NCD095458527_20061003_FCX Inc. (Statesville)_FRBCERCLA SPD_Explanation of Significant Difference 1997 - 2006-OCR

"'"' . . ',.,.,, ... ,. ....... ,
, .. ~ ~:.. • ... , •. ~ • • •• i, •• , , ~\i;.,. ,.1
<l/"'1,--. ~-• •· , ~ ~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 ·
October 3, 2006
Ms. Nancy Prince ,n, .,,.,,.,,, •.•\ ·" ·,
El Paso Natural Gas Company(EPNG),, . •~\~ .-~, t ·•'I'
2 North Nevada Ave. •I ~--- • ! :' :•·
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Re: Final OU! ROD Amendment, OU3 ESD, and Five-Year Review
FCX-Statesville Site, Statesville',:Nortli"Can:iliria, ·_;(.: ·: :,; .. :":... -
Dear Ms. Prince:
Please find attached a copy of the final OUI ROD Amendment, OU3 Explanation·
of Significant Difference (ESD), and Five-Year Review, for the FCX-Statesville site in
Statesville, North Carolina. Please contact me at [phone] if you have questions
regarding this matteL
cc:
Sincerely,
lw~ JUM.a:1-tf
McKenzie Mallary .
Remedial Project Manager· ·
Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation-Branch
Nile Testerman, NCDENR
Roger Towe, EPNG
Scott Miller, EPNG
Jennifer Porter, Gurne Porter, PLLC
Ken Oma, Brown & Caldwell' , ... -..... ,,,,, .
Internet Address {URL)• http:llwww.epa.go_v
Recycled/Aecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer)
',. I , > , 1 f. l • 1 -~. ( t 1' ' .. ,
•
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
OPERABLE UNIT3 REMEDIAL ACTION
FCX-STATESVILLE
SUPERFUND SITE ,
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
September 2006
-1-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Issuing This ESD
PART 2.0: SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
PART 3.0: SUMMARY OF SITE (RELATED TO OU3)
PART 4.0: SUMMARY OF OU3 REMEDY
PART 5.0: DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
5.1: Difference No. 1 -Accelerated Natural Attenuation (ANA)
5.2: Difference No. 2 -Non-Site-Related Contaminants of Concern
5.3: Difference No. 3 -Updated Analytical Methods
5.4: Difference No. 4 -Distinction between the Original OU I Remedy,
the Amended OU! Remedy, the Original OU3 Remedy, and the
Modified OU3 Remedy
PART 6.0: EVALUATION OF PROPOSED REMEDY BASED
ON NINE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PART 7.0: AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
PART 8.0: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
List of Figures
FIGURE l -Site Location Map
FIGURE 2-Map Showing The Locations of Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 3 -Conceptual Design for Accelerated Natural Attenuation
List of Tables
Table l -Cost Estimate for Accelerated Natural Attenuation
Table 2-Updated List of Contaminants of Concern and Groundwater
Remediation Levels (ug/1)
Appendix A -State Concurrence Letter
-2-
Pagel
Page 2
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 10
Page 12
Page 13
Page 13
Page 15
Page 15
Page 5
Page 8
Page 9
Page 11
Page 12
•
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
OPERABLE UNIT 3 REMEDIAL ACTION
FCX-ST A TES VILLE SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
. 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 117( c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 300.435 (c)(2)(i) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
require that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publish an Explanation of Significant
Difference (ESD) when significant changes in a Superfund remedy occur after the Record of
Decision (ROD) is signed. The purpose of this ESD is to notify all parties of concern that the
EPA is enacting significant changes to the Operable Unit 3 (OU3) Remedial Action at the FCX-
Statesville Superfund Site based on' information received subsequent to the signing of the OU3
ROD in 1996. EPA-Region IV believes these significant changes will enhance the effectiveness
of the OU3 remedy.
A copy of this ESD will be added to the FCX-Statesville Site Administrative Record _and
Information Repository. The Administrative Record and Information Repository ca_n be 'found in
the Iredell County Library located in Statesville, North Carolina, and in the Information Center at
the EPA-Region IV Office in Atlanta, Georgia (both addresses are provided in Section 8.0 of
this document). The public is encouraged to review the Administrative Record at either of these
locations.
EPA is the lead agency and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) is the support agency for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site.
I.I: Purpose for Issuing This ESD
In 1996, EPA issued the OU3 ROD which selected soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air
sparging (AS) to address areas on and around the former Burlington property with high levels of
VOCs in soil and groundwater, respectively, and Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) to
address areas on and around the former Burlington property' with .low levels .of VOCs in
groundwater. The MNA portion of the OU3 remedy began in 1998, and the AS/SVE portion of
the remedy became operational in 200 l. The OU3 ROD also stipulated that if the remediation
levels for groundwater were not attained using SVE, AS, and MNA, the OU3 remedy should be
re-evaluated.
Groundwater monitoring on and around the former Burlington property has been
conducted on a semi-annual basis, as required by the OU3 ROD. Groundwater sampling data
collected during the OU3 Remedial Action indicate that natural attenuation is occurring within
the areas being addressed with the OU3 Remedial Action. However, there are areas of the VOC
plume on and around the former Burlington property where possible upward trends or no
significant or conclusive trends in VOC concentrations have been observed. For example, VOC
-3-
•
concentrations at monitoring well locations located north of the forme~ Burlington property
appear to have been increasing from 1998 (the year monitoring begani through 2001. However,
more recent data indicate that there are no conclusive trends. By comparison, VOC
concentrations (in particular PCE, TCE, and cisl,2-DCE) at monitoring well locations located
south of the former Burlington property have exhibited possible downward trends since 2002.
Groundwater data from a monitoring well located immediately south of the former textile plant
indicate VOC concentrations have not changed significantly in that area.
The apparent trend of increasing VOC concentrations at certain areas within the
groundwater contamination plume on and around the former Burlington property prompted EPA,
NCDENR, and El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) to initiate discussions about potential
options for enhancing the existing OU3 remedy. EPA believes, and NCDENR concurs, that
Accelerated Natural Attenuation (ANA), involving the injection of electron donor into the
aquifer to enhance the natural attenuation of VOCs, is a viable treatment option worthy of
consideration for enhancing the existing OU3 remedy.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, located in the city of Statesville, North Carolina,
consists of three operable units (OUs). Figure I shows the general location of the former FCX
· property and former Burlington Industries property. EPA has been conducting the OU I
Remedial Action since 1998 to addre~s pesticide and VOC contamination in groundwater on the
former FCX property and south thereof. In 2001, EPA completed the OU2 Remedial Action to
address pesticide soil contamination on the former FCX property. The MNA portion of the OU3
Remedial Action has been conducted by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) since I 998, and
the AS/SVE portion of the OU3 Remedial Action has been conducted since 2001, to address
VOC contamination on and around the former Burlington property.·
The primary contaminants of concern (COCs) in· soil and groundwater currently being
addressed during the OU3 Remedial Action with AS, SVE, and MNA include the VOC
tetrachloroethene, also referred to as perchloroethene (PCE), and its daughter products. VOC
contamination has been identified in the shallow saprolite, intermediate weathered bedrock, and
the fractured bedrock portion of the aquifer.
Soil samples collected during the OU3 RVFS identified VOCs, inorganics, an.d polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in on-site soil on the former Burlington Industries property.
Surface water and sediment samples collected from an intermittent stream originating from a
seep to the north of the former textile plant during the OU3 RI/FS also contains VOCs, several
inorganic constituents, and low levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-4-
•
N
. \ \ -JJ ) f· \< • •-;; ·v , \\ ') j .,..:;<'-.",v; c,-ee (1?1" \
',,
Q ~:· '/,.-c.C_· .
r ___ ■ N.C.
QUADRANGLE LOCATION ~...,.......,,.,_. _______ ......,_ . ,-:, .. -. ---<: . .:• ' / .. ,~_)c p✓--~
' ··.:· .-.~~\._ 1'• . '' .-:;Z--% • , :·' -' ,. ,. ~ ~ .; , .--...
. .
) I
FIGURE 1-SITE LOCATION MAP
-5-
•
However, the Baseline Risk Assessment indicated the concentrations of VOCs, inorganics, and
PCBs in soil, surface water, and sediment posed no direct contact risk to human beings on and
around the former Burlington property. The OU3 ROD did not require remediation of soil,
surface water, and sediment to address inorganics, P AHs, or PCBs. ·
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE (RELATED TO OU3)
The former Burlington textile plant was originally constructed in 1927. From 1955 to
1977, the plant was operated by Beaunit Mills. In 1967, Beaunit became a subsidiary ofEPNG.
In April 1977, Beaunit sold substantially all of its assets, including the textile plant, to Beaunit II,
Inc. As part of the transaction, Beaunit II changed its name to the Beaunit Corporation. In July
1978, the plant was sold by the Beaunit Corporation to Beaunit Fabrics Corporation. In 1981,
Burlington Industries, Inc. purchased certain assets, including the textile plant, from Beaunit
Fabrics.
4.0 SUMMARY OF OU3 REMEDY
EPA issued the OU3 ROD in 1996 to address VOC contamination in soil and
groundwater on and around the former Burlington Industries property. The OU3 remedy
involves the use of SVE to address high VOC concentrations in soil located beneath the former
textile plant, and air sparging to address high VOC concentrations in groundwater located
beneath the former textile plant. MNA was also included in the OU3 remedy to address areas
with lower VOC concentrations in groundwater on and around the former Burlington property.
Institutional controls were included in the OU3 remedy to insure that there is no human exposure
to Site-related VOC contamination in groundwater on the former Burlington property.
The AS/SVE treatment system irivolves a system of wells designed for VOC removal
from soil and groundwater beneath the former textile plant, and automatic, 24-hour a day
operation. The network of wells is concentrated i_n areas with the highest levels of VOC
contamination on the former Burlington property. All wells are piped to a central control
location located within the former textile plant. The AS/SVE system was constructed and
became operational in 200 I.
The MNA portion of the OU3 remedy, which began in 1998, includes groundwater
sampling and analysis for VOCs, as well as parameters that are indicative of on-going VOC
degradation processes.
The OU3 remedy also specified that contingency measures and goals may.be needed to
supplement or replace the remedy to prevent further migration of the pl'ume, or attain State or
Federal groundwater standards.
-6-
•
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFE~NCES
The OU3 ROD selected MNA as the remedy for areas on and around the former Burlington
property with low levels of voes in groundwater. The OU3 ROD stipulated that if MNA would
not result in the attainment of the State or Federal groundwater standards in those areas, the
remedy should be re-evaluated.
I
The semi-annual groundwater sampling required as part of the OU3 Remedial Action has
shown that the margins of the voe plume appear effectively stable _and relatively unchanged.
The presence of PeE daughter products within the voe groundwater plume, including
trichloroethene (TeE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene ( cDeE), and ethene, provide primary evidence
that reductive dechlorination continues to occur in most areas of the Site. The presence of PeE
daughter products, and a plume that is not expanding, are indica_tions that natural attenuation is
occumng.
While groundwater sampling data indicate that natural attenuation is occurring within the
areas being addressed with the OU3 Remedial Action, there are areas of the plume, particularly
within the interior or mid-portion of the voe plume located north of the former Burlington
property, where possible upward trends or no significant or conclusive trends in voe
concentrations have been observed. For example, voe concentrations at W-l 9s, W-20s, and
W-30i in the interior of the plume appeared to have been increasing from 1998 (the year
monitoring began) through 2001. Figure 2 shows the location of the monitoring wells. However,
more recent data indicate that there are no conclusive trends. Within the mid-portion of the
southe.m voe plume (W-29i), the PeE, TeE, and cisl,2-DeE concentrations have exhibited a
possible downward trend since 2002. Immediately south of the former textile plant (W-5i), voe
concentrations have not changed significantly.
The lack of significant downward trends in voe concentrations in areas of the
groundwater plume away from the source area treatment zone indicates that the OU3 ROD
remediation levels may not be achieved within a reasonable time fram·e in these areas. Since
2003, EPA, NeDENR, and EPNG have discussed possible options for enhancing the OU3
remedy. EPA believes, and NCDENR concurs, that the use of ANA, involving the injection of
electron donors into the aquifer to accelerate natural attenuation, and possibly the addition of
microbes, should speed up the process ofVOe groundwater remediation at the Site.
The following paragraphs describe the significant differences EPA believes are appropriate
for the OU3 remedy at the Site.
5.1: Difference No. 1: Accelerated Natural Attenuation (ANA)
The OU3 remedy will use AS/SVE to address areas of the Site with devated concentrations
of voes. The OU3 remedy will also use MNA to address ·areas of the Site with lower
concentrations of voes. In addition to the use of AS, SVE, and MNA, this ESD provides for
-7-
• •
the use of ANA in selected areas throughout the Site, as needed, where MNA is not significantly
reducing voe concentrations. The delivery strategy for ANA is a phased approach consistent
with the approach used since 2001 for implementation of AS/SVE in the source area.
Hydrogeological variability is an issue at the Site that must be taken into account during
design planning. ·The design for ANA will incorporate a phased approach that ensures flexibility
in responding to Site hydrogeological conditions. As planned, the conceptual design will be
refined based on the Pre-Design Investigation (POI) results. Evaluation of the PD! results is on-
going.
FIGURE 2 -MAP SHOWING THE
LOCATIONS OF MONITORING WELLS
. "'•
......... f)
(j ,,. •· ,, I •. ,,,
z;----
The objective of using ANA io enhance the OU3 remedy at this Site is to accelerate the
natural attenuation of voes by injecting electron donor and, possibly, bacteria (i.e., microbial
injection) into the groundwater. Various products are being considered as potential electron
donors including HRe-X (or related product) and emulsified soluble oil.· Either or both may be
selected for use, depending on further analysis of Site conditions during the design. Microbial
injection is a possible option for a later application ifnative microbes are not present in sufficient
numbers to reduce contaminant concentrations.
The locations for injection points will be selected during the design to focus delivery of
electron donor and/or bacteria into portions of the aquifer with sufficient porosity and
permeability to allow distribution of the materials. The conceptual design for ANA at the Site
involves the use of up to three rows of injection wells at locations north of the former textile
-8-
•
plant, and one row of injection wells at a location south of the former textile plant. See Figure 3.
Evaluations of POI data are on-going to determine the exact locations o(injection points and/or
welis, injection depths, and injection/delivery methods.
The conceptual design for ANA at the Site involves the use of a phased approach. As part
of the ANA design, criteria will be developed to guide the decision-making process between
phases. The conceptual phases are described as follows:
Conceptual Phase I: As shown in Figure 3, Phase I will involve injection of electron donor
in two rows of injection wells (NI and N2) across the area with the highest PCE
concentration located north of the former Burlington property. Groundwater would be
sampled to evaluate the effectiveness of ANA.
Conceptual Phase II: Phase II will involve injection in the northern plume in two or three
rows (NI, N2, and N3), and the southern plume in one row (SI). The locations, depths,
amounts, and frequencies of injection applied during Phase II wiH depend on an evaluation
of the Phase I analytical results. The OU I groundwater treatment system should be shut
off prior to injection in the southern plume. Groundwater would be sampled to evaluate the
effectiveness of ANA.
Possible Subsequent Conceptual Phases: If needed, subsequent phases will involve
injection in the areas of the Site not addressed with Phases I and II, including, but not.
limited to, the former FCX property. The locations, depths, amounts, and frequencies of
the injections will be subject to adjustment based on groundwater monitoring results
following Phases I and II. Injections would be discontinued at a point in time when MNA
could reasonably be used to finish the groundwater remediation.
Initial cost estimates for enhancing the OU3 remedy with ANA-in the areas north of the
former textile plant assumes Phase I injection only at the injection points for NI and N2; and one
year of monitoring, analysis and reporting. Additional cost estimates will be developed and
revised as the design proceeds. The design and associated cost estimate will include a specific
number of wells, amount of injected material, etc. based on evaluation of the pre-design data.
Following the implementation of Phase II described above, if it is determined that
groundwater to the north and south of the former textile plant need additional treatment with
ANA, additional injection may be implemented at that time. Table I presents the cost estimate
for conceptual Phase I. A present worth calculation was not performed for the cosi estimate.
Although not estimated in Table I, the costs of each additional phase of injection are anticipated
to be similar to the Phase I cost estimate. Repeated injections are anticipated; however, locations
and numbers of repetitions cannot be anticipated at this time.
-9-
~'-'..,
~ .. ., ' ..,.~~
~ .. ~'
· Annual monitoring and reporting costs are assumed to be similar for the duration of the OU3
Remedial Action, although they may increase or decrease depending on the number of locations
that require continued injections.
5.2: Difference No. 2: Non-Site-Related Contaminants of Concern
The Baseline· Risk Assessment (BRA) for OU3 identified a. number of Potential
Chemicals of Concern (PCOCs), including IO YOCs, the inorganics aluminum, arsenic, barium,
iron, lead, and manganese, and the compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. EPA included these
' PCOCs into the OU3 ROD as Contaminants of Concern (COCs). EPA has re-evaluated the list
of COCs since the OU3 ROD was issued in 1996 to determine if it needs to be updated or
modified. Based on the re-evaluation, EPA has decided to remove the inorganics aluminum,
arsenic, barium, iron, lead, manganese, and the compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate from the
list ofCOCs.
Arsenic was identified as a PCOC for several reasons: 1) the average of the detected
concentrations (9.8 µg/1) exceeded the risk-based screening value (0.045 µg/1), 2) the average of
the detected concentrations (9.8 µg/1) exceeded twice the background concentration (1.7 µg/1),
and 3) the exposure point concentration of8.l µg/1 resulted in a potential risk from ingestion and
-10-
• .:
inhalation exposure of 2.2E-4. However, since arsenic was not detected at concentrations above
the Federal MCL and State groundwater standard of 50 µg/1, and because EPA does not consider
arsenic to be Site-related, EPA believes arsenic should be removed as a COC for the OU3
remedy.
Barium was identified as a PCOC in the BRA for the following reasons.' Barium was
detected in 9 groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 19.9 µg/1 to 1,040 µg/1, with
an exposure point concentration of 280 µg/1. This results in a Hazard Index from ingestion
exposure of0.11, which contributed to a pathway Hazard Index of 1.2. However, since barium
was not detected at concentrations above the MCL (2,000 µg/1), and because EPA does not
consider barium to be Site-related, EPA believes barium should be removed as a COC for the
OU3 remedy.
Table 1-Cost Estimate for Accelerated Natural Attenuation
Plannin!! and Desi!!n
Work Plans $33,520
Desi1m $174,933
Subtotal $208,453
Imolementation
Well Installation S276,000
Jniection into wells $60,000
lniection bv <'eoorobes $245,500
Monitoring & Analysis $100,000
Reoorting $54,000
Subtotal $735,500
Plannin!!, Desi!!n, and Imolementation $943,953
Administration
Estimated 15% of total $141,593 -
Contin!!encv
Estimated 15% of total S 141,593
Total Estimated ANA Phase I Cost $1,227,139
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was identified in one groundwater sample during the Remedial
Investigation at a concentration of 67 parts-per-billion (ppb). Since this concentration exceeds
the risk-based screening value for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate of 4.8 ppb, this constituent was
included · in the BRA as a COC. However, the location of the well in which bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate was identified is on the former Carnation property. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate was not identified on the Burlington property in soil or groundwater. Therefore, EPA
-I I -
•
does not consider the groundwater sample with bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate to be related to prior
operations at the former Burlington property. For this reason, EPA believes bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate should be removed as a COC for the OU3 remedy.
The inorganics aluminum, iron, lead, and manganese were also included in the OU3 ROD
as COCs. EPA believes these inorganics are not Site-related, and are present in groundwater as
naturally-occurring minerals. For this reason, EPA believes aluminum, iron, lead, and manganese
should be removed as COCs for the OU3 remedy.
Table 2 shows an updated list of COCs for the amended OU3 remedy, as we_ll as the
remediation level for each of the VOCs listed. All groundwater remediation levels provided in
Table 2 are either North Carolina Ground Water Quality Standards (NCGWQS) NCAC 2L.0202,
or EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Note that a few of the VOC remediation levels
listed in this document have been updated from the remediation levels in the 1996 OU3 ROD .
. TABLE 2
Updated List of Contaminants of Concern
and Groundwater Remediation Levels (ug/1) ·
Chemicals Remediation Levels (ug/1)
Carbon Tetrachloride .269
Chloroform 70
1,1-DCE 7.0
cis 1,2-DCE 70
1,2-Dichloroorooane .51
Methylene Chloride 4.6
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ·.70
l, 1,2-Trichloroethane 5.0
Trichloroethene 2.8
Vinvl Chloride I .015
5.3: Difference No. 3: Uplated Analytical Methods
The OU3 ROD identifies EPl analyticai Method 8240 to be used for VOC analysis,
Method 8080 for pesticides, Method\6010 for metals, and Method 8270 for phthalate scan. EPA
believes the list of analytical methods required for the OU3 remedy needs to be updated to allow
use of the most curren·t SW-846 Methods. Use of the most current SW-846 Methods will take
advantage of improvements in analytical technology as the remediation progresses.
-12-
• •
5.4: Difference No. \4: Distinction between the Original OU I Remedy, the
Amended OU! Remedy, the Original OU3 Remedy, and the Modified OU3
Remedy
A distinction needs to be made between the original OU I remedy and the Amended OU I
remedy (based on the OU! ROD !Amendment). The major components of the original OU!
ROD included extracting and trediing groundwater at the FCX property, and to the south of the
FCX property, contaminated with metals, pesticides, and VOCs at levels exceeding Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or North Carolina Groundwater Standards. The original
OU! remedy also included long-t~rm groundwater monitoring. By comparison, the amended
OU! remedy will address the rem1aining pesticide groundwater contamination associated with the
former FCX property using moniiored natural attenuation. The amended OU I remedy will not . I address metals and VOCs in groundwater on the former FCX property and south thereof.
Similarly, a distinction ne~ds to be made between the original OU3 remedy and the
modified OU3 remedy (based on t,his ESD). Since 2001, the AS/SVE remedy has been used to
address VOC groundwater and soil contamination, respectively, on and around the former
Burlington property with the highbst VOC concentrations. Groundwater. monitoring and MNA
have been used since 1998 to addr~ss those areas on and around the former Burlington property
' with lower VOC concentrations. By comparison, the modified OU3 remedy, based on this ESD,
will involve the use of AS, SVE, ind the conceptual phases of ANA described in Section 5.1 of
this ESD, to address the highest cdncentrations ofVOCs at the Site. MNA will continue to be
used to address areas with low levbls ofVOC groundwater contamination, including locations
north of the former Burlington property, am:! on the former FCX property and south thereof.
I
6.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED REMEDY BASED ON NINE EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Short-term effectiveness -Enhancing the existing OU3 remedy with ANA should have positive
short-term effects on the groundwater quality at the Site. Groundwater monitoring will
determine the level of effectivenesJ over the short-term.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, J Volume Through Treatment -Enhancing the existing OU3
remedy with ANA will reduce the toxicity and volume of the VOCs in groundwater in a shorter
amount of time than MNA only. G~oundwater monitoring will determine if the addition of ANA
affects the mobility of the VOCs inlgroundwater. ·
Long-term Effectiveness and PermJnence -Enhancing the OU3 remedy with ANA should
increase the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the OU3 remedy. The addition of ANA
should reduce the amount of remediation time required to meet federal and State drinking water
I standards for VOCs at the Site. I . .
-13-
• •
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements With a few
. exceptions. all existing applicable chemical-, action-, and location-specific requirements in the
OU3 ROD will not change with the addition of ANA to the OU3 remedy. The remediation
levels for a few VOCs have changed from the levels in the 1996 OU3 ROD.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment -EPA believes enhancing the existing OU,3
remedy with ANA will continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment, and will achieve the federal and State drinking water standards in a shorter amount
of time.
Implementability -Enhancing the existing OU3 remedy with ANA should be easy to implement.
Typical applications require conventional materials-handling equipment, and are readily
available. Furthermore, ANA should require a shorter treatment time than MNA alone.
Cost -The estimated cost of conceptual Phase I for enhancing the OU3 remedy with ANA is
$ I ,227, 139 (a present worth calculation was not performed). The cost benefit of adding ANA
may not be realized in the short-term. However, EPA believes enhancing the OU3 remedy with
ANA will reduce the amount of time required for remediation, thereby reducing the overall cost
of the OU3 remedy.
State Acceptance -NCDENR agrees with EPA that the changes proposed in this ESD, including
ANA, modifying the list ofCOCs, and modifying the analytical methods, appear to be
reasonable for the following reasons: I) while ANA is a relatively new technology, ANA has
been used successfully at other remediation sites for various remediatiOl) wastes including PCE
and its daughter products; 2) the short-term effectiveness of ANA will be monitored through
groundwater monitoring; and 3) the use of ANA increases the State's level of confidence that the
OU3 remedy will achieve the remediation levels established in the OU3 ROD in a reasonable
timeframe. EPA-Region 4 and NCDENR agree that the remediation levels established for VOCs
in the OU3 ROD and amended by this ESD should be achieved in less time using the remedy
changes proposed in this ESD.
Community acceptance -EPA held a public meeting in Statesville, North Carolina, on October
27, 2005 to discuss the proposed changes to the OU! remedy. The second halfofthemeeting.
was devoted to a discussion of the OU3 remedy. Based on the limited amount of feedback from
the citizens who ·attended the public meeting, EPA believes the local community agrees with the
proposed changes to the OU3 remedy. ·
EPA held a second public comment period from April 05, 2006, fo May 04, 2006, and a
second public meeting on April 11, 2006 to discuss changes to the OU I ROD Amendment made
by EPA after the first public comment period. No public comments were received from the local
community during the first comment period, and no one from the local community attended the
public meeting. EPA did receive a few comments from El Paso Natural Gas Company. EPA's
responses to El Paso's comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary as Appendix B to
the OU 1 ROD Amendment.
-14-
•
As required by Section 300.435(2)(i)(B) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and
CERCLA Section 117, EPA published a public notice in the Statesville Record and Landmark.
7.0 AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA-Region 4 and NCDENR believe that the changes proposed for the OU3 remedy will
increase the protectiveness of human health and the environment, comply with Federal and State
' . requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) for this Remedial Action,
and are cost-effective. With the exception of a few VOC remediation levels changed from the
OU3 ROD; all ARARs established in the 1996 ROD are unchanged by this ESD. In addition, the
changes described in this ESD utilize permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this Site. ·
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
This ESD will be added to the Administrative Record for the FCX-Statesville Superfund
Site. Copies of the Administrative Record are kept at the two locations shown below. These
records are available for public review during normal working hours.
Iredell County Library
135 East Water Street
Statesville, North Carolina
[phone]
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV Records Center.
6 I Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
EPA provided public notice about the OU! ROD Amendment on October 21, 2005. EPA
held a public meeting on October 27, 2005, to discuss both the OU! ROD Amendment. The
OU3 ESD was also discussed during the meeting. A total of six (6) people attended the meeting,
and EPA did not receive any comments from the public during the 30-day comment period.
EPA provided a second public notice for the OUI ROD Amendment ori April 5, 2006,
and EPA provided a public notice for the OU3 ESD on April 2, 2006. EPA held a second, 30-
day comment period from April 05, 2006, to May 04, 2006, and a second public meeting on
April 11, 2006. No public comments were received from the local community during the second
comment period, and no one from the local community attended the second public meeting.
However, EPA did receive comments from El Paso Natural Gas. EPA's responses to El Paso's
-15-
• •
comments are included in a Responsiveness Summary as Appendix B to the OU! ROD
Amendment. Based on the limited amount of feedback from the local 'community, EPA believes
the local community agrees with the proposed changes to the OU3 remedy.
As required.by Section 300.435(2)(i)(B) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and
CERCLA Section 117, EPA published a public notice in the Statesville Record and Landmark
both comment periods and both public meetings.
The NCDENR agrees with the proposed changes to the OU3 remedy. NCDENR's
ncurrencJe ~e~rovided as Attachment A to this ESD.
·\ \.j\ 9 /? /o~
Bever y H. Banister, Acting Director, Date~ 7
Waste Management Division
-16-
•
Appendix A -State Concurrence Letter
The State's concurrence letter is attached.
.17.
•~-•..,A .Q·•~~ .;;:;;,;;;;::.,'~"--
NCDENR
•
No1ih Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexier h. Manhews. 011ec101 Division of Waste Management
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
08 August 2006
SUBJECT: Concurrence with Explanation of Significant Difference
FCX Statesville Operable Unit #3
Statesville, Iredell County ·
Dear Mr. Mallary:
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) received by the
Division on 07 August 2006 for the FCX Statesville Site and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following
. conditions:
L State concurrence 6n the ESD for this site is based solely on the information contained in the ESD
received by the State on 07 August 2006. Should the State receive new or additional information which
significantly affects the conclusions or amended remedy contained in the ESD, it may modify or
withdraw this concurrence with written notice to EPA Region IV.
2. State concurrence on this ESD in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the
State to participate, financially or otherwise, in the clean up of the site. The State reserves the right to
review, overview comment, and make independent assessment of all future work relating to this site.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual-risk level exceeds 10-6. the State may require deed
recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual contamination and possibly limit future use of
the property as specified in NCGS 130A-310.8 ·
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ESD and looks forward to working
with EPA on the remedy for the subject site. If you have any questions or comments, please call Nile Testerman at 919
508-8482.
cc: Jack Butler, Chief NC Superfund Section
Nile Testerman, NC Superfund
Dave Lown, ead
Remediation Branch
Superfund Section
1646 lvlail Service Cen1e1. Raie1gl1 Nort11 Cnrolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ lnierne! http//wastenotnc.org
• • &iih
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region rv
61 Forsyth Street. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
08 August 2006
SUBJECT: Concurrence with Explanation of Significant Difference
FCX Statesville Operable Unit #3
Statesville, Iredell County
Dear Mr. Mallary:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
· WiUi_am G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) received by the
Division on 07 August 2006 for the FCX Statesville Site and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following
conditions:
1. State concurrence on the ESD for this site is based solely on the information contained in the ESD
received by the State on 07 August 2006. Should the State receive new or additional information which
significantly affects the conclusions or amended remedy contained in the ESD, it may modify or
withdraw this concurrence with written notice to EPA Region rv.
2. State concurrence on this ESD in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the
State to participate, financially or otherwise, in the clean up of the site. The State reserves the right to
review, overview comment, and make independent assessment of all future work relating to this site.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds 10-6, the State may require deed
recordation/restriction to document the presence.of residual contamination and possibly limit future use of
the property as specified in NCGS 130A-310.8 ·
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ESD and looks forward to working
with EPA on the remedy for the subject site. If you have any questions or comments, please call Niie Testerman at 919
508-8482.
cc: Jack Butler, Chief NC Superfund Section
Nile Testerman, NC Superfund
Dave Lown, ead ~
Remediation Branch
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] I FAX [phone] I Internet http://wastenotnc.org
• &iih ,IL£ COPY
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Division of Waste Management
06 October 2005
SUBJECT: Concurrence with of Explanation of Significant Difference
FCX Statesville Operable Unit #3
Statesville, Iredell County
Dear Mr. Mallary:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) received by the Division on 05
October 2005 for the FCX Statesville Site and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following conditions:
I. State concurrence on the ESD for this site is based solely on the information contained in the ESD received by the ·
State on 05 October 2005. Should the State receive new or additional information which significantly affects the
conclusions or amended remedy contained in the ESD, it may modify or withdraw this concurrence with written
notice to EPA Region IV. "
2. State concurrence on this ESD in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to
participate, financially or otherwise, in the clean up of the site. The State reserves the right t6 review, overview
comment, and make independent as~essmen~ of all future work relating to this site_.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds JO"', the State may require deed
recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual contamination and possibly limit future use of the
property as specified in NCGS l 30A-3 l 0.8
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ESD and looks forward to working with EPA on
the remedy for the subject site. If you have any questions or comments, please call Nile Testerman at 919 508-8482.
cc: Jack Butler, Chief NC Superfund Section
Nile Testerman, NC Superfund
-'1 Dave Lo , Head
Remediation Branch
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] I FAX [phone] I Internet http://wastenotnc.org
Date sent:
From:
To:
Subject:
Grover & Nile:
•
Fri, 06 Aug 1999 12:18:14 -0500
ROB GELBLUM <[e-mail]>
[e-mail],
[e-mail] _
FCX Statesville NPL Site
This represents a partial response by me to the RPs' 7 /22/99 comments
on EPA's 4/98 draft ESD.
The RPs' proposed second paragraph of Section 4.0 o the draft ESD
asserts that the Affected Area is supplied with city water and that
there are no private or community wells there. If the RPs have not
reliably documented those two assertions, they should be required to
do so.
That same proposed paragraph states that "the City qf Statesville
requires properties served by city mains to use city water rather than
well water ... " Presumably reference is to Section 23-276(a) of
Statesville's Code, at least as it read as of a 9/98 supplement, which
states, "Each lot shall have separate and independent water and sewer
service connection if mains are available. If a lot cannot be served
as provided for in this chapter, wells and/or septic tanks may be
installed only if authorized byt he county health department." Let's
talk about whether the proposed ESD paragraph is a fair summary of the
ordinance.
I also have information on the enforcement of Statesville's Code,
which we can discuss. And, if the RPs' draft paragraph is in
. principle acceptable, we should discuss, as previously noted, the
· addition of requirements for periodic certification of the' absence of
wells and of any other contra-indicated activities on the affected
properties.
Rob
6-6979
From:
To:
Subject:
Date sent:
Rob,
• •
Self <NRONA01/NTESTERM>
ROB GELBLUM <[e-mail]>
FCX-Statesville
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:58:16 EST
I received a copy of a letter from Nancy Prine of El Paso Energy to
Ken Mallary, EPA RPM re an ESD on institutional controls. Nancy
states that the enclosed draft ESD incorporates changes that reflect
conversations with you. The people you may have spoken to are
Jennifer Porter, El Paso's attorney, or George House, Burlington's
attorney.
The remedy at the site is air sparging on the hot spots (all on
Burlington property) and monitored natural attenuation (MNA) on the
rest of the ground water plume. Source control will be done by soil
venting.
The GW plume has migrated off site and affected several properties.
The institutional controls proposed at the site include restrictive
covenants only on Burlington's property. All affected properties are
located within the city and the city of Statesville (according to the
PRPs) requires properties served by the city to use city water. (No
info included if this is true or if the city checks to see that wells
are not installed now or at a later date.) I had requested info on
the city's ordinance, as you have, many times. My questions have been
if there is an ordinance against home wells how does the city
implement and enforce the ordinance. If the city does not have an
ordinance or if enforcement is not there, the PRPs could check the
properties on a semiannual basis for any gw wells.
I have a problem with the revised ESD. It is not, as presented,
protective of the citizens of the affected area. A drinking water
well could be installed and no one would know about it. The ESD goes
on to discuss notification of the affected parties. This is required
by the GW Section for all MNA sites. The notification is by certified
mail and is one time thing.
I will be here tomorrow but out next week.
If I could get your input before I comment on the ESD. Let me know
the easiest way to get the revisions to you.
...... -...... ELPASO
NATUAAL.(;AS
July 22, 1999
Mr. McKenzie Mallary
U.S. EPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
•
P.O. Box2511
Houston, TX 77252-2511
713-757-3306
Subject: FCX-Statesville Superfund Site, OU-3
ESD to the ROD
Dear Ken,
As we have discussed previously, El Paso and Burlington Industries have comments on the ESD
proposed by EPA in April, 1998.
The institutional controls portion of the remedy have been discussed with Mr. Rob Gelblum of
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources. The enclosed draft incorporates
changes that reflect my understanding of concepts discussed in these conversations. We are in the
process of preparing draft notice letters and I anticipate that these will be available for your review
in the near future.
A few other changes have been suggested that represent the present conditions at the textile facility,
or clarify our understanding of site conditions.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments and look forward to discussing them with you.
Sincerely,
'-f"i~ G;L'-L
Nancy K. Prince, CGWP
Principal Environmental Scientist
Environmental A ff airs Department
OU-3 Project Coordinator
cc: M. Tucker, EPA
J. Wright, Burlington
G. House, BPMH & L
VN. Testerman, NCDEHNR
S. Miller, EPTJC
J. Porter, Por::er Law Group
\
07/12/1999 13:19 7039983995 PORTER PAGE 08 • ·NORTH SUPERFUND JUN 21 '99 10:32 No.006 P.02
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
TO THE OPERABLE UNIT 3 REMEDIAL ACTION
FOR 11IE FCX-ST.4TESVll,LE SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 lntroducdan
Section t t 7(c) of the C'..Mlpnlhenaivo Environmental Raiponac. ComJx;mation. and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 300.43$ (cX2)(l) orlhe National Contingency Plan (NCP)
n:quiic that the EPA publi,h an &i,lanalion orSipmcant Dlf'rcrcnco (ESD) when algnlnllllDt •
ch111g1:11 in a Supafimd remedy occur after the~ of Dec:lidon (ROD) la al pod. The purpose·
ofthi, BSD ia to notify all raruea or cancom that the EaviromJ=tal Protcot.ion Aacooy is
Cll&Ctin9 signifiamt chanae11 to the OplQblo Unit 3 (003) R.cmadia1 Action hued on iufomuitiw
received subsequent 10 the aigJ1ing oflhe ROD. EPA-Rcs1011 IV believes tbCIIC llignificant
changes will c:nhanoc the cfJcctivonosa of the OU3 remedy.
A oopy of this ESD will be added to the Fannen Cooperativo·Bxchanao (FCX)..Stato1Mll0
Superfund Site Adminilllrativc Record and lnfonnatioa Rcpositol)'. The Administrative Record
BDd lnfonnation Repository an be found In the lrcdoll County Lll,rary looatal iu Statesville,
North Carolina, and in the Infonnation C.entei-at the BP A-'lle&ion IV Office la A!lanta, GeorsJa
(both addl'C88CS arc provided at the end ofthia doaunent). The rublic is encouraaed to review
the Admlnilltrativc Record at either of these location,.
3.0 Site Hllltory
Toe orlgfneJ textile plant was cooatrulltod io 1927. From 1955 to 1977, thcplantwu ti PtP · :
opcnsted by Beaunit Mills, ID 1967, Beaunit became a 111beidill)' oftbc El Paso Nann-al Oaa .----~
Company, ln April 1977, Beaunit 110ld 1111biitantially all of its aMCIS, Including the plant, to
Bc&unit Jf, Inc. As part of the transaction, Beaunit changed It• name to the Beaunit Corporation.
111 July 1978, the plant wu sold by the Beaunit Corporation to Beaunll Fabric• Corporation, In
19111, Burlington lndustrie11, Inc. purchased _ce,,:tain ~ iJ).9J!!4ina the plan...!. f\'o1n ~it _ , .. __ . _
Fabrieb IN OCTOBEI?. 1q~1 8VRLtrJG'T"ON ~~ 1:tSlliJTn.JVt:JJ 0~.s m-7Jft:;.
Analytical results from the Rcmodlal Invcstiptioa indicalc that elevated lcvcla of scvcral Sire(;)
contaminants. mainly volatile Of8a!IIC oompounda (VOCa). are present in the &hallow and
fntcnncdlatc doptbs of soil at the tcXtile flicllity, No dcanup levels have been mablM,ed for on•
site cootaminaled soil. The OU3 ROD requires u-oaunent of contaminated tlOil usina the Soil
07:112/1999 13:19
·NORTH SUPERFUND
7039983995 PORTER PAGE 09
10:33 No.006 P.03
I
I
-2-
Vapor &traction (SVH) technology. The objectivo of implementing SVE II part of tho OU3
Rancdial Aclion is to roducc the unount of VOCa in the soil u a 10Uroe or 1Voundw1ter
contamination. Soil remodla1ion will incllldo dei;ignlng and oonatructins a network or vapor
exlnlctiOII wclla in the contaminated portion of the unsaturatod zonc on and around the textile
facility, Soil remediation will continue until VOC C(lneffltrationa have been reduced such that the
groundwater pcrfonnance almdarda have been met.
C\--The vertical <mcnt ofVOC groundwater contaminatioll bas bC'/91 _idontined in the Rhall.~
)( lfldllntcrmcdiu~eliien1 aFllle lll11""fsr. I · ew J c dusd ia1dtll11: 6iiciiircd bedrock ~ ~
)( portlonlilfthe aqwfcr. The extent lO which each of1hc voe. hu migrated from the 1011rcc -
area(&) deJ)enda on a IIUlllbcr offact«s, lncludina Iha looatioo and depth of the source area(,),
and the phylrical rmrcmea aft'ccling ihe flow and tranapon of each contaminant.
'
'J'lle OU3 ROD requires treatment ofVOC contaminalCd groundwatct" using the AiT
Sparsing teehnoloSY, Tho objective ofimplcmentina Air Sparglng as part of the 003 Remedial
Action ii to meet the pcrforman0e atandanh listed in the ROD for each of the groundwater
coataminanta or conccnJ. 1bc Air Spargiog ey11em will involve dolilgnlng and .insuilling II network
of air speraln& wells on and lll'OIIDd tbc textile fKility, Groundwllel' U'eltment will continue unlit
the performance litaDdards have been met. Lona-term (P'Olllldwatcr monitoring will be conducted
on a .eini-annual ~la for 30 ycani, or until groundwater pcrformanee standard& arc met.
o OU3 R.OD also required the use of Institutional control11, Including deed rcatii ona,
to prohibit the co1111umption ofcouteminatcd groundwater associated with the property cll!Tently
OWllcd and operated by Burlington Indultri.e&.
The pl'DliCllt worth cost of $4,l 07,120 for this n:mccly would C:OVCI' an estimated 30 yCllnl
_ of oi,eratfon, durina which time the ayirtcm'a performance would be carefully moniton:d on a·
'"'11ul11r basiR, and ■djlllllmont,; made to tho aystmn to onlUl'D optimum operating cfflciancy. Tho
rural period of operation will der,end upon a number ofvarlablos, Ruch u total quantities of
volatile Ol'Bll1ic compound contamination in the soil and groundwater; and "1c removal
efficiencies for tho air 11p1rging and IIOJI vapor oxtraction treatment proooumi.
4.U DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AND BASIS FOR THE
DIFP'ERENCE
.. : :sac Jbo~A-Region 4 included the use of deed rcstri
0
ctio119 in the itoo u a
moan& ofprotcctiag human health on and arowid the Site by prohibitlna the consumption of
oontamfnatod aroundwatcr a1aoclatcd with the Siu:. Following llgnaturc of the ROD OD
September 30, 1996, EPA decided to me "rcstrictlvo covenant." aa Ibo imtit11tiona1 control
in the OU3 remedy in lieu of uaing deed restrictions. Restrictive eovenanta are prupric:11uy
controlR on tho use ofpropc:ny that may include limiting or prohibitina c:cr1ain uRCR of
aroundwater. Restrictive c:ovcnanta are leplly enforceable against subsequent OWl'lCIJll. In I 997,
the State of North Carolina enacted a 11tatute which provides lhe audlority to establillh land use
,.
07fl2/1999 13:19 7039983995 PORTER PAGE 10
• I
~ORTH SUPERFUND 810:
I
10:33 N □.006 P.04
-3--
restrictions Sf\CCitlcally for contaminated property, wlric:h override. common lllw impedimenta to
\ IGTI..ri"
the long tcnn cnforceabi1ity of'rcal property in~ , J
Burlinaton ludustries Inc. (the CWTellt owner c Site) llhould rlacc a'Fc:Z!a11t on tllei(1TS
INS.11!1.e,;f' ofthcr · · • ,
TE,c,"'
°Ft'o""' or community wdl smpeoted hy Rite-related I • • • <'AC: f: 5 11atlon. Burlington In uu:.-wmu. onliblc for cc:mtactina the property
..__..,.I __ bwslCrf':s) aroUTld the Site dwater baa been lmp,u;tcd by site-related
roundwatcr a on, 811d request that a restrictive covenant on their
· · . Property owncr(s) would have 10 agree to have a relllrietlvc cove on
-me ~ Ml
EPA-Region 4 also to expand tho aoopc of the contingency mca= to include
SUJ1lllying alternate water to an1t .Jiropcny owne,(s) living in a downgradient direction from the
y1,. Site whose groundwater ia *~•~= of drinkina water, and who•c grouodwatcr i, known
to contain levels of •ltc-n:latod contaminants In cxccsa of any Federal Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCI.) or Slate grouodwatcr ~tandard Thi,; ooot/ngcncy mcaKure would bo ullod if the
analytical =iul!• from the acmi-1111nual aroundwator monitoring of private or community wells
indica,e the need 10 provide au alternate water 1111pply(lcs) to nearby residents. El Puo Energy
Coipotation would be rcaponsible for notifying EPA and Burlington Industries ff the aomi-annual
grouudwater monitoring indicates that a priYate well(R) or emnmnnity wcll(K) around the Site hllli
been advC111cly impacled by Rile-related groundwater contamination, Burlington lndulU"ic~W,· l,..\...
be rcsponl!ihlc for contacting the property ownor(R) whose sroundwatcr has been illlJ)Bcted. the
sitc-n:latcd groundwater contamination, and offering to provide 1liem with an altcrnatr. wa
RIIPJ)ly, £{) 7
The BaRolinc Rillk Aaseumenl (BRA) for OU3 ldentiflcd a li1111of Potcntial Chemicals of
Concern, ;neludtng lll'IIOllic, barium. and bia(2-c:thylhe11yl)phthalate. The BRA alllO identified bill(l~
cthylhexyl)Jlh1halate aa a Chemical of Concern. After furlher review of the BRA. EPA bu decided
\0 removo aracnic, barium ll!ld bill(2-ethylhc11yl)pblhala!c aa PotcnUal 0.cmlcal& ofCoaccm
requiring rcmcdiatioo, and bill(2-ethyll\el(yl)phlhalate u a Ciemlcal of Concern requiring
remediation, for the following reasona.
Al'IICllio was identified as a Potential Chemical of Concern for acveral l'C8SOlll; l) the
average of the detected conoentnitions (9.11 ustl) exceeded the risk-based 1ereening value (0.045
ug/1), 2) the average of the detected c.onccnmtions (9.8 ugll) exceeded twice the background
conocnttlltiou (I. 7 usfl). and 3) the exposure point concentration of 8. I ua/1 resulted in t riak
from lnscatlon and inbalalicn exposure of :2.2F.-4. However, Rinoc arsenic waa not dctcctcd at
coocenlJ'ationR abovo the Maximum Contaminllllt Level (MCL) of SO Ilg/I, EPA bclicvca aracnic
should not have been Included u a Chemical ofConccm in the ROD. Therefore, EPA bu
decided tu remove arAMic as a Chemical of Concern requirln11 remediation.
·,
07/12/1999 13: 19 7039983995 PORTER PAGE
'
• I ' • .ID• ~ORTH SUPERFUND JUN 21'99 10:34 No.006
I
Barium wu idartified Pa Potcmial Chemical ofCc,ioem in the BRA fCl'thc followina
reaoona. Barium waa ddcctcd in 9 or9 wnplc:a at conoentratlona ranain& ftom 19.9 ug/1 to HM-0
uS'), with &11 c:i1pc>11ure point coocenl1'ation of280 ug/1. Thi• rc.ulra In a Huard Index ft-om
ingestion "XJIO&Uro or 0.11, which wntn1'uted to a paihway Haun! Jndcx of I • .!. However, since
barnun was not dctcctcd at concentrations above the MCL (2,000 ug/1), BPA bclicvca barium
should not have been Included as a Chemical ofCanccm in the ROD. Thcn:f'ore, EPA haa
mnovod barium as a O>mnlcal of Conllcm roqulriog r=cdiation,
Bia(2-ethylbcxyl)pbthalate WU idlllltiftcd iD one grouodwata aample during the R0IIlllClial
lnvcstiil&1iOn at a canccntndion of 67 JllrtR-JICC•bWioo (ppb). Since this ooaccmrarion e,cceeda
the rillk-baaod screening value foe bis(:i-ethylhexyl)phtbalatc of ,.s P(lb, tbla constituent WIii
Included in the BRA as a Clicmioai of Concern. However, the location oflhe well iD which bill(l-
Clhylhcxyl)phthalalll waa Identified is on the CarnadOII l)l'Ol)Clty, No bia(2-otnylhoxyl)phtbalate
WU idosmfied on tho Burlington property in IOII or groundwater. Therefore, EPA doca not
C01111idCT the i"(llllldwatcc sample with bil(2-ethyfhcxyl)plrthalate to be rcta1ed to Jll'lor opcntion•
at the Burlingt.On property. J'ortb!s reason, EPA baa rcmavcd bia(2-edtylhexyl)phthala.tc a& a
Chemlca1 or Con«:CfTI requiring romodlatioo.
Page 61 In the ROD idcotifics analytical method 8240 be Ul(ld for voe analysis, method
8080 for rc,mcidcs, method 6010 for motal11, 1111d method 8270 forpb1hllate SCIII, EPA has
decided to Chan8,o tho SW-846 methods dcscn'bcd In the ROD, lbc SW-846 methods should be
replaced by Ille low corn:cntmioo Statement of Wont for orpnic,, Including the 500-acrica
mcthodii. A routine Statement or Watt i1 rcoommended for lnorpnica analyAl1. ThDAC
Sta!ementa of Work wfll allow fer detection limits to MCLa, 1111d allow for Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP}<luallty data pacbgcs, je,½Je
EPA-Region 4 and the North Carolina n..""1'menl of Environment and Natural ROIIOun:ca
(NCDENR) agree 1h11 using rcltri~vc covcnan 1111d 111pplying altemate water would be
cffootivc contiogcmcy measures for protectlna human health on and around tho Site. :HP A end the
NCDENR al.!lo q:roc that ranoving lttiellic, barium, and bia(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate n-om the
ROD u Chemicals or Concern rcquirina l'aJICdiatioa is justified baled oo 1he explan11tion
providod &hove.
s.o AFFJRMATJONSTATUTORYDETERM.tNAnoNs fil PE"'rt.
EPA-Region 4 and tho Stat<: ofNord!-€arolina IJcpanmc:iit ofEovironn'lent;};JelOtJl;and
Nat11ral-Rc:iourt;eibelieve that the chaniie-made to tho remedy do not e.ltcc the
protocrivoncss ot'hwnan health and lhe environment, r;oll1Jlly wllh Fedora! and State requirements
that are applicable or rclc\lRllt and appropria~ to thia Romodial Aatlon, and are COll\-efl'ective. Tn
addition, the changes described in Sec:tion 4.0 ofthla BSD utilize permanent 110lution1 end
altern111ivo 100hnol(liic,, to the maximum c::xtcnt pnwlioable for tbia Site.
11
P.05
•
Insert for Section 4.0, second paragraph (page 3)
EPA has determined that restrictive covenants are not required at this time for other
properties that, based on sampling and groundwater flow modeling, are known or
calculated to be part of the Site. (Properties referred to hereafter as the "Affected Area").
The Baseline Risk Assessment ("BRA") concluded that contaminants detected at the Site
do not present a risk to human health or the environment in the Affected Area. This
conclusion is based, in principal part, on the absence ofreceptors. Properties in the
Affected Area are supplied with water by the City of Statesville, the City of Statesville
requires properties served by city mains to use city water rather than well water, and an
inspection found that, in fact, there are no private or community wells in the Affected
Area.
To maintain the conditions, on which the BRA is based, EPA has determined that
property owners in the Affected Area should be notified of the presence, known or
calculated, of contaminants in groundwater at the Site. BI and El Paso will be
responsible for providing the requisite notice to property owners in the Affected Area.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date sent:
Rob,
•
Self <NRONA01/NTESTERM>
ROB GELBLUM <[e-mail] ATE.NC.US>
Re: Well Ordinance Issue -FCX Statesville Site
Thu, 13 May 1999 16:34:27 EST ,
Thanks for the info.
I have a few questions. Does DENR permit single use drinking water
wells (I didn't think so)? If the city issues a permit for well
installation for areas without city water, how do they determine if
city water is available? If no permit is needed, how does the city
know if a well is being installed? If a permit is needed, how do they
know if a person puts in a well without a permit? Do they check to
see if a person is using well water if city water is turned off? Are
there penalties for noncompliance?
Thanks,
Nile
> Date:
> From:
>To:
>
> Subject:
Sat, 08 May 1999 16:47:37 -0500
ROB GELBLUM <[e-mail]>
nicholsongc@wastenot. enr. state. nc. us,
[e-mail]
Well Ordinance Issue -FCX Statesville Site
> Grover & Nile:
>
> Talked to "David Currier" w. City of Statesville Public Works staff
> yesterday (Fri., 5/7). He said:
>
> -there's city ordinance that precludes drinking water wells where
> city water is available;
>
> -Public Works Director Wayne Lambert (out at the time) could provide
> more detail, including a citation to the ordinance;
>
> -Iredell County and DENR handle approvals/conditions/permitting of
> wells.
>
•
> Let me know if I can do more, though I'll be out Mon. afternoon,
> 5/10 until evening of Th., 5/13.
>
> Rob
>
. . .
6 1998 • •.. •., .•...• _ ·,--.;., .• \_-•;, ~. , ••. c. -··•:• ---~ , •. ;._
SUPPLEMENT NO. 16
September I 998
CODE
City of
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Looseleaf Supplement
This Supplement contains all ordinances deemed advisable to be included at
this time through:
Ordinance No. 58-97, enacted Decem,ber 1, 1997.
·see the Code Comparative Table for further infor'!'ation.
~emnue old pages Insert new pages
-~klist of up-to-date pages Checklist of ~p-to-date pages
(following Table of Contents)
:,·-~,-· ·--~
1443-1452
3101, 3102
1443-1452
3101,3102
Insert and maintain this instruction sheet in front of this publication. File
removed pages for reference.
MUNlClPAL CODE CORPORATION
Post Office· Box 2235
1700 Capital Circle, S.W.
Tallahassee, FL 32316
[phone]
1-800-262-CODE
w·ebsite: www .municode.com
'.'• :: :\ . ·--~
•t..~
UTILITIES • § 23-276
·-•~ ",!~~~; (11) All other properties not referred to in paragraphs (8), (9):and (10) of this subsection .. '
shall be subject to tap fees and utility availabili_ty fees at the time of connection.
(Code 1959, § 21-52; Ord. No. 18-~7, 5-18-87; Ord. No. 35-89, 8-21-89; Ord. No. 5-95, 2-20-95; .. ,
Ord. No. 65-96, 11-4-96)
'Sec. 23-255. Installation specifications; ownership.
(a) Any water mains or sanitary sewer mains extended under the provisions of this article
shall be installed and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and
other requirements of the city. All facilities installed under the provisions of this article,
whether within or outside the corporate limits, shall become the sole property of the city and
under its jurisdiction and control for any and all purposes whatsoever at the time such
facilities are connected to the city system. When required, the property owners shall grant to
the city such utility easements as the city may require.
(b) In addition, a deed to the city for water and/or sewer facilities installed which arc
located outside the corporate limits, the cost of which is borne by individual property owners,
shall be executed prior to the time and extensions provided for in this 'article are connected to
the city systems. '
(Code 1959, § 21-53)
Sec. 23-256. Additional subdivision improvement requirement.
The city council may in its discretion as a condition under which water or sewer service or
both will be extended, require the owner of a proposed subdivision to enter into an agreement
to improve the proposed streets therein at his own expense and in accordance with the
ordinances then in force governing the acceptance of public streets for the city. If required, this
;_section shall apply to subdivisions which are located either within or outside the corporate
{limits of the city .
. /:<Code 1959, § 21-54)
\{g~\-!t·\!'f/4\~c. 23-257. Conflicting provisions.
if,;'!llf Where there is conflict between this article and chapter 21, the provisions of this article
._..,.,_:.;J.,,-..
·;.' 1f.,!hall prevail.
· · t<Code 1959, § 21-55) ·
}fi,-
c,Secs. 23-258-23-275. Reserved.
. J\_ ii ARTICLE VU. WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS
L . ._}'.{{ :;f.c. 23-276. Separate connections; construction, material specifications.
I .. :~~,,,,_·. : a), Each lot shall have separate and independent water and sewer service connection if
-~-k~t. ,:_,~ains are available. If a lot cannot be served as provided for in this chapter, wells and/or septic
./ ::,~ may be mstalled only 1f authorized by the county health department.
{ ~:r uJ.. .~!,
I,,.:. ~
15 1607
• •
§ 1-3 STATESVILLE CITY CODE
titles of such sections, nor as any part of such sections, nor unless expressly so provided shall
' .. .
they be so deemed when any of such sections, including the catchlines, are amended or
reenacted. ·
(b) The history or source notes appearing in the parentheses after sections in this Code
are not intended to have any legal effect but are merely intended to indicate the source of
matter contained in the section. Cross references and state law references which appear after
sections or subsections of this Code or which otherwise appear in footnote form are provided
for the convenience of the user of this Code and have no legal effect.
(c) All references to_chapters, articles or sections are to the chapters, articles and sections
of this Code unless otherwise specified.
(Code 1959, § 1-3)
Sec. 1-4. Repeal, expiration and revival of ordinances.
(a) The repeal of an ordinance, or its expiration by virtue of any provision contained
therein, shail not affect any right accrued, any offense committed, any penalty or punishment
incurred or any proceeding commenced before the repeal took effect or the ordinance expired.
(b) When an ordinance which repealed another shall itself be repealed, the previous
ordinance shall not be revived without express words to that effect.
(Code 1959, § 1-5)
Sec. 1-5. Right of appeal.
The right of appeal from the decision of any city official's action shall lie to the city
council. The decision of the city council shall be final.
(Code 1959, § 1-6)
Sec. 1-6. Severablility.
It is hereby. declared to be the intention of the ciy council that the sections, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses and phrases of this Code are sever~ble, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this Code shall .be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or
decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of
the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Code, since the
same would have been enacted by the city council without the incorporation in this Code of
any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
(Code 1959, § 1-4)
.---Sec. 1-7. General penalty.
(a) Except as set forth in subsection (b), violation of any provision of this Code or any
other city ordinance shall be a misdemeanor as provided by G.S. § 14-4(al.
(b) Violation of any provision of this Code shall subject the offender to a civil penalty in
the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00), to be recovered by the city in a civil action in the nature of
debt if the offender does not pay the penalty within a period of seventy-two (72) hours after he
138
t
. ' · ·.::.;C ~~ ,·~ C ·:,:,.,:_~ ;.;.;;:.,:;.;,_ __ :·.·~•;:.;_:2;?;.:::i¥.£a;-.fr'~
----· a.·.a.,_,;,.;..·.c_:"•' ·-·: ~:~-:0·;"=-~-;.:_,\>-s-,,,.-~~--j
GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1-8
has been cited for violation of the ordinance. Citation shall be in writing, signed by the
appropriate department" head. or the department head's designee-·charg~d with the enforce-
ment of the particular ordinance which has been violated, and shall be delivered or mailed to
the offender either at his residence or at his place of business or at the, place where the
violation occurred. Each day's continuing violation shall be a separate and distinct offense.
Violations of the following provisions shall not be misdemeanors, but shall subject the of-
fender to the civil penalty; chapter 3; chapter 5; chapter 9; chapter 10; chapter 11; portions of
chapter 12, including sections 12-4, 12-86, 12-125 and 12-170; chapter 13; portions of chapter
14, excluding section 14-11, subsection (a), sections 14-17 through 14-19, 14-52 through 14-54
and section 14-76; section 15-37; chapter 19: chapler 20; chapter 21; chapter 22, excluding
section 22-2: chapter 23, article VIII; and the city's zoning ordinance. Any action to recover
such civil penalty may be joined in action for appropriate equitable or other legal remedy,
including injunctions and orders of abatement and including an action to .recover damages
owing to the city by reason of expenses incurred by the city in abating, correcting, limiting
and otherwise dealing with the harmful effects of the offending action.
(Code 1959, § 1-7; Ord. No. 25-87, 6-15-87)
Cross reference-Zoning, App. A.
Sec. 1-8. Supplementation of Code.
(a) By contract or by city personnel, supplements to this Code shall ·be prepared and
printed whenever authorized or directed by the city council. A supplement to the Code shall
include all substantive permanent and general parts of ordinances passed by the city council
or adopted by initiative and referendum during the period covered by the supplement and all
changes. made thereby in the Code, and shall also include all amendments to the charter
during the period. The pages of a supplement shall be so numbered that they will fit properly
into the Code .and will, where necessary, replace pages which have become obsolete or
partially obsolete, and the new pages shall be so prepared that, when they have been inserted,
·_ijie Code will be current through the date of the adoption of the latest ordinance included in St!if supplement. ·
;)~}}j-:'-
-Sf1J (b), In preparing a supplement to this Code, all portions of the Code which have been
.-_~pealed shall be excluded from the Code by the omission thereof from reprinted pages.
-. · (c) When preparing a supplement to this Code, the codifier (meaning the person author-
ized to prepare the supplement) may make formal, nonsubstantive changes in ordinances and
Parts of ordinances included in the supplement, insofar as it is necessary to' do so to embody
th~m into a unified Code. For example the codifier may:
(1) Organize the ordinance material into appropriate subdivisions;
(2) Provide appropriate catchlines, headings and titles for sections and other subdivi-
sions of the Code printed in the supplement, and make changes in such catchlines,
headings and titles;
(3) Assign appropriate numbers to sections and other subdivisions to be inserted in the
Code and, where necessary to accommodate new material, change existing section or
other subdivision numbers;
139
,.
u,
D
i CD 5' '::.
' a: o s·
'<O '~ ~ ~-
:: 0. ) .....
~ ·:
~ir~/-·-----•
·• .. __ :._;-, __
-~;;_
.. ~~
_-UTILITIES
§ 23-55
:
k;1,,: ARTICLE III. WATERWORKS WiP· '&~"£ ··le. 23-51. Enforcement. illtR"u
· ··¼.1Y+ ''rii:;The waterworks system owned by the city shall be under the control of the mayor and city c~uncil and the duty of securing llnd enforcing foll compliance with all rules and regulations governing all connections with the mains slrnll be vested in the city manager or his authorized representative.
(Code 1959, § 21-1)
Sec. 23-52. Necessary shutting off of water in mains; no_tice to consumer.
The city reserves the right at any time to shut off the water in the mains in case of accident or for the purpose of making connections, alterations or repairs. It shall be the duty of the director of public works or his authorized agent to cause notice to be given to all consum-ers within the district that the water is to be shut off, when practical, except in case of accident, in which case the water shall be shut off without notice. (Code 1959, § 21-2)
Sec .. 23-53. Customers requiring special fire protection. ,.· ...
'!1ie city shall not in any case be liable to any person, resident or nonresident, for damages for a, failure to furnish a sufficient supply or particular quantity of either water or sewer service for any purpose and will not create a special condition or class of fire protection and/or water supply system for a particular customer, but will treat all customers in a like manner. Any customer which requires special fire protection shall furnish, install, maintain and I operat_e_its own special firefighting equipment, whether it is in the form of elevated storage ,, ;~~1t~~e/~;i~
2~~) ground storage facilities.
,{ &c~-,i~4. Tapping, connections, extensions by city; unauthorized use of stopcock. ~; _ 11lZ::c_ity reserves the privilege of tapping the water main for any and all connections and will e_)'~nd all service pipes to the curbing where a meter box will be placed over a stopcock, '. all ofwli!,ch shall be under the exclusive control of the city. No person shall be allowed to turn l the water on o; off at this stopcock, except an authorized representative of the city. ii( (Code 1959, § 21-3) I &c. 23-5,5. Charges for extensions, tapping, meter installation. f· (a) .Charges for the extension of service pipe, tapping and meter installation, including ,_sanitary sewer connection, shall be established from time to time by the city council. Regular ,_published fees for this service are available at the light and water department, city hall, and }'shall be furnished consumers upon request.
{ {b) The consumption registered on two (2) or more meters serving a person shall not be J;1'1ded together for billing purposes. tCode 1959, § 21-4) i,Supp. No. I tt I
151e .$
~t '
PORTER· PAGE 08
10=32 No.006 P.02
EXJ'LANA noN OF STGNJFICANT DIFFERENCE
TO TJIE OPERABLE UNIT 3 REMEDIAL ACTION
FORTIIE FCX-ST .4 TRSVTLLE SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUN'IY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 lntrod11edoo
Section 117(c) of the C",amprehllllJlivo Environmental Rcaponac, Com:pcnHation. and
Liability Act (CER.CLA) and Section 300.435 (cX2)(1) of the Nallonal Contingaicy Plan (NCP) n:quirc that the EPA publish an ~lanalion or Siiftificant Dlffcrcnco (ESD) when lllgnlflOBnt •
ch11nl!C8 in II Supcrfund remedy occur ancr the Re,cocd ofDeclaloa (ROD) I& algnoo. The purpose ofthi, BS'O ill to notify all p1111i1111 of conoom that 1hc Enviromncn1al Protcotion AiiCQCy i~
Cllacting i,;ignificallt chan11C11 to (he ~le Unit 3 (OU3) Remedial Action hued Oll ill formation received subsequent to the aigning of the ROD. EPA-Rcgloo IV believes tbesc aignificant
cliangcs will cnhanoc the cffcctivonosa of the OU3 remedy.
A OOllY of this ESD will be added to the Farmers Cooperative Bxchanao (FCX)--Statoi;villo
Supcrfund SlleAdmlnllllTativc Record and lnfonnati011 Rcpo11itory. The Adminil<trative Record and Infoanatioo Repository ~n be found In the lrodoll County Library located io Statesville,
North Carolina. &11d in the Information Center at the EPA-Reiiion IV omce In Allanta, Geora!a
(b01h add= arc provided at the end ofthi~ document). The public is oncouraa:ed to review (he AdminlRtrativc R.ooord at either of tbc,;c location8,
2.0 Site Loca11011 and Detcrlptfoa }1 JL ,,a__ C/-,J . · M l q'?] -q
[ ~ \, N~ /:)f"'':f The textile fac!llty ~-cd}~d operated by Blll'ling1oo Indumi located on i/. ¥i JrJ Phoenix Street jll8t to the n~K:X p J'5"QL1'fe!iH ' of tho OU3 Remedial /1,~m-fc~WI •J lnvor<tigation. 1bc textile facility i5 approximately ·n ,ize. Two large buildin~. '( _ t.Yfi,U conitllftiag of a warchou.so and the main buildini;, to~hcr rise approximately 335,000 &quarc
'JNJw '_ ... J feetofllJlllce. · I_ 11-.: T(!W"J •-11 . pee~ Tr<:.I/. vi• -ef",/Y'-' 3.0 Site Hliltory
The original textile r,lant was comrtructod iv 1927. From 19SS to 1977, thcplantwa~
opcmstcd by BeAunit MillG, Ill 1967, Beaunit became a mbeidiary of1hc El Paso Nann-al GR!I
Company. ln April 19n, Beaunit 110ld ~ubRltlntially all orilll aASCU, in.eluding the plant. to Bcallllit JI, Inc. As pait of the transaction, Beaunit changed It• namo to tbc Beaunit Corporation. 1u July 1978. the plant waa sold by the Beauni! Corporation lo Beaunll Fabric~ Corporation. In 1981, Burling1on lndustriCK, Inc. purchased _cei,:tain ~S. iD.9)~ng the plll.l)!, from B~it _ ,
Fabrid. IN 00-0B~ iqqg-1 8VRL1tJG1T!/J ~f2J 1:t.sa:.vr1i....iu@ 0 ~..s ~ 71t6
Analytical rea\1118 from tho Rcmodial Investigation indie&tc that elevated level.Ii of several ~I Te-GJ contaminants. mainly volatile orsanic oompound& (VOCs), are present in the ahallow &nd Intermediate depths of soil at the textile fticility. No cleanup levelH have been ertablM1ed for on• site collWllinated soil. The OU3 ROD requires treatment of oontaminaied BOil usina tho Soil
f-'(H-s: l !:..~ i-'.·'Ui~TC:h: • JUN 21'99 10:33 No .006 P.03
Vapor Ililtrac«on (SY.I!) technology. The obj~tivo of implementing SVE aa part of tho OU3 Remedial Action is to roducc the o.mount ofVOCa in lhc soil u • aoor~ of 11roundwater oontamiliation. Soil remodlstlon will include dcl;ianlng and OODJltiucting a network of vapor extnctiOll well~ in the contaminated portion of the unsa1uratod zone oo and around the textile facility. Soil l'ffl'Cdiatlon will continue until VOC eonc,,ntratlona have been reduced &IICh lhat the groundwater performance 1landardl have been met,
'I--The vertical oxtcnt ofVOC gmundwata-COIJt&lllinatio bll8 b.~dentiflod in the Ahal!~ andlintsnni;dfo~er.tiNft efihe a.(IWfsw, 1 di; e11,s11a! I e1det1d ine=liicturcd bedrock --~ J)Ol'(lori'ofthc aquifer. The extonl lo Which each of the VOC. hu mlgratod from the aourcc area(&) depend& on a number of factors, including the looatioo and depth of the aourc:c aroa(~), and the phyllical propcctica affecting the flow and mnapon or caeh contaminant.
The OU3 ROD rcquil'Cli treatment ofVOC conwmnatcd &fO\lndwatcr using the Air Sparging technology. Tho objective of implementing Afr Sparging as part of the OU3 RemediflJ Action iH to meet the performance l!Andanh lirrted in the ROD for each of the groundwater COlltaminanu of conccm. The Air Sparj!ing 11ymm will involve do,denlng and irutslling a network of air SJ)llfKlOi wolls Pn and around the u:xtilc facility. <JrowtdwMcr treaunen1 will continue until the perl'onn1111cc 11tandards have been met. Loni-term &fOUDdwetcr moniton.llll will be conducted on a l<Cllli-annl.181 basle for 30 ycan<, or until groundwater performance siandards arc mcc
o OU3 ROD also requirqj)the U$C offnstilU!ional controlR, lnchiding deed rcxtri-on•, to prohibit the con1111mption of coouuninatcd groundwater as&ooiatcd,with the property currenlly owned and operated by Durl!ngton Indnstrica. ·
The fll'CACl'lt worth cost of $4,107,120 for this remedy would covcr an Clltimated 30 yelU'ti of orcratlon, during which time the ayRtcm' a pcd'onnancc would be =fully monitored on a ri,gular bll8i•, and adjuli\monO; made to tho syatam to DnlUl'O optimum oparating ofl'!cioncy. Tho toU\I period of opealion will depend uron a number ofverlables, ~uch flA total quantille,; of volatile ol'Wl!lic COl1'.q)OIJnd oonumination in thc soil and groundwater, and the removal cITTcicncies for the air Rparging end Boil vapor extraction treatment procoaRCli.
◄.0 DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AND BASIS FOR THE DIFFERENCE
/ffQtiSCI ;tQ.,~A-Region ,4 included the 111e of deed restrictions in the ROD u a moane ofpl'OtCCtinf, human he&.ltb on and 11to1LDd the Site by prohibitlna the consumption o~ . ,....,_ oonwnlnatod eroundwatcr aHocletcd with the Site. Following &lgnaturc of the ROD oo ~ § .J September 30, 1996, EPA de<:idod lo W1C "rcatrlctlvo oovonanl.l" P tho ini<titutional oonlrol ~ · / in the OU3 ~Yin lieu of uaing cleed reatrictions. Re&trictive covenantB arc; propric;wy · r C011trols on tho use of property that ms.y inolw:lo limiting or prohibitina certain UBCR of 11roundw11ter. Reatrictive covcnanu are leplly enforceable a.gainst subsequent ow=. In 1997, the State of North Carolina enacted a mt~ which provides the authority to esu.blilUI hmd use
" ~ ..
10:33 N6:006' ~-6~
. -3-,,;
l'C.'<uictions spccitlcally for contamirlatod property,,which ovcni4mon !&w impediments lo
the kmg tcnn coforoeahility ofrc&l property in~·.· ·. : · · · . j · ·
-. . \ "~IGTI-J"s
Burlinaton Industries Inc. (the current owner o c Site) should rlacc a'l!ovenant on w"n-s
ofthc r · · · ·
or community well by Rito-rolatcd
nation. Burlln~on 1n Ine..wffllt oootacting tho property
e) around the Sito Impacted by site-related
wa on, and request that a restrictive C:OVl'll'l&nl ' on their
· · . y wncr(s) would have to agree to have e. ret1trlctlvc cove on
'1 ----------~ -me ~ ""'
.k .. n~ ih EPA-Region 4 alao to expand tho IIOOJlC: of the contingency measure& to include
_ fV W"", supplying altcme.te w~r to an ropcrty owner(s} living in a downgnidient direction from the
\;, -f ·i y.. Site whoso groundwatcria llba~•llloolll'ro of drinkins water, and who•c groundwater i, Jcnown
1 ~. \ 1~ to contain levelB of ~ltc-rclatcd contaminanlli In CXCCll8 of any Federal Maximum Contaminant
J.y>" ' Level (MCI.) or Slate groundwater ~-tandard Thu. contingency m=urc would be ui!od if the
analytical =It• from the acmi-11I1nual sroundwator monitoring of private or community wells
indicate the nood IO provide an altcmate water RUpply(ics) to nearby residonts. El PallO Energy
Corporation would bo rcaponsible for notiryini BP A and Burlingron Jndw;oie& if th,, somi-ll.Ililuel
groundwater monitoring indicates that a private well(a) or crunmunil)' wcll(H) 11round the Site ball
bocn advcracly impa.c!ed by fri!e-rcl11tcd groundwater oootamina!ion. Burlington lndu1tric11"'ai llJi \.-1-.
be rC11pon!!lblc for contacting the property ownor(s) whoilc groundwater he.a been impacted
site-related groundwater conwnination, and offering to provide them with an altcmetr. w•'B.--,
supply.
The BaRolinc Rillk Asses.smen! (BRA) for OU3 ldentitlcd a Jii;t of Potential Chemicals
Concorn, including 8111011ic, barium; lllld bill(2-ethylhe><yl)phthalato. The BRA alRo identified bis(2a
cthylhexyl)ph1halate as a Ou:mioal of Concern. Afti,r further review oftho BM EPA bu decided
to remove arocnio, barium and bill(2-ethylhe><yl)tlbthalato u Potential. Chcmlca18 ofCooccm
requiting romodiatioo, and bill(2-ethy1hexyl)phthalate u a Oiemlcal of Concern requiring
remediation, for the followinQ rcBBona.
An:cnic was identified as II Potential Chemical of Concern for llCvcral reasonl: 1) t.he
average of the detected concentration& (9.11 ustJ) exceeded the risk-based screening value (0.045
ug/1), 2) !he average of the detected conc:entrationa (9.8 ug/1) exceeded twice the bllClc.ground
conccntn1tiot1 (1. 7 ui/1), and 3) the oxposurc point conocntration of 8.1 ui/1 ree11Jted in i. tiak
from ingcRtloo and inhalatian exposure of2..2E-4. However, Rlncc arsenic WIUI not dctcctcd at
conconlratioM abovo the Maximum Contaminturt Level (MCL) of50 ug/1, EPA bcl!cvCJ1 lll'aCnic
llhould not h'-ve been lncl11dod u a Chemical of Concern in the ROD. Therefore, EPA ha.11
decided tu remove er11e11ic as• Chemical ofConocrn rcquir!n11 remediation.
,-10RTH SUPERFUND
10:34 No.006 P.05
Barium WU idcrrtifiecl a11 • PotcntW Chomie&l ofCooocm in the BRA foe the followin&
rea•ona. Barium waa dct,;:ctcd in 9 of9 .wnplcs at C0l\08lltrati0111 ranaina from 19.9 ug/1 to 104-0
ug/1, with BIi e:xpoHure point ooooentraiion of 280 ug/1. Thi~ rcculu In a JJll%8l"d Index :fl-om
ingestion e:cposuro of 0.11, which wntn'butod to a pathway Huard Index of l .Z. However, alwic
barium was not detected at conoontratioo1 lbove the MCL (2,000 ug/1), BPA bclicve11 bUium
s!lould not have been lncludc::d u a ~mica! ofCoocem in !he ROD. Therefore, EPA hu
~movod barium Rll I Chmnlcal ofConoem r,,qclrlng rancdiation.
Bis(2-«hylhcxyl)pbthalat.e wu id011tiflcd in one groundwata-118!1lple during 1he Rcmodial
Invcstilllltion al I concentration of6711art11-pcc-blllioo (ppb). Since thia oooccntrarion exceoda
the rl&lc-basod screening value for bis(~ylh~l)phtha1.111: of 4.8 prb, thui COll!titucnt Willi
lncludc::d in the BRA aa a Oicmioal of Concern. However, die loc&tion of\be well in which bill('.2-
cthylhcxyl)phthalat.o wu identified is 011 the Clirnatlon property, No bi&(2-ofuylhoxyl)!lhthslatc
. wu idetttified on tho Burlington property in Mill or groundwater. Th¢rcfore, EPA doc, not colll!idCT the a;roundwatcr sample witti bil(2~ylhcxyi)phthal&b:: to be re\a\ed 10 J!rlor operation•
at 1hc Burtingten property. Forth!s reason, EPA hu removed bi,,(2-etbylhexyl)phlhalatc u a
Chemlca1 of Concun requiring rornodiation.
Page 61 In tho ROD identifies analytical metnod 824-0 be IUCd for voe ana.lysiR, meihod
8080 for pooicidcs, method 60 IO for mctal11, and method 8270 for pb1hal11te scan. EPA has
decided f.O chan&o Ibo SW-846 methods de&('.ribed in the ROD. The SW-846 methods !ihould be
replaced by \he low conccntratioa St&temcnt ofWOJY. for orear,ica, Including the 500-Hcrics
methods. A rouline Slatcmc.Dt of Won: i1 rooornmended for lnoraanica ~lyll!1. Thll80 StatcmentR of Work wilt allow for dctccdon lim(tll to MCT..8, and allow foe Contract Laboratory Program (C~Muallty data pa.ck:agcs. ~ .... .-~-le-~ ~. / EPA-Region 4 and haDe,n6rtrn ~CDENR) agree \hat Ing rcmictivc coven 1Upplyjng alterntte wat¢r1would. be cl'tootiva oontinsenoy nii: health 011 and around tho -Site. E.P A and the
NCDENR also 8.£l'CC that removing ~ic, barium, and bisQ,~thylhexyl) phthalate lrom the
ROD u Chemicals of Concern rcqu.irillg remediation is justified baaod oo the explanatiO!I providod above.
vt !.O AFFJRMATI9N'STATU'l'ORY DETERMINATlONS
~
·1' < '~ , [vr.;.N, EPA-Region 4 and Stet'< of ortb C.volina~t-oA>nv!ronment,
Hwt.h,and-
J>lffliRII l!cK010-.. e. believe that me ch&n~ made to tho remedy do not dtcc the · protocrivoncss ofhwnan health and the envlronmeol, cotnJ)I)' whh Federal and State rcquircmcotH
1ha1 a.re applicable or rclcvanr and appropriate to thh1 Romodial Actlon, and are C06t-tffecti~e. ln
addition, the cblltlgc:S described in Section 4.0 of thls BSD ulitii:e pennancnt 110lution• and al(o,rnatlv1i \llQhno!QlrCII lo the maximum cxtcat pnwticablc for tbia Site.
.. ' .... .,,. .
~:/}.i;6,:,{ .. '-
I
I
•: ,, ';\,·~,,,.
•
Insert for Section 4.0, second paragraph (page 3) EPA has determined that restrictive covenants are not required at this time for other
prnpertie that, based on sam !in and roundwater fl w _ ·
wn or
calculated to e part o t e Site. ( , · eferred to rl!ltfter1as the "Affected Area").1
e Baseline Risk Assessment
("B A') concluded that con ammants etecte at t e rte
not present a risk to human health or the environment
in the Affected Area. This
nclusion is ba,sed, in principal part, on the absence of receptors. -Properties-m
-
.
1
f
i
"
e

,._ /·
..--=,Affecte
d

Area~uppli
e
d

with water by the City of Statesville, the City of Statesville .....-'(v
/ requires properties served by city mains to use cit water rather than well water and an
~
inspection
oun t at, 111 fact, there are no pnvate or community
wells in the Affected
j
Area.'7
.
7\
?/?
"lf,,¢7Jf;_,11,

I ] •
:'"J
To maintain the condition;(_o
n

which the BRA is based, EPA has determined t
h
a
t

property owners in the Affected Area should be notified of the presence, known or
calculated,
of contaminant
s

in groundwate
r

at the Site. BI and El Paso will be
responsible
for providing the requisite noticJo property owners in the Affected Area.
tf a111uv-e/ i; [ P,~ it NC J>f N rt
7
NA
MCDEMR
JAMC5 B. HUNT JR.
GOVCRNOR
1-;_ WA.YN-f!. MCDEVITT•
·•::i'.SEc~ETARY ·. t, ;, . .
+ .-~~. :;;
_I ,,• .: ••
, . .,,,. ·'--, J~:--r:. -~;~
• NORTH C,(\ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
f\LE COPl
03 June 1998
Mr. Ken Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
p1v1s10N OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Review of Revised Explanation of Significant Difference
' FCX-Statesville OU-3
Statesville, Iredell County
Dear Mr. Mallary:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the REVISED Explanation of Significant
Difference for the FCX-Statesville OU-3 dated May 1998 and received by the
Division by fax on 20 May 1998. The following comments are offered:
Section 4.0, first paragraph: On the seventh line after the first word,
groundwater, please replace the period with a comma and add the follo\\fog
"and which may be imposed outside the content of a property transfer where
permitted by law. With qualifications".
Section 4.0, second paragraph: Please be consistent in referring to Burlington
Industries, Inc. Please use will rather than would :in final ESD.
Section 4.0, second paragraph: Please change the last sentence to read
Burlington, Industries, Inc. and El Paso Energy Corporation will be
responsible for contacting the owner(s) of : the property(ies) with
contaminated ground water that has migrated off Burlington Industries, Inc.
property and requesting that a restrictive covenant be placed on their
property(ies ). If any such owner does not agree to a restrictive covenant,
Burlington, Industries, Inc. and El Paso Energy Corporation would be
responsible for remediating affected property to applicable cleanup goals.
I -401 OBERLIN R~AD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHoN; 919•733-4996 FAX 919-715•3605
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNJTY / AFF!RMA.TIVE ACTION EMPLOYCR · 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
r, J •
If you have any questions, please call me at 919-733-2801 ext. 350.
a Sincerely,
,,,t/11)1)::!:!J. --A k .-._r, . ! ,,,,, C: -
Nile P. Testerman, P.E.
Environmental Engineer ·
• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
FILE COPY
07 January 1998
Mr. Ken Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
SUBJECT: Review of Revised Explanation of Signifi~ant Difference
FCX-Statesville OU-3
Statesville, Iredell County
Dear Mr. Mallary:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Explanation of Significant
Difference received on 22 December 1997 for FCX-Statesville OU-3 Superfund site
and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following conditions:
I. State concurrence on the Explanation of:Significant Differences
(ESD) for this site is based solely on the infqrmation contained in the
ESD received by the State on 22 December; 1997. Should the State
receive new or additional information which: significantly affects the
conclusions or amended remedy contained in the ESD, it may modify
or withdraw this concurrence with written n<Hice to EPA Region IV.
2.
3.
State concurrence on this ESD in no way binds the State to concur in
future decisions or commits the State to participate, financially or
otherwise, in the clean up of the site. The State reserves the right to
review, overview comment, and make independent assessment of all
future work relating to this site.
If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds
I 0·6, the State may require deed recordation/restriction to document
the presence of residual contamination and possibly limit future use
of the property as specified in NCGS 130A-310.8
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE919-733•4996 FAX 919·715-3605
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· SO% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
I
Mr. Mallary
07 January 1998
-page two-
4. The Division needs to concur on any language contained m a restrictive covenant. '
The State of North Carolina looks forward to working with EPA on the final remedy for the subject site.
cc: Phil Vorsatz, NC Remedial Section Chief
Nile Testerman, NC Superfund
Grover Nicholson, Head
Remediation Branch
Superfund Section
"' '· \ State of North Carolin.
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
25 November 1997
Mr. Ken Mallary
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
SUBJECT: Review of Revised Explanation of Significant Difference
FCX-Statesville OU-3
Statesville, Iredell County
Dear Mr. Mallary:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Explanation of Significant Difference received on 04 November 1997 for FCX-Statesville OU-3 Superfund site and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following conditions:
I. State concurrence on the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for this site is based solely on the information contained in the ESD received by the State on 04 November 1997. Should the State receive new or additional information which significantly affects the conclusions or amended remedy contained in the ESD, it may modify or withdraw this concurrence with written notice to EPA Region IV. . '
2. State concurrence on this ESD in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to participate, financially or.otherwise, in the clea.'! up of the site. The State reserves the right to review, overview: comment, · and make independent assessment of all future work relating to this site.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds J0-6, the State may require deed recordation/restriction to document th~ presence of residual contamination and possibly limit future use of the property~ as specified in NCGS 130A-310.8
P.O. Box 29603, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-9603 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] . An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled/ 10% Post-Consumer Paper
•
Mr. Mallary
25 November 1997
-page two-
' 4. Restrictive covenants can not be forced on any property,owner. The owner of the
property has to agree to have a restrictive covenant placed on their property. It is
desirable for Burlington Industries to have this covenant on their property as
institutional control is part of the remediation method. It is not as desirable for other
property owners to have _a restrictive covenant on their de~d. It is the responsibility
of Burlington Industries to contact adjacent property owner(s) and request that a
' restrictive covenant be placed on their property(s). The Division needs to concur on
any language contained in a restrictive covenant.
The State of North Carolina looks forward to working with EPA on the final remedy for the
subject site.
cc: Phil Vorsatz, NC Remedial Section Chief
Nile Testerman, NC Superfund
Sincerely,
rover Nicholson, Head
emediation Branch,
Superfund Section