS) Branch. For the same reason, it is also not a candidate for an AOC under the Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) program within the !HS Branch. Further, any independent remedial activity can not be deemed as an approvable action under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of 1987. Remediation oversight under State authorities through a Superfund State Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) deferral is also not appropriate for the subject site because the site does not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the MOA. 401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE I 50, RALEIGH, NC 2.7605 PHONE919•733•4996 FAX 919•715-3605 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLE0/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER -.. Mr. Ronald T. Allen March 30, 1998 Page 2 • • Let me reiterate that the State's position regarding the Plymouth $ite is that it would be most appropriate and expeditious for the site remediation to proceed under a signed AOC between EPA and Georgia-Pacific with the State acting in a support agency role maintaining review and oversight of project activities. As such, we are in favor of further negotiations that would result in an acceptable RI/FS work plan to be executed under a signed AOC witli EPA. However, should Georgia-Pacific choose to not enter into an agreement with EPA, the State acknowledges EP A's authority to proceed with a Fund-financed response action. If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact me at (919) 733-2801, ext. 293. cc: William L. Meyer Phil Vorsatz, USEP A Region IV Pat DeRosa Doug Rumford Rob Gelblum Sincerely, ~ t:1/~'-t. Jack Butler, P.E. Chief Superfund Section l·IRR 404 5:34 1461 TO 9191':l715361Z15 • G c Law Department Georgia-Pacific Corporation 133 Peachtree Street NE (30303-1847} P.O. Box 105605 Rona/ct T. Allen Assistant General Counsel, Environmental Mr. Reuben T. Bussey Assistant Regional Counsel USEP A, Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-3 I 04 March 23, 1998 Re: Plymouth Site, Plymouth, North Carolina Dear Mr. Bussey: Atlania, Georgia 30348-5605 (404) 652-4377 Telephone (404) 584-1461 Facsimile Sus3ll Fox of my staff has reported to me your telephone conference with her of March 18, 1998, responding to Georgia-Pacific's March 16, 1998 submittal of an executed Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") for the Plymouth Site located in Plymouth, Norrh Carolina ("Site"). As I understand it, EPA has rejected the AOC Georgia-Pacific has submitted, and now intends to conduct the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for the Site through the use of EPA contractors. However, if Georgia-Pacific executes the AOC in the fom1 submitted by EPA on March 5, 1998, EPA will thereafter discuss with Georgia-Pacific the comments on the Work Plan submitted by (1) North Carolina, (2) EPA Region IV Science and Ecosystems Support Division, (3) EPA Region IV Office of Technical Services, and ( 4) Bechtel. This discussion would occur after the AOC is executed, but before March 30, 1998 when a final Work Plan would still be due to EPA. Georgia-Pacific is very disappointed in EPA's response in that we reached an agreement with the EPA concerning the terms 311d the scope of the AOC based upon the meeting with Richard Green and subsequent discussions with the Agency. Our understanding is that Georgia-Pacific and EPA had agreed to sign the AOC previously negotiated, with the modification that the scope of the RI would be within the parameters defined by Ken Maliary·s January 23, 1998 letter to Georgia-Pacific and Blasland Bouck & Lee's January 1998 Work Plan._ as potentially supplemented by limited comments by (!) North Carolina, (2) EPA Region JV Science and Ecosystems Support Division, (3) EPA Region IV Office of Technical Services, 2nd (4) EPA's contractor which Ken Mallary may determine to be "significant and appropriate." MAP 23 '98 09:52 FP GP LAW DEPT ~ ;, • Mr. Reuben T, Bussey March 23, 1998 Page 2 404 584 1461 •1"3197153605 The March 5 AOC as submitted to Georgia-Pacific reflects the agreement in all respects, with the exceptions that it provides inadequate time to prepare the Work Plan and, very significantly, that it requires Georgia-Pacific to include all comments of all the commentors into the Work Plan to be prepared and submitted by Georgia-Pacific. The comments on the Work Plan which have been submitted by the four commentors are extensive, and number 25 pages of single space text, including Ken Mallary's supplemental comments. Some of the comments are directly contradictory, and others do not make sense in context due to the fact that the cornrnentors were not provided with background materials or otherwise briefed on the details of the Site. In addition, EPA has already verbally acknowledged that all comments relating to off-site issues can be ignored as the agreement is that the scope of the off-site sampling is defined by Mr. Mallary's January 23, 1998 letter. An example of comments that are both contradictory and do not make sense for this Site are the comments of EPA Region IV Office of Technical Services and Bechtel. The office of Technical Services suggests that the 24-acre Site be divided into a 100 feet by 100 feet grid, with a sample compositing scheme for the collection of surface soil samples from each grid area as well as two additional soil samples taken at different depths from each grid area. This approach would entail the collection of approximately 750 soil samples to be composited into 320 samples for laboratory analysis. The same commenter suggests that all samples be analyzed for the full suite of Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analy1e List (TAL) parameters, and that half of the samples be analyzed for dioxin and dibenzofuran compounds. If implemented, this sampling program would require several months to complete, and would have analytical costs (including QA/QC samples) that approach $1 million. This is clearly well beyond the scope of an appropriate initial phase Remedial Investigation at a former sawmill site. Bechtel recommends a 60 feet by 60 feet soil san1pling grid, with samples collected from each grid intersection. All on-Site samples would be analyzed for the full suite of TCL/TAL parameters plus dioxin and dibenzofuran compounds. This sampling scheme would result in approximately 600 soil samples for laboratory analysis (assuming samples are collected from the surface and subsurface at each location) and would require analytical costs (including QA/QC samples) of almost $1.8 million. This comment is clearly inconsistent with other comments on the number of samples required and the analytical parameters necessary to characterize the Site, and is more than excessive given the size (24 acres) and history of operations (a sawmill) at the Site. For comparison, the ongoing Remedial Investigation at the Seaboard Chemical Site in High Point, North Carolina (a Region IV NPL site) required less than 20 soil samples from an ! I-acre site that was previously used as a solvent recycling facility with known releases to soil. l·IAR 23 ' '38 09: 52 FR GP LAI~ DEPT • Mr. Reuben T. Bussey 404 584 1461 TO '3191'371536[i5 • March 23, 1998 Page 3 Other comments are scientifically incorrect and/or are at odds with generally accepted practice. For example, Bechtel states at page 4, comments on Sections 3. 1.2.2, that high turbidity in ground-water samples does not typically impact organic analyses. Cenain organic chemicals, panicularly the organochlorine pesticide compounds found in the turbid ground-water sample in question as well as PCBs and dioxins are known to preferentially adhere to soil particles and can significantly influence analytical results. Georgia-Pacific agreed with EPA to execute an AOC which included within the scope of the Work Plan limited "significant and appropriate" comments that Ken Mallary may distill from the four commentors; Georgia-Pacific did not agree to include all comments, and as is apparent not all comments could or should be included. The March 5, 1998 AOC prepared by EPA is not consistent with our agreement, and therefore Georgia-Pacific amended two provisions of the AOC to reflect the agreement reached, and submitted the amended AOC in executed form on March 16, 1998, the date by which EPA had demanded a response. The executed AOC as submitted honors the agreement between Georgia-Pacific and EPA, and therefore EPA's rejection as communicated by you on March 18 is inappropriate. In addition, EPA' s suggestion that if Georgia-Pacific signs the March 5 AOC without amendment, i.e .. in a form inconsistent with the agreement between EPA and Georgia-Pacific, the Agency will then be willing to discuss the comments of all the commentors with Georgia-Pacific is inappropriate. We have an agreement and EPA should honor it. Further, the Agency's unwillingness to even discuss the comments with Georgia-Pacific until after it signs the AOC is plain wrong. If, as a result of the offered discussion, EPA did not agree that all the comments which are contradictory or do not make sense could be ignored, Georgia-Pacific would be in the untenable position of facing the impossibility of performance under the AOC which could subject it to stipulated penalties and/or Georgia-Pacific could be forced to implement comments which do not make sense which would be a waste of time and money. I cannot recommend that Georgia-Pacific sign the AOC and undertake these risks. Finally, continuing to insist that a final Work Plan be submitted by March 30, I 998 is not something which EPA should demand or rationally expect any party to do, as the Work Plan would be incomplete due to insufficient time to develop the document which could subject Georgia-Pacific to stipulated penalties under the terms of the AOC. In summary, EPA and Georgia-Pacific reached an agreement on an AOC to be executed by the panies. The AOC submitted by EPA on March 5, 1998 is inconsistent with this agreement. The executed AOC submitted by Georgia-Pacific to EPA on March 16, 1998 is consistent with the agreement. EPA's rejection of the agreement and the AOC, after Georgia-Pacific has put so much time and effort into negotiations and development of a complete Work Plan, is upsetting. EPA's suggestion that Georgia-Pacific now execute an AOC which is inconsistent with the agreement, and which requires integration of inconsistent and nonsensical comments while providing for a Work Plan submittal date that is not possible to achieve, is also arbitrary and capricious. MAF: 23 ' '38 0'3: 53 FPi LAIJ Mr. Reuben T. Bussey March 23, 1998 Page4 DEPT 41J4 584 1461 i '31 ':' 1 '37153EJ]5 Georgia-Pacific advised EPA and North Carolina up front that it desired to proactively address the Site. Since EPA has now rejected our agreement, Georgia-Pacific intends to proceed on its own to appropriately evaluate all comments which have been received, and to thereafter incorporate the significant and appropriate comments into its Work Plan, copies of which will be provided to EPA and the State. Georgia-Pacific intends to then implement the Work Plan while keeping both North Carolina and EPA apprised of the process, analytical data, and results. Georgia-Pacific invites both EPA and North Carolina to participate in this voluntary process to the full extent desired. Sincerely, ~T~ Ronald T. Allen RTA:adsi191699 cc: Mr. James E. Bostic, Jr. Mr. Gerald E. Ritter Mr. Doug Rumford (via facsimile) ~ ~---,-. ,. •;,~ ~ '-· . ,. .--'-·•-.::.~~: "! -. ~ • • Ge NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT December 9, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Charlotte Jesneck, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch Head Superfund Section Pat DeRosa, Si~e Evaluation and Removal Branch Head 1i{ ~ Superfund Section / c""C:.., f/ -- SUBJECT: Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill, NCD 000 773 507 Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill, NCD 000 773 515 Georgia-Pacific Corp., NCD 000 616 219 Georgia-Pacific Corp. Chip-N-Saw, NCD 000 813 600 Based on information provided to the US EPA Region IV (EPA) in our letter of October 6, 1997, EPA has revised the disposition of the two Georgia Pacific Sawmill sites listed above (NCD 000 773 507 and NCD 000 773 515) to "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP). The other two sites (NCD 000 616 219 and NCD 000 813 600) had already been assigned a NFRAP status by EPA. This indicates that EPA does not consider these sites to be NPL-caliber and that, based on the information currently available about the sites, no further remedial action is planned under CERCLA. Copies of the EPA site decision forms for these sites are attached. cc: Jack Butler attachments 401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 1 SO, RALEIGH, NC 27605 PHONE 919-733-4996 FAX 919-715·3605 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· SO% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER NORTH SUPERFUND ID:404-562-8788 DEC 08'97 14:15 Kl:Mt:. ~II~ Al;,:;tt:~:.OIVll::N I Ut:\,l~UN ... A KC\»IVN IV l:PA ID; NCD000773507 Site Name: GA-PACIFIC CORP HDWD SAW Allas Sito Names: GA-PACIFIC CORP HDWD SAW City: ENFIELD County or Parish: HALIFAX Refer to Report Dated: Report Type: SITE INSPECTION 001 Report Developed by: DECISION: ~ 1. Further Remedial Site Acceccment under CERCLA (Superfund) la not mqulred because: 1K] 1 a. Site does not qualify for further remedial site assessment under CERCLA (No Further Remedial Action Planned • NFRAP) 0 1 b, Site may qualify for action, but Is deferred to: 0 2. Furthe_r As!Wssment Needed Under CERCLA: 2a. Priority: 0 Higher O Lower 2b. Other: (mcommended action) DISCUSSION/RATIONALE: After reviewing the Slote'& leller dated Ootober 7, 1997, EPA changed the ciopoo~on fRlm LOW pfloltly 10 NFRAI'. Site Decision Made by: MCKENZIE MALLARY Signature: ___________ JM""-"-':..;Cf<i-"'. ¼0=-.!----'-~---H--·-- EPA Fonn 119100.3 No.006 P.03 t"age , or·, State ID: ,z/ot/~7 Date; ~9l'28>'M NORTH SUPERFUND ID:404-562-8788 DEC 08'97 14:15 Na.006 P.02 "-CIVIC. QI I J::. M~.;u:::..:;1-2n,1c1,i I UC.'-'l~v, •• ,. nL."''-"''.. I W r ava I Ill 1 EPA JD: NCD000773515 Sito Name: GA.PACIFIC CORP HDWO SAW State ID: Aliac Sito Namea: GA-PACIFIC CORP HDWD SAW City: BOWDENS Refer to Report Dated: Report Developed by: DECISION: County or Pan,;h: DUPLIN Report Type: SITE INSPECTION 001 Ix] 1. Further Remedial Site Assessment underCERCLA (Superfund) Is not required because: Ix] 1a. Site does not qualify for further remedial site assessment under CERCLA (No Furthef Remedial Action Planned -NFRAP) D 1 b. Site may qualify for action, but ls deferred to: D 2. Further Asi.eument Needed Under CERCLA: 2a. Priority: D Higher O Lower 2b. Other: (recommended action) DISCUSSION/RA TIO NALE: Afler re\lleWlng the St•t•'• l•tter dated Oclobor 7, 1997, EPA changed tho dhlposlllon from LOW prio1ty to NFAAP. Site Decision Mallo by: MCKENZIE MALLARY 1/\ ,I!. · Signaturu: _______ ....:.,Y..._ \IVl!._~-1,,L-.....;~_uftrJ,, __ i'-1----- EPA Form # 9100-3 State; NC ; • • State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Solid Waste Management P.O. Box 27687 · Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary William L. Meyer Director June 21, 1990 Mr. Robert Morris : IC Date: ;,J/3 1 /,0 EPA NC CERCLA Project Officer EPA Region IV Waste Division 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Site Disposition: N0 Af · EPA Project Manager:---'uf~~L~+---- RE: Phase I, Screening Site Investigation Georgia Pacific Corporation (NCD 000 616 219) -;/: 10·; 1 Dear Mr. Morris: Enclosed herewith is the Phase I, Screening Site Investigation Report by Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. for Georgia Pacific Corporation (NCD ooo 616 219). Based on the available information for the subject site, The North Carolina Superfund Section has recommended that a Phase II, Screening Site Investigation not be performed at this time. The above recommendation is based on: A documented water-based ink sludge spill took place in 1989. This spill occurred within a diked containment area with a grass lined bottom. The ink sludge has been determined non-hazardous, but the inks are known to contain suspensions of metal-containing pigments. This sludge is pre-treated onsite by adding a flocculation agent. The supernatant is decanted and sent to the sanitary sewer system and the precipitate is conveyed to a heat dewatering process. The resulting sludge is disposed of in a county landfill. There is no surface water threat due to the containment, and a groundwater threat is deemed minimum due to the possible metals being detained in the soil. There are 878 persons served by groundwater within 3 miles of the site and there are no surface water targets. TO: FROM: SUBJ: • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 HS COURTLAND STREET. N.E. A TL.ANT A. GEORGIA 30365 .:.;upi;:f=iFU0iD .Sc:<: File ~ Cynthia Gurley, EPA ~ % - North Carolina Project Officer 9-U Georgia-Pacific Corporation Chip-N-Saw Whiteville, Columbus County, North Carolina NCD 000 813 600 This Site Inspection Prioritization (SIP) evaluated data presented in the Site Inspection, Phase II of August 1991 and a Supplemental Sampling event of April 1992. The processes at the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Chip-N-Saw facility include the sawing and planning of rough lumber and timber from logs and the production of wood chips from lumber trimmings. Three source areas were identified at the site: a wastestream of 3.43E+05 lbs. of hazardous waste; a 2.8 acre Fly Ash Pile and a 400 sq. ft of contaminated soil. In the Surface Water pathway the 500 bioaccumulation value was not met, therefore actual contamination to a fishery was not documented. In addition, even if actual contamination was documented in four to eight miles of wetlands, EPA's criteria for listing would still not be met. Observed release criteria has been met at the site. However, due to low target values the site will not be pursued for listing. A disposition of No Further Remedial Action Planned has been assigned to the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Chip-N-Saw. ; • Georgia-Pacific Corpora • 133 Peachtree Street NE (30303· 18-0) P.O. Box 105605 Alfanta, Geor91a 30348-5605 Telephone (404) 652•4000 t~·-:--.-· -. September 22, 1997 ''~ '-C:., VE !J Ms. Charlotte J esneck Inactive Sites Branch Head SEP 2 5 1997 SUPERFUND SECTION North Carolina Superfund Section 401 Oberlin Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Certified Mail No. 335187054 Subject: NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO PERFORM VOLUNTARY . CORRECTIVE ACTION AT FOUR NORTH CAROLINA GEORGIA-PACIFIC SITES GEORGIA-PACIFIC HARDWOOD -BOWDENS -EPA ID# NCD000773515 GEORGIA-PACIFIC HARDWOOD -ENFIELD -EPA ID# NCD000773507 . GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP. -HAMLET-EPA ID# NCD000616219 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CHIP-IN-SAW -WHITEVJLLE -EPA ID# NCD000813600 Dear Ms. Jesneck: As directed in the May 1997 Implementation Guidance for the Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) Program, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation hereby informs the North Carolina Superfund Section Inactive Sites Branch (Branch) of our intention to begin voluntary corrective action at the above-referenced facilities. Georgia-Pacific understands that the Branch will determine the eligibility of these sites regarding participation in the REC program. We are also aware that the Branch and Georgia-Pacific must enter into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) prior to initiating remediation activities at the sites. Therefor, we request that your office provide a copy of the AOC at your earliest convenience. Ms. Jesneck, we are committed to assessing and remediatlng the sites as expeditiously as possible, Please inform me of your decision on this matter by phone at 404/652-7461, by fax at 404/654-4701, or by mail at our letterhead address. Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~9~2-- James J. Holmes, P.G., C.Ii.M.:rvt; .. Hazardous Materials Transportation Manager Environmental Affairs, Technical Support Ronald T. Allen Chief Counsel, Environmental Mr. Paul E. Waff, Jr. President • Waff Contracting Company P.O. Box 237 Edenton, North Carolina 27932 • Georgia-Pacific Corporation October 31, 1997 Law Department 133 Peachtree Street NE (30303-1847) P.O. Box 105605 Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5605 (404) 652-4377 Telephone (404) 584-1461 Facsimile RECEI\/ED NOV 05 1997 SUPERFUND SECTION Re: Plymouth, Washington County, North Carolina Site Dear Mr. Waff: . It is my understanding that Waff Contracting Company recently purchased property from Decatur Partnership that is located in Plymouth, North Carolina along the Roanoke River. As a former owner of this property, Georgia-Pacific Corporation is in the process of negotiating an Administratrive Order by Consent to investigate and remediate (if necessary) the property. The purpose of this letter is to request Waff Contracting's cooperation during the investigation and remediation, including but not limited to, granting access to Georgia-Pacific, EPA and the State of North Carolina to the property for the purpose of developing the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and in conducting any remediation of the site that may be necessary. We will keep you informed during the process of our plans. We request written permission for G-P, USEPA and North Carolina representatives to have access to the site during this process. If you agree to allow this access, please sign below and return the original signature page to me. Please keep a copy for your records. Thank you for your cooperation. Paul E. Waff, Jr., President Waff Contracting Company Sincerely, 1J--4LT,~ Ronald T. Allen G-C . .. ... October 31, 1997 Page 2 cc: Reuben T. Bussey, EPA McKenzie Mallary, EPA Jack Butler, NCDEHNR Gerald Ritter James Holmes • 2 • • -State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Waste Management > -~~ James B. Hunt. Jr .. Governor Wayne McDevilt, Secretary William L. Meyer, Director DEHNR Mr. Phil Vorsatz, Chief NC Site Management Section US EPA Region IV Waste Division 61 Forsyth Street, I Ith Floor Atlanta, GA 30303 October 6, 1997 Subject: Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill, NCD 000 773 507 Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill, NCD 000 773 515 Dear Mr. Vorsatz: Based on our most current CERCLIS site status report (May 1997), we understand that the two subject Georgia-Pacific sites have been assigned a low priority for Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) by EPA. We have reviewed the most recent site assessment reports as well as the preliminary HRS scoring documents for these sites. Based on this information, it appears that these sites are not NPL-caliber and would not be likely to score above 28.5 with additional ESI sampling. A summary of our review and recommendations on these sites is attached. Although we believe these sites are not NPL-caliber, they warrant additional assessment to determine the need for remedial action. We have been contacted by the Georgia-Pacific Corporation requesting that we evaluate these sites, as well as two other Georgia-Pacific sites, with regard to their eligibility to participate in our State Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) Program. The other two sites (NCD 000 6 I 6 219 and NCD 000 813 600) have already been assigned a "no further remedial action planned" (NFRAP) status by EPA. P.O. Box 29603, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-9603 Telephone 919-733-4996 FAX 919-715-3605 An Equal Opportunity Aftl,matlve Ac11on Employ&r ~ Rocyclod / I~ Po1l•Coruumor Poper Mr. Phil Vorsatz October 6, 1997 Page 2 • • Before responding to Georgia Pacific, we would like to have your input as to the need for further federal action at the two subject sites. We request that you review the attached information and consider revising the disposition of these sites to NFRAP under CERCLA. If you have any questions or require additional information about these sites, please contact me or Doug Moore at (919) 733-2801, extension 290or315. attachments cc: Charlotte Jesneck Jack Butler Sincerely, Pat DeRosa, Head Site Evaluation and Removal Branch Superfund Section • Georgia-Pacific Corpora! 133 Peachrree S1reet NE (30303-1847) P.O. Box 105605 Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5605 Telephone (404) 652-4000 [~--~;'-·_ :-:·: -·:-..,-.. September 22, 1997 ··--!..... i V t: !....,I Ms. Charlotte Jesneck Inactive Sites Branch Head SEP 251997 SUPERFUNO SECTION North Carolina Superfund Section 401 Oberlin Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Certified Mail No. 335187054 Subject: NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO PERFORM VOLUNTARY CORRECTIVE ACTION AT FOUR NORTH CAROLINA GEORGIA-PACIFIC SITES GEORGIA-PACIFIC HARDWOOD -BOWDENS -EPA ID# NCD000773515 GEORGIA-PACIFIC HARDWOOD -ENFIELD -EPA ID# NCD000773507 . GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP. -HAMLET-EPA ID# NCD000616219 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CHIP-IN-SAW -WHITEVILLE -EPA ID# NCD000813600 Dear Ms. Jesneck: As directed in the May 1997 Implementation Guidance for the Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) Program, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation hereby informs the North Carolina Superfund Section Inactive Sites Branch (Branch) of our intention to begin voluntary corrective action at the above-referenced facilities. Georgia-Pacific understands that the Branch will determine the eligibility of these sites regarding participation in the REC program. We are also aware that the Branch and Georgia-Pacific must enter into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) prior to initiating remediation activities at the sites. Therefor, we request that your office provide a copy of the AOC at your earliest convenience. Ms. Jesneck, we are committed to assessing and remediating the sites as expeditiously as possible._ Please inform me of your decision on this matter by phone at 404/652-7461, by fax at 404/654-4701, or by mail at our letterhead address. Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ?~9~2--- James J. Holmes, P.G., C.H.M.~ .. Hazardous Materials Transportation Manager Environmental Affairs, Technical Support • • Memorandum To: Pat DeRosa, Head Site Evaluation and Removal Branch From: Douglas Moore ~,n-___ Environmental Chemist Subj.: File review ofNPL Status for State Deferrals Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Enfield, Halifax County, North Carolina EPA ID: NCD 000 773 507 Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Bowdens, Duplin County, North Carolina EPD ID: NCD 000 773 515 On Thursday, July 31, 1997, I reviewed the following two sites to determine their eligibility for deferrals under the new Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the State of North Carolina. As outlined in the MOA, sites eligible for State Deferral should be "NPL Caliber" sites. The primary focus of my review was to determine whether they were "NPL caliber" sites. Georgia Pacific has operated a sawmill at the Enfield facility since 1977. Operations involve sawing and planing rough lumber and timber from raw logs. From 1977-1982, lumber was dipped in a treatment solution containing lindane in order to prevent staining. Treated lumber was allowed to drip onto surface soils in the stacking and storage area. Disposal practices of dip tank wastes were unclear. Sawdust and wood chips from the tank were burned in an on-site boiler. The facility currently uses a stain control solution containing dimethyl ammonium chloride. In 1992, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. collected surface soil, ground water and surface water samples at and downstream of the facility as part of a Phase II Site Screening Investigation (SSI). Surface soil samples exhibited low levels of lindane, 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDT, 4,4-DDE, toxaphene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, calcium, magnesium, potassium and zinc. None of the contaminant levels identified in onsite source samples exceed either EPA human health-based soil screening benchmarks or State Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch soil remediation goals. Lead and barium were detected in an onsite groundwater. well, at concentrations below the EPA drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels or North Carolina 21 groundwater standards of 0.015 mg/I and 2.0 mg/I, respectively. Runoff from the site is directed to a drainage ditch that carries the runoff to a storm water retention pond. During heavy rains, runoff from the pond is discharged to an intermittent tributary of Fishing Creek. Fishing Creek is a fishery as well as a source of drinking water for the town of Enfield. The • • intake is located approximately 2,500 feet below the site PPE on Fishing Creek. Both the pond and the intermittent tributary are inaccessible and neither are fished. The intermittent tributary contains wetlands along its length and contiguous to Fishing Creek. Surface water and sediment samples were collected above and below the PPE in Fishing Creek during the SSL Compared to the upstream sample(< 0.005 mg/I), lead was detected at an elevated concentration in the downstream surface water sample (0.006 mg/I). Compared to the background sediment sample, no elevated concentrations oflead were found in the sediment below the PPE. It appears that the site HRS score was based on the presence of lead in a slight! y elevated concentration from surface water below the PPE. Since the detection limits are greater than the surface water screening benchmark for wetlands of 3 .2 ug/1, the site score attributed a Level I release affecting the wetland frontage along the intermittent tributary and Fishing Creek. A Level II release to groundwater and the potential contamination of surface water fishery targets and drinking water targets are insufficient to score the site. Since the site score was dependent on an observed release of lead, and no documentation indicates that lead containing compounds were ever used or disposed to sources at the site, an observed release of lead from the site can not be established. The Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill at Enfield site does not qualify as an NPL caliber site under the HRS, and would not be a good candidate for a State deferral. Georgia Pacific has operated a sawmill at the Bowdens facility since 1980. Operations involve sawing rough lumber and timber from high grade hardwoods to be used for furniture and from low grade hardwoods to be used for pallets. Sawdust is shipped offsite to companies for charcoal briquette production. In 1985, the facility reported thatr lumber was dipped in a treatment solution containing lindane. Treated lumber was allowed to drip onto surface soils in the wood treatment area. Disposal practices of dip tank wastes were unclear. In 1991, Greenhome & O'Mara, Inc. collected surface soil, ground water and surface water samples at and downstream of the facility as part of a Phase II Site Screening Investigation (SSI). Surface soil samples exhibited arsenic (0.84 ppm), barium (12.8 ppm), calcium (1,580 ppm), chromium (5.7 ppm), iron (4,040 ppm), lead (11. 7 J ppm) and vanadium (8.2 ppm). Arsenic was detected above the EPA human health-based soil screening benchmark of0.43 mg/kg, but below the State Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch soil remediation goal of 4.6 mg/kg. No volatile organics, semi-voaltile organics, or pesticides were detected in the wood treatment area soil sample. None of remaining contaminant levels identified in onsite source samples exceed either EPA human health-based soil screening benchmarks or State Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch soil remediation goals. An onsite drinking water well sample did not exhibit any volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, PCB/Pesticides or inorganics constituents. A groundwater sample collected from a temporary hand- augured well located downgradient of the wood treatment area exhibited numerous inorganics constituents. Of these, cadmium and chromium were detected at a concentrations exceeding the current EPA MCL's of 5.0 ug/1 and l00 ug/1, respectively. The groundwater well was sited in a drainage swale below the wood treatment area and no information was presented in the field notes 2 • • of the turbidity or conductivity of the groundwater sample from the temporary monitoring well. Runoff from the site is directed to a drainage swale that carries the runoff north to Bowdens Mill Pond. Bowden's Mill Pond is a fishery. Discharge from Bowden's Mill Pond enters Bear Swamp and ultimately Goshen Swamp. Bear Swamp and Gishen Swamp contain wetlands along their entire length. There are no nearby drinking water intakes on Bowdens Mill Pond, Bear Swamp or Goshen Swamp. Surface water and sediment samples were collected above and below the PPE in Bowdens Mill Pond during the SSL Compared to the upstream surface water sample, a trace level of acetone was reported in the downstream surface water sample (<SQL). Compared to the background sediment sample, an elevated concentration of toluene (252 ug/l) was found in the sediment below the PPE. Compared to the background samples, no elevated levels of semi-volatile organics, PCB/Pesticides or inorganics were identifed in the downstream surface water or sediment samples from Bowden's Mill Pond. Since toluene was the only contaminant identified at elevated concentrations in the surface water pathway and it was not found in onsite source samples or groundwater samples, there does not appear to be an observed release of toluene from the site to Bowden's Mill Pond. Based on the fact that no lindane was established in any onsite soils at the wood treatment area, the minimal risk associated with an slightly elevated concentration of arsenic in onsite soils, and the few workers employed at the site, the soil and air pathways are not a significant threat. Likewise, the groundwater pathway poses a minimal threat due to a lack of downgradient groundwater targets. Since no lindane, semi-volatile organics, or inorganics were found in the downstream surface water and sediment samples and no attribution can be established to the site for the toluene hit, the site also appears to pose a minimal surface water pathway threat. The Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill at Bowdens site does not qualify as an NPL caliber site under the HRS, and would not be a good candidate for a State deferral. 3 .. , OFflCES 25UU Firat Union Capitol Cl.-ntcr Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 ~MITH, ANDERSON, BLoutl, DORSETT, MITGI-IELL & JERNIGAN, L. L. P. LAWYERS MAJ UNG A1HHtESS I' .U. Uox 2611 llalcigh, North Carolina 27MJ2-26l1 Stephen T. Parascandola UIHEC'J' DIAL: (919) 821-6775 E-Mail: sparascandola(!!Jsmithlaw,com August 25, 1997 'J'ELEPHUNE: (919) 821-1220 FACSIMILE: (919) 821-6800 VJA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Jack R. Butler Superfund Section Chief Division of Waste Management North Carolina Department ofEnvironment, Health, and Natural Resources 40 I Oberlin Road Raleigh, NC 27605 Re: Georgia-Pacific Corporation -Plymouth Site Dear Mr. Butler: This law firm represents Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific") in connection with the above-referenced site (the "Site"). As you know, both Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc. ("Mid-Atlantic") and I have had several, informal discussions with both you and your staff recently · ·regarding Georgia-Pacific's preference for continued North Carolina oversight responsibility for the Site. Additionally, both Mark Wilkins of Mid-Atlantic and I have spoken on occasion with Bill Meyer regarding this issue, and Georgia-Pacific's in-house counsel and I also have conferred with certain staff of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). At this time, we formally request on behalf of Georgia-Pacific that North Carolina retain full oversight authority for any future remediation of the Site, and that you take any actions necessary to pursue such State oversight. By way of background, we note that it is our understanding from both Georgia-Pacific and Mid-Atlantic that, until recently, North Carolina historically _has maintained virtually sole responsibility and oversight for the Site. Indeed, until June, 1997, the EPA apparently had expressed no interest in the Site to Georgia-Pacific. Consequently, Georgia-Pacific has always viewed North Carolina as having primary authority over the Site, and has acted accordingly in evaluating its remediation options and obligations. As reflected in the State's own files and records, to date North Carolina has not considered the Site to be a high priority for immediate, active remediation. This has been particularly true during the past year, given the recent efforts by both the North Carolina General Assembly and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ("DEHNR") Mr. Jack R. Butler August 25, 1997 Page 2 towards formulating and adopting risk-based protocols to be used in the assessment of environmental contamination. Consequently, Georgia-Pacific has had no reason to view the Site as being on any "fast track" for remediation purposes. Given that North Carolina has finally adopted a privatized oversight program, and in light of the North Carolina General Assembly's and DEHNR's interests and efforts in promoting the new privatized oversight program, Georgia-Pacific considers North Carolina's new privatized oversight program to be the appropriate and preferred vehicle for conducting any required remediation of the · Site. In this regard, we also note that Georgia-Pacific's environmental consultant in this matter (Mid-Atlantic) is one of the few approved registered environmental consultants ("RECs") authorized to implement privatized oversight. As such, we feel that the Site would be best handled under this new program. In particular, we feel that the Site would be more efficiently and expediently remediated under the REC program than under EPA's oversight authority. We believe that Georgia-Pacific could more promptly and efficiently implement remediation of the Site under privatized oversight than under the typical RI/FS, and subsequent RD/RA, negotiation processes. It also has been our experience that Federal oversight of a contaminated site generally tends to be less efficient and more costly than privatized, or even local, oversight. As you know, avoidance of regulatory oversight-related inefficiencies and delays is precisely the purpose of North Carolina's new privatized oversight program. Alternatively, it is equally clear that even active State oversight of the Site outside of the context of the privatized oversight program would be more efficient and appropriate in this case. Again, it must be noted that the Site always has been supervised primarily by North Carolina, and North Carolina has significantly more experience and familiarity with the Site than any future Federal regulators. Because of this, we feel that the Site also is a prime candidate for the new deferral program recently adopted by both North Carolina and the EPA. It is our understanding that no other site has yet been approved for the deferral program, and we find it difficult to imagine that any other site would be a more appropriate candidate at this time then the site in question. Based on our conversations with EPA, it appears that EP A's primary motivation for initiating and securing oversight authority over the Site may be driven by a desire to better accommodate EPA's existing schedule for fiscal year 1997. It also has been clear in our conversations with EPA that relevant EPA personnel are unfamiliar with North Carolina's privatized oversight program, and that this has led to certain unnecessary and unjustified reluctance to return the Site back to North Carolina jurisdiction. We feel this is particularly unfortunate given recent efforts by the United States Congress, the North Carolina General Assembly and DEHNR to promote and implement increased State oversight and efficient remediation programs. Mr. Jack R. Butler August 25, 1997 Page 3 As you also are aware, Georgia-Pacific currently owns, operates or has certain responsibility for four other sites located in North Carolina which are equally appropriate candidates for the REC program. Georgia-Pacific would like to implement concurrent remediation efforts at all five of its North Carolina sites under the REC program. This would clearly also benefit the State of North Carolina and its citizens, since joint, concurrent and prompt remediation of five sites at once would achieve in one fell swoop what typically could take years to achieve under Federal oversight. It would appear that, at a minimum, the overwhelming benefit to the public health and the environment and the State of North Carolina in retaining State oversight over the Site should far outweigh any purported inconvenience to EPA. We look forward to receiving your formal response to the above request at your earliest convenience. As you may be aware, EPA has provided Georgia-Pacific with a draft AOC to implement the RI/FS stage of remediation, and has requested that negotiations on the AOC be completed promptly. Accordingly, a prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your responsiveness and courtesies to date in this manner. cc: Mr. William L. Meyer Ronald T. Allen, Esq. :Mr. Jim Holmes Mr. Thomas Proctor Very truly yours, SMJTH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MJTCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P. By: ~,e, i\R.;l,~Cu~f~l&P Stephen T. Parascandola .... • • LAW OFFICES YOUNG MOORE AND HENDERSON P.A. RECEIVED JUL 011997 SUPERFUND SECTION R. Andrew Womble Email RAW@YMH.COM Mr. Grover Nicholson Post Office Box 3162 7 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622 3201 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 June 27, 1997 Federal Remediation Branch, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re: Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site· Plymouth, Washington County, NCO 000813592 Dear Mr. Nicholson: Telephone (919) 782-6860 Voice Mail Ext. 108 Facsimile (919) 782-6753 I am writing on behalf of an entity known as Albermarle Holdings, which entity is a group of private investors who desire to purchase the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site located in Plymouth, North Carolina. The title to said property is currently held by the Kill Devil Hills, North Carolira branch of Wachovia Bank, who assumed ownership of the property through bankruptcy proceedings against the former owners, Decatur Propertyship. The property has undergone several environmental site assessments and, upon my best present information and belief, the last occurred in June, 1996 and was submitted by UTTS/Environmental, P.O. Box 8148, Greenville, North Carolina 27835. Further, the property contains known contamination specifically occurring from Georgia Pacific's treatment of wood and wood products and the North Carolina Department of Transportation's asphalt treatment and testing on the property. The property was abandoned and all business operations on the property were ceased in August, 1992. Albermarle Holdings desires to purchase the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site and conduct business operations on the property in the form of a marina and dry-dock boat facility. Albermarle Holdings aspires to provide the Town of Plymouth, Washington County, and the surrounding counties and municipalities with a clean, well-maintained, and accessible recreational boating facility. Furthermore, said proposed use will necessarily and purposefully provide development to an abandoned and blighted property. Moreover, Albermarle Holdings proposed use promotes the creation and conservation of recreational areas, increases the atrophic tax base in the area, and is specifically tailored to the tourism and historical themes of Plymouth and Washington County. .. . . .... • • Due to the potential liability associated with the property, Albermarle Holdings would like to cooperate with the NCDEHNR in its efforts to remediate existing contamination. Albermarle Holdings wishes to enter into a covenant not to sue with NCDEHNR and the State of North Carolina regarding its proposed purchase of the Georgia Pacific Hardwood Sawmill Site. (The ideal situation for Albermarle Holdings would be to enter a prospective purchaser agreement and covenant not to sue with the EPA and have the NCDEHNR and the State of North Carolina join as a contracting party.) Albermarle Holdings would certainly agree not to conduct any operations which could interfere in any way with the remediation process and, if necessary, would agree to remain inactive until such time as the NCDEHNR deems reasonably necessary. I look forward to your comments and if I can provide additional information or answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your kind help. With kind regards, we are Sincerely yours, YOUNG MOORE AND HENDERSON, P.A BY: R. Andrew Womble RAW:srp:/160513 cc: Robert R. Gelblum, Esq. Assistant Attorney General