NCD122263825_20000601_JFD Electronics - Channel Master_FRBCERCLA SPD_Fact Sheets 1990 - 2000-OCR

Region 4
REMEDIAL ACTION FACT SHEET
JFD ELECTRONICS/
CHANNEi:. MASTER SITE
Oxford, North Carolina
June 2000
This fact sheet has been prepared to provide the general public with a better understanding of activities that will be
occurring at the Site, and Is not to be considered a technical document. Please review documents In the
Information Repository for technical Information.
INTRODUCTION Metals-Impacted Shallow Surlicial Soils:
• On-site stabilization of approximately 1,165
The purpose of this fact sheet is to describe in
more detail what is going to occur during the
Remedial Action of soil and sludge which is •
scheduled to begin in July 2000. It is also to invite
you to stop by the Richard H. Thornton Library on
Monday, June 12th between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM •
to meet US Environmental Protection Agency;
North Carolina Department of Environment and
cubic yards of metals-impacted soil using
Portland cement;
Sampling and analysis of the cured soil
mixture to confirm that treatment levels
established in the Record of Decision are met;
Disposal of treated soils on-site, covering with
topsoil, and seeding the area with grass.
Natural Resources; JFD Electronics Corporation, Cyanide-Impacted Sludge/Soil:
CMSS, Inc. and/or their representatives to ask any • Excavation of approximately 2,300 cubic
questions yo·u may have regarding the Site. yards of sludge/soil for transportation off-site
1999 RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT •
The amendment to the Record of Decision
addressed a remedy change. Treatability Studies •
concluded that on-site treatment of cyanide-
impacted sludge/soil is not feasible or desirable •
due to the requirement for large volumes of
reagent which may present risks to workers and •
nearby residents. Therefore, off-site treatment at
an appropriate facility was selected. The major
to an approved facility for treatment and
disposal;
Treatment of the sludge/soil with alkaline
chlorination to reduce cyanide
concentrations at an off-site facility;
Reduction of hexavalent chromium present
in the sludge to trivalent chromium;
Stabilization of the metals to meet the
disposal requirements of the disposal facility;
Disposal of treated material at the off-site
facility.
components of the modified remedy include: A diagram of the area to be cleaned up is
featured on the next page. ·
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......:1..L'.:...J.. • • • • • • • • • • ••••••• ';,. '<'' • . ·.·.·.·.·.--.·.·.·. .... ~ ..... ~ •• '-t"":'' ••••••••••••
0 --===::::i 1.00 FEET RErERENCE: BECHTEL FIGURE 6-9
rs REPORT, APRIL I 9°92.
ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER
ZJOI Renoods Drive o/ North Cera/Ina, Inc.
S...it., 102 RAL[IC.H, NC 27607
ht• 'H'J/792-5511 ro.11• 919/782-5905
l'IIJf j,W4,\(i(II• Ct£CJC[D IT•
N. SHCTTY D. N(\/HOUSC
ll$IA1JJ,C,. flGI
l'IIJT ...o NC000202.0200
D\ICi DAT[, DltAf"TClih
17HAA00 A. NORTON
CONCRETE
PAO
, __.,. ,, __.,.,
~
ITmJ]
,,
__.,., ,
LEGEND
DRAINAGE CREEK
PROPERTY LINE
RAILROAD
TREE LINE
SLUDGE DRYING C:=J
PITS {APPROXIMATE)
APPROXIMATE AREA TO
BE EXCAVATED TO IFT
(METALS CONTAMINATED
SOILS)
APPROXIMATE AREA TO
BE EXCAVATED TO srT
(CYANIDE CONTAMINATED
SLUDGE/SOILS)
FIGUR(:
APPROXIMATE SOIUSLUDGE REMEDIATION AREA
JFO ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
1
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLINA .
•
•
I. •
3
REMEDIAL DESIGN
The purpose o(the design is ·10:
•
•
Third, sludges, along with soils within three to
six inches of the sludges in the sludge drying
beds will be excavated and transferred directly
into transport vessels. • prevent direct_ contact with and/or ingestion of
the sludges arid soil coritaining cyanide and •
metals above health:based risk levels;
Fourth, soils beneath the sludge will be
excavated and · stockpiled and sampled to
determine if contaminants have gotten into
that area.
• impede the infiltration of contamination into the
groundwater aquifer;
• prevent the release of impacted runoff from
the areas of concern so they do not
contaminate nearby ditches and streams.
The steps that will be taken to achieve the above
purposes are discussed below.
Site controls will be implemented to limit potential
contamination exposure to workers, the public and
surrounding environment, prevent unauthorized
entry and protect against vandalism. Signs will be
posted at the perimeter of the Site during
construction activities to warn against trespassing,
and to designate restricted areas.
Site preparation and clearing will b_egin once work
zones for the various activities have been
established. Materials from clearing and grubbing
activities will be stockpiled at a designated location
for off-site disposal. Temporary fencing will be
installed around the excavation areas to prevent
unauthorized access. Any fencing that needs to
be removed during excavation will be reinstalled
after work in that area has been completed. The
existing overhead power lines at the Site will be
temporarily rerouted for the duration of the
remedial activities and power poles will be removed
by CP&L. Following completion of remedial
activities, the power poles will be replaced and
power routing returned to original.
Soils and sludges in the sludge drying beds will be
excavated in phases.
• First, surface soils with high levels of metals
will be excavated to a depth of approximately
12 inches and stockpiled for treatment.
• Second, the remaining soils-above the sludge
layer in the sludge drying beds which are
expected not to contain contaminants of
concern above any risk-based levels will be
stockpiled for characterization.
Depth of excavation in the sludge drying beds will
vary depending upon the depth of the sludge, but
it is not expected to exceed six feet. The depth of
excavation of metals-contaminated surficial soils is
expected to be about one foot. If samples of soil
taken below the excavated. areas indicates that
contaminants are still present, excavation will
continue until the concentrations meet the
remediation levels established in the Record of
Decision.
Air monitoring will be performed during excavation
and on-site stabilization activities for protection of
workers and near-by residents. Appropriate dust
control measures will be used throughout the
remediation process, such as spraying soil with
water to minimize dust.
During excavation, the soils will be segregated and
placed on thick plastic liners into three stockpiles:
(1) soils with metal concentrations above the
remediation levels; (2) soils from beneath the
sludge in the sludge drying beds that may or may
not be impacted from metals and cyanide; and (3)
soils with concentrations below the remedial levels.
The stockpiles will be covered with plastic sheeting
or other material over night and before/during any
rainfall event to reduce contact with surface water.
Cyanide-contaminated sludges and soils that are
excavated will not be stockpiled, but will be placed
directly into lined trucks or "roll-off" containers,
boxes and/or railcars, covered in plastic tarps or
other suitable covers that are properly secured,
and sealed for transport to an off-site treatment
and disposal facility via truck, railcar or a
combination of both. '
On-site treatment by stabilization will be performed
on the metals-impacted soils. The most effective
reagent mixture to stabilize the soils is the addition
•
of 20 percent Portland cement, by weight. to the
soil. The contractor will mix the metals-impacted
soils with the specified rations of water, binder
materials and other additives to enhance the
physical and chemical properties of the soils. The
metals-impacted soils will be placed in a feed
hopper with scales and a screen to load material
into the stabilization system, screen out large
materials, and track the inflow rate. The screened
material will enter a pug mill or other means to
achieve mixing with the appropriate reagents. The
treated soil mixture will be placed back into the
excavated areas on Site.
Areas that have been excavated will be filled with
either treated material or non-contaminated soils.
This will then be covered with a 12-inch vegetative
soil layer that will be graded to promote proper
surface water run-off. Temporary erosion controls
such as silt fencing, mulch and haybales will be
used to protect the cover system so that the grass
will be able to grow. Long-term monitoring at the
Site will consist of inspections and maintenance of
the vegetative soil cover. Any eroded areas will be
filled and graded and re-seeded to establish the
grass. Mowing will be performed as necessary.
A stormwater drainage system will be constructed
to provide proper drainage for rain water on Site
during remedial activities. This will consist of using
silt fencing, berms and other methods to control
water flow from and around the Site. Water that
accumulates in excavation areas will be pumped
into a container and sampled to determine if
cyanide or metals are present. Based on the
sample results, the appropriate action will be taken
to dispose of the water.
During all Site clean-up activities a Site Health &
Safety Officer will be responsible for making sure
that all workers on the Site or haulers driving onto
the Site maintain established health and safety
rules covering working at a hazardous waste site.
Institutional controls will also be implemented as
part of the remedy. The controls will include deed
notice stating that treated soil is present at the Site,
and access restrictions consisting of fencing and
signs to restrict unauthorized people or vehicles.
4
•
The total estimated cost of the excavation and
restoration is approximately $2,735,000.
Operation, maintenance and inspections of the Site
are estimated to cost $120,000. It is anticipated
that clean-up activities will begin in July 2000 and
be completed by the end of September 2000.
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
The Information Repository has been established
to store a copy of documents developed during the
Superfund clean up process to be accessible to the
public. The Information Repository is located at the:
Richard H. Thornton Public Library
Corner of Main and Spring Streets
Oxford, North Carolina
[phone]
For questions of a technical nature, please contact:
Ms. Samantha Urquhart-Foster
Remedial Project Manager
North Site Management Branch
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
1-800-435-9233 ext. 28760
e-mail: [e-mail]
For literature; non-technical questions or concerns;
to correct, delete or add a name and address to the
Site's mailing list, please contact:
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Involvement Coordinator
Customer Service Branch
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
1-800-435-9233 ext. 28489
e-mail: [e-mail]
For a State of North Carolina perspective, contact:
Mr. David Mattison
Site Project Manager
Superfund Section
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone] ext. 349
. I
Region 4
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
! I ! ! l ! l l! l 11 ! ! l l ! '! !
~
North Site Management Branch i:· -· · ,:..,"\_ ---"-~·-':?.,?J,_c,_ ··--•·1 ~ ~us. Or•ICl/,L '·'·"'-!
Diane Barrett, Community lnvol~e~efl! .c9,8!jiri'atfr ~6~1\,_:, , ~ 1 -.Jr i
Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Remed1allRro1ect Manager::'✓•"'· Q Q J J ,'r j
Mr. David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
\ ' I U:,c:$Jc.'0 • I ' ......
RECEIVED
JUN 05 2000
NC DENR_ -Superfund Sectio§UPERFUND SECTION
401 Oberlin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
• • Remedial Design/ Remedial Action
Region 4,
SUPERFUND FACT SHEET -UPDATE
JFD ELECTRONICS / CHANNEL MASTER
SUPERFUND SITE
Oxford, Granville County,. North Carolina
March 2000
This fact sheet is not to be considered a technical document but has been prepared to provide !he general public with a better understanding of activities tha1
have been and will be occurring at the Site. For technical information, please review documents in the Information Repository.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Fact Sheet Update is to
. inform the community of actions that have been
and will be occurring related to the Site. Visible,
on Site activities will be occurring during March
through September 2000.
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site is
.approximately 13 acres in size and is located at
the corner of Industrial Drive and Pine Tree Road,
approximately 2 miles southwest of Oxford, North
Carolina. The Site was operated by JFD
Electronics from 1961 to 1979 in the
manufacturing of television antennas. The
manufacturing processes involved a copper/nickel
electroplating and chrome conversion coating of
antenna parts. Wastes generated from the
processes, primarily wastewater and sludge,
contained a number of metals, including
chromium, lead, and cyanide. Wastewater was
treated in an on Site treatment plant. Sludge was
disposed of in sludge drying ·beds along the
southern property boundary and also in an
unlined lagoon. See Site map on next page.
Channel Master owned the property from 1980 to
1984. They produced satellite antennas,
amplifiers, and boosters. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources conducted an inspection of the Site in
1987. As a result of their findings, Channel
Master conducted a voluntary cleanup of the
lagoon in 1987 and 1988. The Site was placed on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1989.
EPA conducted a Remedial lnvestigatiori /
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the Site during 1991
and 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed in September 1992 selecting the treatment
remedy to be used to cleanup Site contaminants.
In 1993 JFD Electronics/Channel Master signed
a Consent Decree agreeing to implement the
Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA)
phase of the Superfund process. In January
1996, an Explanation of Significant Difference to
the Remedial Action for the JFD Electronics /
Channel Master Site was finalized, which altered
the groundwater treatment method defined in the
1992 Record of Decision.
RECENT ACTIVITIES (mid 1998-present)
Groundwater Treatability Test
In December 1998 ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. (contractor for JFD Electronics/Channel
Master) submitted a "Field Test Workplan for
Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination" to EPA and
NC DENR for consideration. After a few
modifications were made to the work plan,
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. began
implementing the work plan in a "test area" in
October 1999. The theory is that by adding a
dilute solution of molasses to the groundwater on
a regular basis, the natural bacteria present will
breakdown the hazardous chlorinated compounds
in the groundwater. This test is being conducted
in the "hot spot" area of the Site, the area with the
highest contaminant concentrations in
groundwater. The first injection occurred on
October 15, 1999, and has been occurring once
a week since that time. The test duration is
0 100 FEET REFERENCE: BECHTEL FIGURE 6-9,
rs REPORT, APRIL \ 992.
PRJT HANAG(R, CIICCKED JIY•
N. SH(TTY D. N(VHOUS[
.. ..
~
ITIII1]
CONCRETE
PAD
.. .. .-,/
....
I
I
LEGEND
DRAINAGE cRd~ , 1 / ;
PROPERTY . LINE
RAILROAD
TREE LINE
N
♦ ♦ + ♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦
'i .+ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦ +"+ .~
•••••♦•♦•♦•♦,·
.-,/ ..
...
.-,/ .. ..
APPROXIMATE AREA TO
BE EXCAVATED TO IFT
(METALS CONTAMINATED
SOILS)
SLUDGE DRYING I / !
APPROXIMATE AREA TO
BE EXCAVATED TO SFT
(CYANIDE CONTAMINATED
SLUDGE/SOILS) PITS (APPROXIMATE)
tlGUR(: ._
ARCA.DIS GERAGHTY & MILLER
APPROXIMATE SLUIJGE/SOIL REMEDIATION AREA
~-4"
2301 Ru•oods DrlvP o/ North Caro/Ina, Inc. PA:JT NO NC000202.0200 .,,: -! f
DA:AVIJ>lG, SITE3 1-2
Sultp 200 RALEIGH, tlC 27622 JFD ELECTRONICS/CH hi• 9191782:-SStl fo.,c• ';ll';l/782_5905 ovc; 0,1,tc, DA:Arm1, ANNEL MASTER .,,.,,,. _ . .,.... ·---------------~"'.'..'=""~"~-~•:..:· •~m~•''.""~"-L _________ o~,'.:_x~Fo~,~;, __ '.:'.o:..· ..'..N'.'.O:'.'.R~T~H:__:C:A~R~O~L~IN~A"._ ________ :_l __ .:_,_j .a~.
•
scheduled for six months. In January 2000, the
first sampling was conducted to determine if the
treatment is being effective. Results have not yet
been presented to EPA.
· Groundwater Remedial Action
During June through August 1998 the
groundwater pump and treat system was
constructed. The system was constructed to
pump groundwater, treat it above ground, and
then discharge the water to a nearby surface
water pathway. The system was started in August
1998. Water samples obtained at the system
start-up indicated levels of cyanide that were
above the surface water discharge criteria. The
groundwater remediation system was immediately
shut down. Since that time, the contractor has
been working with the City of Oxford and has
recently signed an agreement for the water to be
discharged to the Public Owned Treatment Works
instead of the nearby surface water.
Soil and Sludge Remedial Design
In May 1999, EPA amended the 1992 Record of
Decision for this Site. This amendment affected
the soil and sludge treatment for the Site. A
Treatability Study conducted on Site soils and
sludges contaminated with cyanide found that it
could not feasibly be treated on Site to meet
treatment standards. Therefore, the Record of
Decision was amended to allow for the excavation
and off Site treatment and disposal of cyanide
contaminated soils and sludges and on Site
excavation, treatment and disposal of non-cyanide
contaminated soils and sludges.
In September 1999, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. submitted a "Preliminary Design Report
Sludge/Soil Remediation". EPA and NC DENA
provided comments to them in December 1999.
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Groundwater Treatability Test
The weekly molasses injection and quarterly
sampling will continue until the test concludes,
which is currently scheduled for April 2000.
3 •
Groundwater Remedial Action
In March 2000, a contractor will reroute the
effluent line to run from the treatment system to a
sewer line. This should only take a few days to
construct. Afterwards, the treatment system will
receive maintenance since it has been out of
operation for 18 months. Then it will be restarted.
Personnel will be on Site to sample the water to
make sure the contaminants leaving the treatment
system are at concentrations below the required
city's pre-treatment standards.
Soil and Sludge Remedial Design / Action
The "Pre-Final Design Report" was received by
EPA on February 22, 2000, and is currently under
review by EPA and NC DENA. This report
provides the details of how the soil and sludge will
be treated during the upcoming remedial action.
Once this document is commented on by EPA and
NC DENA, it will be finalized and bids will be
solicited from remediation contractors to perform
the work prescribed in the Design. A contractor
will then be selected and work will begin on Site.
Soil and Sludge remediation is currently estimated
to begin in July 2000 and be completed in
September 2000. A Public Availability Session or
Public Meeting will be held in late June where the
community can speak to EPA in person regarding
the Site.
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
The Information Repository has been established
to store a copy of documents developed during
the process to be accessible to the public. The
Information Repository is located at the:
Richard H. Thornton Public Library
Corner of Main and Spring Streets
Oxford, North Carolina
[phone]
• 4 •
FOR MORE INFORMATION
If you have questions or ne_ed more information, please contact either:
Ms. Samantha Urquhart-Foster
Remedial Project Manager
Waste Division, North Site Management Branch
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: [phone] or [phone]
email: [e-mail]
MAIUNG UST
or
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Involvement Coordinator
Waste Division, Customer Service Branch
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 ·
Phone: [phone] or [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Since you have received this fact sheet, your-name is on the JFD Electronics/ Channel Master Site
mailing list. If you have an address change or want your name deleted from this list, please complete
this form and return it to us. If you know of someone that would like their name added to the mailing list,
please ask them to complete this form and return it to us:
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
ADDO CORRECTION 0
Return to: Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Involvement Coordinator
Waste Division, Customer Service Branch
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
DELETEO
Region 4
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
S/F
MR. GROVER NICHOLSON
SUPERFUND SECTION/SWMD
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES
P. 0. BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
5
! l l I
North Site Management Branch ,;. 1--A,;>'-~
Diane Barrett, Community Involve etit Coord tc!r,e"""
Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Reme' ial ~oject M n~~ter-,, I .... ~E:.$300
H
.
I, ,I, II,,, I, IJ., IJ.,, II,," I, I .I
REMEDIAL DESIG~ACT SHEET UPDATE·
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER SITE
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
September 1996
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this fact sheet is to inform interested citizens and local
officials of the nature and status of activities at the JFD
Electronics/Channel Master Site. This fact sheet provides the following
informa!on: a brief site history, actions taken to date, and details of the
remedial design.
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site occupies approximately 13
acres at the corner of Industrial Drive and Pine Tree Road in Oxford,
North Carolina. The Site is currently owned and operated by Avnet,
Inc., the parent company of Channel Master. From 1962 to 1979
television antennas were manufactured at the facility. From 1980 to
1984 satellite systems were produced. Indoor and outdoor antennas,
amplifiers and booster were also assembled on site during this period.
Currently the mail building is utilized as a packaging and distribution
center of electronic parts. A detailed description of the operational
history of the Site is included_ in the Remedial Investigation report which
is located in the information repository housed in the Richard Thorton
Public Library. A Site map is featured on the last page of this fact sheet.
ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE
The Site came to the attention of the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources in February 1987 during a site inspection.
Based upon the analysis of samples taken, various contaminants
were identified.
In June 1987 Channel Master initiated cleanup activities to
remove and dispose of the contaminated soil/sludge.
The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)
and EPA conducted site inspections in 1989. Based upon
samples taken and ·previous information, concluded
contamination still existed and required further investigation.
The Site was place on the National Priorities List (NPL) in October
1989.
• Remedial Investigation (RI) sampling (Phase 1 Jan.-Feb. 1991;
Phase 2 Sept.-Oct. 1991) confirmed the existence of various
volatile organic compounds and/or metal contaminants on Site
either in the soil or groundwater aquifer.
The Record _of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 10,
1992, selecting the treatment technologies to be used to treat
contaminants in the groundwaler and soil/sludges.
A Consent Decree (CD) was signed between EPA and the
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) JFD Electronics Corp.
and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc. The CD was officially
lodged with the US District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on December 28, 1993.
The contractors (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. and GMCE, Inc.) for the
PRP's submitted a Remedial Design Work Plan to EPA in
November 1993. The work plan stated that additional data was
required to support the remedial design of a groundwater
recovery and treatment system to determine the nature and
extent of the on-site and off-site groundwater contaminant plume.
Additional dala collected was submitted to EPA in July 1995 in a
"Pre-Design Data Acquisition Report·. EPA gave a conditional
approval of the design in December 1995.
In December 1995 EPA issued an Explanation oi Significant
Difference (ESD) concerning the following:
Total cyanide concentration would not be of concern if the
treated groundwater was discharged into the local POTW
(publicly owned treatment works), but may be of concern if
discharged to surface water. Therefore, the Alkaline
Chlorination process specified in the 1992 ROD may not be
necessary.
The cyanide levels in the effluent will be closely monitored
during the startup period of the treatment system if the
treated groundwater is to be discharged to surface water. If
the cyanide concentrations in the effluent do not decrease
beklw the 5 microgramsAiter level during the startup period,
then a cyanide treatment step must be added to the
treatment system.
Metal levels in groundwater did not exceed the Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or North Carolina
Groundwater Standards nor the State's surface water
standards. Therefore, the precipitation/ filtration treatment
process specified in the 1992 ROD may not be needed.
Levels of metals will be monitored and if they fail to meet the
POTW treatment levels or the State's surface water
standards, then a metals treatment step must be added to
the treatment train.
During the Remedial Design evaluation process it was
determined that the levels of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in the groundwater could be treated with air stripping
• to meet the POTW treatment levels or the State's surface
water standards. Therefore, the carbon adsorption treatment
process specified in the 1992 ROD may not be needed. If
the levels of voes are not reduced to meet remediation
levels using the air stripper, further treatment may be needed.
• A Pre-Final Design Report was submitted to EPA on Febnuary 6,
1996. Following review by EPA and the State, the Pre-Final
Design Report was approved as final on June 26, 1996.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL DESIGN
The purpose of this fact sheet is to present a brief description of the
groundwater remeo.il design for the Site. Some of the major tasks of
the design are:
• Complete design analysis, including permitting and monitoring:
• Constnuction plans and technical specifications;
• Constnuction schedule;
• Probable cost outline:
Remedial Action Work Plan:
Construction Quality Assurance Plan;
• Health & Safety Plan:
• Performance Standard Verification Plan;
• Operation & Maintenance Plan.
The selected groundwater remedial alternative consists of a
groundwater extraction, treatment, and disposal system.
Three recovery wells (PW· 1, PW-2 and PW-3) installed to the top of
bedrock will pump at a rate of 6 gallons per minute, and one recovery
well (PW-4) pumping at B gallons per minute, will capture the
contaminated groundwater in the unconsolidated zone. It is also
estimated that these recovery wells will partly recover groundwater from
the fractured bedrock zone. They will be installed from a depth of 1 O
feet below land surface to approximately 60 feet below land surface.
Three shallow recovery wells (PW-5A, PW-58, and PW-5C) will be
installed in the parking lot behind the main building to extract
contaminants from the plume "hot-spot.· These wells will be installed to
a depth of approximately 25 feet It is estimated that each of these wells
will recover approximately 1 gallon per minute of the shallow, more
contaminated groundwater. The cumulative total from the seven
recovery wells is estimated at 29 gallons per minute.
The proposed treatment system for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in the recovered groundwater consists of a low-profile air stripper. The
treated groundwater is proposed for discharge to a nearby intermittenl
stream. A submersible pump will be used in each recovery well to
extract groundwater. The groundwater will flow through polyethylene
pipes to a central treatment unit.
The air stripper was designed based on an anticipated flow rate of 29
gallons per minute, groundwater temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit,
and VOCs discharge criteria equivalent to the requirements of an
NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit and
Federal Drinking Water Standards. The design calculations for air
strippers indicate that no off-gas treatment will be needed unless those
concentrations increase. And if that happens an off-gas treatment may
be needed.
In a low-profile air strippertming groundwater is sprayed into the
inlet chamber through a coarse mist spray nozzle either at the top or
near the top of the chamber. The water flows over a distribution weir
and along the baffled aeration trays. Clean air is blown upward in a
countercurrent direction through 3/16-inch diameter holes in each
aeration tray forming a froth of bubbles which creates a large mass
transfer surface area where VOCs are volatilized. The air stripper
emissions exit the top of the stripper through a 6-inch pipe which
extends through the roof to a height of approximately 20 feet above land
surface. The treated groundwater exits the air stripper through the
discharge port equipped with a vacuum relief valve, for gravity drainage
to the permitted outfall.
An air permit is not required covering the voe emissions from the air
stripper since the estimated release is 7.35 pounds per day and the
State regulation limit is 40 pounds per day.
The treated effluent is proposed for discharge into an unnamed stream
(tributary of Fishing Creek) which is located along the eastern property
boundary. An NPDES permit is not required but the discharge has to
comply with substantive requirements of this program under the Clean
Water Act.
The groundwater treatment system will be placed on a pad measuring
15 feet long by 1 O feet wide by 9 inches thick, made of reinforced
· concrete. An aluminum canopy will cover the treatment pad to protect
the equipment from the elements. All of the treatment components will
be anchored to the pad and grounded. A piping support system
consisting of 18-gauge steel beams will be installed to support the
recovery well influent headers and manifold. Pipe supports also will be
used to support the air stripper effluent discharge line from the
discharge port to the edge of the treatment pad where it will be buried.
The groundwater recovery pumps will be interlocked with the existing air
stripper blower at the site. Blower failure or low air flow from the blower
will result in complete shutdown of the treatment system, which in tum
will result in the shutdown of the recovery system. The recovery pumps
will not re-start unless the air stripper blower is operating property. At no
time will the groundwater conveyed by the recovery system bypass the
existing treatment system at the site.
A set of groundwater monitoring wells will be sampled on a regular basis
in order to property monitor the progress of the remediation program.
All treatment system equipment and operating systems will be
monitored on a frequent basis to ensure proper operation performance
and to make any necessary adjustments. The data collected during
startup and normal operations of the groundwater recovery and
treatment system at the Site will be used to verify that the design
objectives are being met. After 5 years of operation and monitoring, a
performance evaluation of the remedial system will be conducted. If the
evaluation indicates that the groundwater recovery system is not
achieving the design objectives, system performance standards and/or
the remedy may be modified or supplemented with additional remedial
elements. The groundwater recovery system will operate until data
indicates that the cleanup standards have been met and maintained.
In order to implement this treatment system, access agreements with
site owners and adjacent property owners will be necessary. Also,
Ill.
··• .. ! 1 ! 11n,J1 /Ii 11 I !I l!i !II !!l i;J
• •
access to railroad right-of-way is
necessary in order to lay the
groundwater recovery pipes and
electrical power lines running to
the recovery wells underneath the
railroad tracks.
Groundwater Remedial Action Implementation Schedule
JFD Electronics/Channel Master NPL Site, Oxford, North Carolina
n TMt;Nomo
' l'l-EPA~dtr>ofno'R-o.Jg,, , ..---
' ICIIC()f(11W:TOft IEl..ECTlCW
Estimated costs to implement,
operate and maintain the
groundwater remediation system
is $2,206,400 present worth costs.
• ,n,p.,,~llldF'acbgolSu:vtil:la~
• ~"-"'""~!lid~
• Con<,.a::l•~~-o.sa.
' ,,,_,, __ Si.t,rnlllOConnct:njlr-ary)
REMEDIAL ACTION WORK
PLAN
The Remedial Action Work Plan
was prepared in July 1996 and
approved by EPA . The Work
Plan outlines the implementation
of the following activities:
• Install four 6-inch diameter
recovery wells
approximately 60 feet deep.
(Deep unconsolidated zone)
• Install three 6-inch-diameter
recovery wells
approximately 25 feel deep.
(Shallow unconsolidated
zone)
• ~!lid~
• 111-Conmu::llanlllm'A~-
• ----" Co'fnic:ta'Wcw11.~P~
u G&M R..-dWOftc Plof>'H,\SP/~
" E0UP-..EN'T l'ROCUREMEHT
• E~llld~~
" Sok:tE~Bldl
"
_,_
" Slw Dt-.g F'Ap.lR->.w-
" ,...,,.._,
11 nRMITI
n R--,WOIIP .... ~~
" OEMR-~R_.,Welf'a'ml
D R.,..,. NPOU Ponnl !Rn, DEM
D R ........ $,_,. ~ , ..... (Core,acb-)
1', COHSTIWCTlON AHO IYSTIM ITAKT"JI'
u --n -·-u R--,w•~
D R-S~~
n ~--u J>IH'nolnpec:liQnR~
• Construct pipelines and
pumping systems to convey
" USEPA R-& ,lw,,,,,ldlho Pr.f'nll ~R,ip:wi
. extracted groundwater to
the treatment unit.
Construct treatment system
to treat the contaminated
groundwater.
• Install a control and
instrumentation system for
the extraction system.
Construct a groundwater
D
" •
u
u
" u
Fndtl ~-U$EPA ~ ~--1111a.....,,~..ct1US£l'A
lr<IQ--'l'~..chUSEPA
Fhol 0&J,t ,.,,__
~R-Spta'II~
F.-.~R"l'OI
, ... ---
disposal line to convey treated water to the discharge point.
The proposed groundwater remedial action implementation schedule is
featured here.
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
\
If you need more information or have questions concerning future
activities at the Site, please contact:
♦
-"'" "'" ~· .. ♦ , .. --., • .. -" I .. • ,., -.. • , .. -.. • .. • , ..
,., -.. ■
~ I , .. -..,
,. .. .. ■
= -..
., ♦ ,., -111d .. I I ,., -I , .. -I
"' -" I .. • = -,., -" ' .. ' " I ,., -= -= -
......, • .. R"'"'3Up~
l'l-UpTNlc
R-Up-.....o
Ken Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Cocrdinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
North Supertund Remedial Branch
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3014
1-800-435-9233
' ~,
Region 4
' '
.. '/
.-··-··--r-
.. ~~ ,.:l'"~-x -:.X--t-. c:::::t::::::i
~ ----~
1'
~ ntll:Ul'IE
............... IVII..RO,',D
SITE lAYOIJT
JFD0 ELECTRONlCS/CllANNEL MASTER
OXFORD, NORIH CAROLINA
i..---------------------·-----------__ ............ -.. -----.-. (_ · t:", , ....
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3014
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coard.
Ken Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
,.\L
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
JFOOl01
..
• • ,,.,.,8..ECEIVED
{ ~~~FIB 1 6 199~F
~t ERFUND SECTION
Region 4
SUPERFUNDc~C_T_SHEE:"t UPDATE
ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
February 1994
The following notice was recently issued by the U.S.E.P.A. Washington, D. C. office and is being duplicated and mailed to citizens on the
Site's mailing list in an effort to keep the public informed.
"JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have reached an agreement with JFD Electronics
Corporation and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc., to clean up the JFD Electronics/ Channel Master site in Oxford, North Carolina.
The settlement document, called a consent decree, was lodged with the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
December 28, 1993. The settlement requires the parties to conduct the cleanup selected by EPA, reimburse EPA more than $1.5 million
for past response costs,' and pay future oversight costs at the 13-acre Site.
JFD Electronics/Channel Mast~r manufactured teleision antennas at the site from 1962 to 1980. In 1964, a half-acre unlined lagoon was
built on the site to dispose of sludge generated from chromate conversion and copper/nickel electroplating processes. Underground and
aboveground storage tanks also were used to dispose of waste oil and to store cleaning solvents. Channel Master bought the property in
1980, and later discovered that both the soil and sludge were contaminated with chromium, nickel, antimony, and other heavy metals. In
addition, groundwater was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs} and metals.
The method selected for groundwater cleanup includes extraction, treatment with alkaline chlorination, precipitation/ filtration, air stripping,
and carbon adsorption. These actions, estimated to cost $5.1 million, will restore the site groundwater as a drinking water source. Following
a study to ensure that treatment levels can be attained, cleanup activities for soil and sludge will include excavation, treatment with oxidation,
stabilization, on-site disposal, and capping. The cost of these actions is estimated at $1.2 million.
INFORMATION RESOURCES
For more information about the Site. past EPA actions, the settlemen~ or the remedy being implemented, please contact the following
persons in U.S.E.P.A. Region 4, or at EPA Headquarters:
Ken Mallary, Remedial Project Manager ( 404 )34 7-7791 ext 77, or 1-800-435-9233
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator, [phone] ext. 66, or 1-800-435-9233
Julie Klaas, CERCLA Enforcement Division, HQ, [phone]"
The Re.medial Design portion of the process is underway. The contractor for the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs} will be submitting
their final Remedial Design Work Plan in March. This means that they will begin additional sampling, install additional groundwater monitoring
wells. and will conduct a soiVsludge Treatability Study on the selected remedy to make sure that it will effectively treat the contamination.
As more progress is made we will prepare fact sheet updates to keep you informed. In the meantime, please feel free to contact us if you
have any questions or need more information at 1-800-435-9233.
• •
--· ..,, •• • f. r ~• ., l:.S. C,1-r 1~.,.i.-.L 1·~·,r,1~ ... •
ft ~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
agion • Atianta, Georgia 30365
ficlal Business
~alty for Private Use $300
S/F JFOU136
MS. KIM CLAkK~, PUSLIC INFO. ASST.
SUPEkFUND SECTION
NC Oc?T. JF ENV!KONM~NT, H~ALTH
~ NAlUKAL RESUU~C~S
p. □• c.iuX 27b57
i~ALi::lGH
F"□ E:□:=< 27687 RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
I I It I •I " "' ' ... ' '
l •' . ""-( W' i....U-
NOV~ 1..J • SUPERFUND\F1'CT-SHEET_:;tJPDATE SUPERfUNPStCTTON
Region 4
151t•
01ac:overy
Pub I tc
cornnent
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
November 19, 1993
NPL )----o-i RemedTal
LT•tl....:,
Feae1bl I tty .J-------<-i Study
Rac:or-d }----0-{ R~lal
o'f' D•oleTon Deergn
ANNOUNCEMENT
R_._d,al
Ac:"t. Ion
Today we received notification that a proposed Consent Decree had been published in the Federal Register. In an effort to keep citizens
informed, this announcementis to advise of the formal lodging of the proposed Consent Decree on October 20, 1993, with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. An official notice appeared in the Federal Register #58FR-59069 on November 5,
1993, announcing that the Department of Justice will receive comments for a period of 30 days from the date of publication concerning the
proposed Consent Decree between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): JFD
Electronics Corporation and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc. · ·
Since the Record of Decision was signed in September 1992, we have moved into the Remedial Design phase of the Superfund process
as indicated by the flow chart above. EPA and PRPs have been conducting negotiations to determine who would pay for and conduct the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action. The PRPs and the Agency reached an agreement, and EPA prepared and lodged a consent Decree
with the court system. A consent Decree is a legal document approved by a judge, that formalizes an agreement reached between EPA
and the PRPs through which the PRPs will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund site, cease or correct actions or processes
that are polluting the environment or otherwise comply with regulations where the PRP's failure to comply caused EPA to initiate regulatory
enforcement actions. The consent Decree describes the actions the PRPs will take and is subject to public comment The consent Decree
which has been signed by both parties stipulates their agreement that the PRPs will conduct and pay for all necessary activities as indicated
in the Record of Decision and the Statement of Work.
This announcement has been mailed to the public to provide an opportunity to submit comments to the Department of Justice concerning
the activities agreed to in the Consent Decree lodged in the court system on October 20, 1993. A copy of the Consent Decree is available
tor review at:
U.S. Eastern District Court Clerks
Office of North. Carolina
Federal Building, Fifth Floor
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1461
Phone. [phone]
U.S.E.P .A., Region 4
Region 4 Library
345 Courtland Street.NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
Consent Decree Library
1120 G Street, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: [phone]
Copies of the proposed Consent Decree with attachments may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, address noted above,
at a cost of $0.25/page to reproduce. Please make checks payable to the ·consent Decree Library."
• • Citizens wanting to comment on this issue should mail their comments prior to December 6, 1993, to:
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Reference: United States versus JFD Electronics Corp. and Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc.
D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-871
The PRPs have agreed in the proposed Consent Decree to: (1) perfonn the selected remedy outlined in the Record of Decision signed on
September 10, 1992 for the Site at an estimated combined cost of $6,392,000, and (2) reimburse the United States for all of its past response
costs incurred at the Site ($1,550,986.52), and all of its future response and oversight costs at the Site. The Record of Decision selected
groundwater extraction and treatment with alkaline chlorination, precipitation/filtration, air stripping and carbon adsorption for contaminated
groundwater, and the excavation and treatment of contaminated sludge and soil with oxidation-reduction, stabilization, on-site disposal, and
capping. See the September 1992 Record of Decision Fact Sheet for an explanation of these processes.
For more infonnation about this announcement or Site activities, please contact the following people:
Mr. McKenzie Mallary, Remedial Project Manager
Ms. Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
North Supertund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
or
Mr. Stephen Lubin, case Attorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Office of Regional Counsel
345 Courtland Stree~ N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone] ext 2286
•
,j
' I
\ '
•
· THE UNITED STATES . . ' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY · _,. ... .,., . · REGION IV · . A. {~•.-11 ANNOUNCES THE SIGNING OF THE ,~... RECORD OF DECISION · ',.,.;.,p FOR THE
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER SUPERFUND SITE OXFORD, GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sigried the Record of Decision on ·Thursday, September JO, 1992, identifying the Agency's final contamination cleanup plan for the JFD Electronics/ Channel Mast'er Superfund Site. ·rhe EPi's plan Includes treatfl1ent · of both ·groundwater and sollls. The l :, groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds and metals wW be •,f, extracted from the aquifer and , treated on-site with an Alkaline Chlorination, ! ! Precipitation/ Filtratlon, Air Stripping and Carbon "Adsorption process. The treated !l groundwater will be discharg'ed either to the local publicly owned treatment -_ works or into an unnamed branch of Fishing creek. The exact time of treatment may take up to 30 years, during which time the system's. performance will be , carefully monitored on a regular basis. The metal-laden soil/sludge will .be .r excavated then _treated on-site through an Oxidation-reduction, and Stabilization ) process; the solidified material will be placed back into the excavated areas and then capped, coVered with clean fill! graded and revegetated. , The Ad.ministra!i~e Record consisting of a copy of the· Record of Decision (ROD) and other site-related documerlts are available for revieW at the information re-pository: ·
Richard H. Thornton Public Library Corner of Main and Spring Streets Oxfo'rd, N~rth Caroline 27565 :. Phone: [phone]
For tur't:he;. information about this action or other Site activities, please contact: McKe'nzle Mallery, Remedial Project M8nager, · or -Disine Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator North Superfund Remedial Branch · Waste Management Division U.S._ Environmental F:-rotectlon Agency 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlantai, Gei:Jrgia 30365 . • . Phone· 1·800·435-9233 A mOre detailed explanation of the. selected remeqy is pr_esented in a fact sheet that ~a~ been rriaile~ to citizen·s on the· mailing list of this Site. If you want to be added. to this mailing 11st. please contact us at the above_· address.
l I
I ·.~ • -, ·:, L .) • • _, .----•-----"""•"--------,
U,"li!TFD S'iATES ENV UlON:\! t-:NTAL l'HO'l'ECl'IUN Ac; Fi'-IC't
HE(;JON IV
5·•5 COVRIT.ANI) STREET, N.E.
ATIANL\, GEORGL·\ 30365
FACSlMILE TH.\NS;\,l!Ti'Al. COVEH SHEET
Number of Pages Sent (f11c/11di116 This Couer Sheet): --~....,.2--~
Please co,uacl l)io.ne B11rrcu fl :bis fa .. "( is re:ceft:ed porit'fy or f11conzJJ/ete .
.. , -... ··-..... ----. . . . .... ----·
================·====·=·--=--=====,===·====·=
FROM:
i
Diane Barren, Community Relations Coordinat◊r
Nortl1 Carolina Se<.:Lion
Nortl1 Superfund R<::medi:,i Bra11cl!
Wasre Management Division
.
---------------------------------------------
l.:=:: ... =======-:c ... :::::. c:-c--,--_~'"C'.::':C:: ... = ... =. ===··,--_::c.·-=-----::=----=,.-=-=--=====-=======-:::::J __
• • SUPERFUND FACT SHEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
JF'D Electronics/Channel Master
()xford, (iranviHe (~ounty, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact s1100t on 1110 JfD Eleotronlcs1c11anne1 Mas 10, Sito
(tho silA) lri OxfvrU, G1r.wv!HH Cou1ny, NorH1 Carolina tv-1s
been prepared by tlw r~,,glrm IV olllce of tt1e Environmental
Protection Agoncy (EPA) during the Remedial lnvestlga-
flon/Feaslbllity Study (RliFS) phase of 1he Superiund
Proc8Ss. · The purpose of this fact 5hee! is to Inform
interested citizens and local officials of Hie nature and
status of .ictlvitles at the silo. Tl1ls fact sheaf provides tile
following Information: & brief baoKground description and
t1lstory of the site; a brief introduction to the Superfund
process; tho sampling results of the phase I_ and phase II
Romadlal Investigation: and a description of the Risk
Assessment and Feaslblltty Study, both currently being
finalized. The tact sheet also outlines opportunities for
public Involvement, and contains EPA contacts as well as
ot11er sources of Information available to the public,
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master property occupies
approxinrataly 13 aoros at the corner of Industrial Drive and
Pine Tree Road In Oxford, Granville County, Nonh
Carolina. From 1962 to 1979, JFD Eiectronlcs
manufact,;rod television antennas at the facility, An
unlined lagoon was built from 1964 to 1965 to dispose of
wastewater generated from a chromate conversion
process and a ooppar/r,lck~I electroplating process, Tlrn
lagoon reponodly hold from 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons
of sludge prior to Channel Master cleanup activities
condllctod In 1987-88, In October 1979, Cl1annal Master
Sntelltte Systems, Inc., H subsidiary of Avnet Inc., assumed
occupancy of tho proprirty. Channel Masiar bought lho
property In 1980 and produced satellrte systems from 1980
to 1984. Indoor and outdoor antennas, amplttlars, and
boosters were also assembled on-site during this time
period, Organic solvents were reportedly used on-stte for
February 1992
(:ioanlng tools and tt,e antenna e!ornonts prior to sonding
\hi,,n of!-sttij for olBctroplallrljl,
Hupo:1ed sotiroes of contamination at tt,., sits Include t11e
5tu<!go liigoon and 010von sludge dr;·lng beds, an
unconllrm&d numl,ar of underground &tornge tanks, soils
contamlnatod wrth volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
associated with a l&aklng waste oil tank and disposal
practices of cleaning solvents.
nm North Carolina Depanment of 1-iuman Resources -
CERCLA unit (NCDHR-CERCLA) conducted a site
Inspection on Februar; 23, 1987. Analyses of tt10 lagoon
sludge and adjacent soils revealed the prasence of
chromium, lead, arsenic, cyanide, and voes. Sampling of
Iha groundwater revealed the prnsence of dlcl1loroethan0,
trlcliloroethena, tetrachloroethylene, and xylene.
Chc.nnel Mast.:,, Initiated cleanup activities at the site In
.June 1987 under the supervision of tho NCDHR-CERCLA
un~. These acllvttles tnchidod excavating approximately
. 17,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil/sludge and
disposing of It In a permitted waste disposal facility.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of voe-contaminated
soil were also excavated and thermally treated to release
the volatile organics. In July 1988, Channel Master
excavated and disposed of two fuel oil tanks and one
concrete waste oil tank.
Site visits ware conducted by repr1rnentalives of tho
Agcmcy for Toxic Subst!rnces end Disease Reqlslry
(ATSDR) In March 1989 and lattir by EPA In Soptomber
1989, Based on these Inspections and Information
colloctod since 1988, both agencies concluded ttiat
contamination still existed at the stte which warranted
further Investigation. This contamination was though! to
Include soils contaminated with voes, groundwater
contaminated with voes, and metal-contaminated
sludges located In the eleven sludge pits,
SUPERFUND PROGR.
The Supl'r1und or remedlal process Is a longthy and
expansive ondenvor. The procuss begins wlm a
f)ffJllm!nary a~sossmunt/site lnspoctlon (PNSI). The
P,;:s1 Is gonerRlly condt1t~ed by the stato to determine
wholMr the she poses onough potential t1arnrd to warran,
furthor study ~nd lnvostlgatlon,
Tt,e site Is Hien ranked using tho Hazard Ranklrt:;i S;•stern
(HRS), a numerical ranking S)'Stem used IC idGntlly the
stte's pol1>11tlal hazard lo tin, e•ivlronrnont and tIuman
heaHh. SKes asslgnod an HRS scvru of 28.5 or above are
proposed in R publi<, notice/comment period through the
Er,tcrillfl1.t~Mw: •o be added to the National Priorilies List
(l,JPL). BasBd upon public comment~ rocoived thO Agency
wl:I then datermlnc ii the $Ito ir. to be auded to the National
Priorltl9S LISI (NPL).
Once a sit(, has been Mde,d to tin, NPL, the Agency bB(llns
a searcl1 for any paI!10s that were 1es1xir1slble for tt1e
cvnlarnlnation at the site. H some are found, tt1e Agency
begins n~gctlatlons with these Individuals/companies to
obtain thair cooperation In paying for and cleaning up the
silo.
Next, a Remedial lnvesligatlon (RI), an ln<tepth, extensive
sampling and analytlcal study, Is conducted to assoss the
nature and extent of the contamination and the potential
risks. A Feaslblllty Study (FS) Is then prepared to examine
and evaluate various remedial atternatlves or cleanup
options.
Following a 30-day public comment period on EPA's
proposed plan and 111& draft FS rnpon, EPA chooses a
specific cleanup plan and oulllnes the chosen remedy In
the Record of Decision (ROD). Tho Responsiveness
Summary documents all comments received during the
30-day comment period and tho Agency's response to
each.
At this point tho Agency again negotiates wtth tho
Potentially Responsible P1u!los (PRPs) (those tt1at
contributed to thu contamination), to determine who wll!
pay for the romalnlng phase of the process, develop tho
Remedial Design, and clean up the site. tt no PRPs are
Involved or they will not cooperate, the Agency conaucts
the remaining stages of the process utilizing money from
the Superfund trust account During the final phases of the
pro,~oss til-orYJY will bring iegal procedures against
urr..ooperallvo PRPs to recuperate n10ney expended from
tile Superfund trust In or<Jl'lr to replentst1 ttIose funds.
Once Iha ROfTlOdial Dosign (HD) (wt1lci1 lncludus the
Hnglnearing plans and spoctticatlons) is ccmpleted, the
actual sl!e cleanup, or Remodi!'.ll Act;cin (RA). can begin.
Allor RD/RA actlvtt!as have been cornploted, the site Is
rncnltorod to ensure the effuG1Ivunuss of th~ cleanup.
Corialn maasurns require ongoing operation and periodl~
mainlenancu. Tl1ls is callttd the operation and
rn~lntdnance phase.
It gunarnily takes 18 to ?4 rnontlis lo cornpleto t110 RI/FS
phase be!ora tt1e Rr;/RA phoso begin;. ll1s RD phase
IDkes npproxlmately 12 mont11s to complete while the RA
can take several years to complete. Al sites whero thil
groundwater Is contaminated, several decades may be
nac~osaiy to rern&dlate the contaminated groundwater.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
ACTIVITIES
The following fs a summary of the phMe I and pl1ase II flaki
aGttvttlss which occurred during January and February
199 t and September and OCtober 1991, respectively.
1. A total of 332 surtace and subsurface soil samples
ware collected, Including 188 colloct8d for on-stte fleki
screening purposes and 144 collected and analyzed
through EPA's certified laboratory program (CLP).
Elevated levels of chromium, copper, lead, and nickel
were ldentttied mainly In the area of the sludge dryinll
beds.
2. A total of 72 groundwater samples wore collected,
lnu:udlng 2~ hydrocone, 29 temporary well, and 14
permanent monitoring wells. The resutts Indicate the
presence of on-site and ott-stte voe contamination
from tho shallow water table down to bedrock dopths.
The voe plume extends from the main building ap-
proxlmatoly 1200 feet to tlla east-southeast.
3. A total of 7 drinking water samples were collected
during tho two phases of the RI from four neart>y
private wells. No contaminants were ldentffied al
levels of concern to human health.
4. A total of 11 surtace waler samples and 14 sedi-
ment samples were collected from two streams bor-
dering the site as well as the adjoining stream just east
EPA
0 200
~
H:~: r 1•,11.cr,11
400
F.gurfoc i; SiA:1 l.c,ca,tio:i Map for Channel Master SI1e,
Oxford, Gri.vwU1e County, Nonh Caro:lna (U.S,G.S.
Oxford, NC 7 .5 minute qu!id)
()
.ll'?fl'J\.JWJ1[ LC>:111(1-1 r:!
11 ~.rJO! Pl!J
of the silo. voes, chrornl.coppor, nickel, and
cyanide woro detected In the surtae,-e watur ar,J sedi-
ment.
RISK ASSESSMENT
To determine tho potontial effect of siw-gono: utHd
contamination on public health, wolfaro and the
environment, a risk assessment was conducted. The
following surnma_rlzas the preliminary risk assessment
findings:
CONCERNSFORCURRENTLANDUSE
Adverse nonca,clnogenic uffocts for on-site workurs
who ore exposed to chromium or VOC-evntamlnatect
soils through thll Incidental Ingestion or dermal ad··
sorp:ion of sludge and/or soils are of principal con·
cern.
Tho Ingestion of grounctwator contaminated with In-
organic cllernlcats Is also of concern due to the
migration potential of the lno,ganlc cl1ernlcals from
the sludges/soils Into potable drinking water
downgradlent from the sit,:,,
CONCERNS FOR FUTURE LAND USE
The use of potable groundwater comamlnateCJ with
VOCs Is ot greatest concern due to the potential for
VOCs to migrate to existing residential wells located
downgradlent from the site. Several exposure
scenarios Include the consumption of groundwater
from the migrating voe plume and tht1 Inhalation of
volatile organic contaminants while bathing.
The Ingestion and dermal absorption of shallow soils
and creek surface water/sediment by children and
adult residents Is of concern.
Using reasonable, conservative exposura scenarios
for freshwater aquatic ltte, 1110 posslblllty exists that .
some sensitive Invertebrates may be adversely Im-
pacted by chromium, nickel, and some PAHs In the
sediment. The presence of PAHs In the sediment Is
not attributable to fo11nm site activities.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
The Final RI report should be complete by thEl middle ol
March 1992, Based on the results of the RI, EPA will
evaluate the various alternatlvesor options for remediallng
the site during the FS. The final FS report should be
comploto by-ooo of Moren 1992.
Upon finalization of ttrn FS rspvrt, t:PA will select a
proforrod altornstive or specific cle,anup plan to be
irnplernontod during tile Remedial Design/Remedial
Action phase. A P,oposad Plan fqct sheet will be sont ouf
in ill ta March 1992 dGSCr1blng the cleanup plan, EPA will
hold a P'-'bllc mo,;tlng In the near future to discuss tilo
findings of the AI/FS and to present tho Proposed Plan for
oloanup of the stta. Notices will be sentto thoso iMivkluals
on the site malling list ond published In tocal newspapers.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
As pan of tha Supertund program, a Tachnlcal Assistance
Grant (TAG) of up to $50,000 Is available to one community
group to hire a tectinlcal consultant to assist thorn In
Interpreting or commenting on site findings and planned
cleanup, Citizens Interested in the TAG program may
obtain an application package bycalllngorwrttlngthe EPA,
Region IV Tochnlcal Assistance Grant contact listed
below.
Ro!!emtuy Patton, T.A.G. Spoc.tallst
CERC!.A Stat8 Program Unit
WaslB M1mag1m1ent Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland Stre9t, N.E.
A tlsnts, GA 3()365
Pno119: [phone]
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
EPA has establlsl1ed a Superfund Commun11y Relations
Program wttn the object Iva ot Informing and Involving the
public In actlvltias and decisions made about Suparfund
sites. Community Relations Is a team effort, Involving the
collaboration of technical and enforcement staff, as well as
expertise In community relations, public affairs, and health
Issues.
Tho Agoncy has developed a Community Rolatlons Plan
(CRP) for the JFD Eloctron1cs/Channe1 Master site.
Numerous community Interviews wero conducted as part
of this CRP. Those Interviewed Included Oxfora residents,
businesses, and governmental officials.
To ensure that the community Is kept Informed as
information becomes available, tht1 Agency prepares fact
.sheets (s'-Ich as this one), pH:iss ,.~es, newspaper ads
and notices, small discussion groups, conducts public
111eetlngs, malls out pertinent ltterature. and ostabllsl·,as an
in!ormation repository to retain all documer.ts propared by
tlio Agency.
EPA has establlshecl an lnlorrnatlor1 repos~ory at tho
following location:
Rlchsr<f H. Thorton Public Library
Comar of Main and Spring Str96tB
P.O. Box 339, Oxford, North Csrol/na 27565
(919} 693-1121
Contacts: Mr. Arla/ Scawms, Llbrurlun
Ms. Vloli,t Costs
The reposltt, ,;, contain all the ttnal plans ana reports·
about the she, '"duding the Admlnlstratlvo Record which
is all legal documentation used to determine the rnmeolal
action tc be taken at tha site.
FOR FURTHER INFORM:1TION, CONTACT THE FOLLOWING:
McKonzlo Mallary Diane Barrett
Remedlal Project Manager
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
community Relations Coord.
Waste Mat1agement Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
Rosemary Patton
T.A.G. Speclallat
waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland St.,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
Chuck Pletrosewlcz
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
Public Health Advisor
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
C/0 U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland St.,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404)347·1586
Jack Buller
345 COUrtland Stroot, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404)347•2234
State Pn:>Joct Manager
Supertund S&cllon
N.C. Department 01 Environment,
HMltn & Natural Reaourcoa
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone: [phone]
MAILING UST AODJnONS:
II you know ot som0one alse who would like to receive Information concerning tho JFD Electronics/Channel Master Superfund
Site, please have them complete the address form below ar,d mail to tha address provided. TI1ank you.
NAME: __________________________ _
ADDRESS: __________________ _
CITY, STATE, ZIP: _________ _
PHONE NO.: ___________________________________ _
AFFILIATION: ___________________________________ _
Return form to: Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
Notth Superfund Remedial Branen
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtlantf Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
s .• ERFUND FACT SHEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
-./ .. ,:n:.-:: <.:i JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet on the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Stte
(the stte) in Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina has
been prepared by the Region IV office of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) during the Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund
Process. The purpose of this fact sheet is to inform
interested cttizens and local officials of the nature and
status of activtties at the stte. This fact sheet provides the
following information: a brief background description and
history of the site; a brief introduction to the Supertund
process; the sampling results of the phase I and phase II
Remedial Investigation; and a description of the Risk
Assessment and Feasibiltty Study, both currently being
finalized. The fact sheet also outlines opportunities for
pub!!c involvement, and contains EPA contacts as well as
other sources of information available to the public.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master property OCaJpies
approximately 13 acres at the corner of Industrial Drive and
Pine Tree Road in Oxford, Granville County, North
Carolina. From 1962 to 1979, JFD Electronics
manufactured television antennas at the facility. An
unlined lagoon was built from 1964 to 1965 to dispose of
wastewater generated from a chromate conversion
process and a copper/nickel electroplating process. The
lagoon reportedly held from 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons
of sludge prior to Channel Master cleanup activities
conducted in 1987-88. In October 1979, Channel Master
Satelltte Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Avnet Inc., assumed
occupancy of the property. Channel Master bought the
property in 1980 and produced satelllte systems from 1980
to 1984. Indoor and outdoor antennas, amplttiers, and
boosters were also assembled on-site during this time
period. Organic solvents were reportedly used on-site for
February 1992
cleaning tools and the antenna elements prior to sending
them off-stte for electroplating.
Reported sources of contamination at the site include the
sludge lagoon and eleven sludge drying beds, an
unconfirmed number of underground storage tanks, soils
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
associated with a leaking waste oil tank and disposal
practices of cleaning solvents.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources -
CERCLA unit (NCDHR-CERCLA) conducted a site
inspection on February 23, 1987. Analyses of the lagoon
sludge and adjacent soils revealed the presence of
chromium, lead, arsenic, cyanide, and VOCs. Sampling of
the groundwater revealed the presence of dichloroethane,
irichioroethene, telrachioroethyiene, a;;d xylene.
Channel Master initiated cleanup activtties at the site in
June 1987 under the supervision of the NCDHR-CERCLA
unit. These activities included excavating approximately
17,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil/sludge and
disposing of it in a permitted waste disposal facility.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of voe-contaminated
soil were also excavated and thermally treated to release
the volatile organics. In July 1988, Channel Master
excavated and disposed of two fuel oil tanks and one
concrete waste oil tank.
Site visits were conducted by representatives of the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) in March 1989 and later by EPA in September
1989. Based on these inspections and information
collected since 1988, both agencies concluded that
contamination still existed at the site which warranted
further investigation. This contamination was thought to
include soils contaminated with VOCs, groundwater
contaminated with VOCs, and metal-contaminated
sludges located in the eleven sludge pits.
~ G EPA
~
0 OH
0 200 400
·---S--
l' 0 200'
iiia, f 1c1a.oc~
~, • J. ~ --• ' : ' ,.,...__ -\ . .. -., ··t_".;;.~(:-;;-;\j .it~· ....•
Figure 1: Site Location Map for Channel Master Site,
Oxford, Granville County, North Garolina (U.S.G.S.
Oxford, NC 7 .5 minute quad)
600
2
:'..~ i', ·.. \ i~?t .
'\i\ -,·
".\'" ~;v.:~~-..
Cl \ss,. . .. -~'", #·: :;_, , .,,' 1 : ',l 1-, • ,.;),, I __ ..::_---'lro ·-,..... 1'----,_.._ .. ,;'.. ••
RD '• '°•~ ;:.c~•' i ! _,, } "lo_,',, 11 I: / ✓
,,,.-; ... \i ;a-= l -~
·. '•'l. ! c..,..,...., L.; ' . / '\
'\ 1. i .. ,, ,,_ ·.··, ~ .
~'~" .. · . ·--.. · :
Seate: 1·. 2,000'
SHALLO'li 0£Pll[SSl~
LOCATED ON f
AERUL PHOTO 1. -~
LEGEND
'
t ·,~_
. 1 ~ ), /'r ,, . </ :-.c
~XJ~l[ l0OIICtl Ci
11 SU.OCt PIIS
////, [xCml(0 lRU',
-ft-"10P£Rll9ruf0.i.cll
hlSTINC f(IICT
hllAOI.O
OIIC~
0 (XIS'IIIG N')Htf~l'IC l{ll
SUPERFUND PROGR •
The Supertund or remedial process is a lengthy and
expensive endeavor. The process begins with a
preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI). The
PA/SI is generally conducted by the state to determine
whether the sne poses enough potential hazard to warrant
further study and investigation.
The sne is then ranked using the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS), a numerical ranking system used to identify the
sne·s potential hazard to the environment and human
health. Snes assigned an HRS score of 28.5 or above are
proposed in a public notice/comment period through the
Federal Register to be added to the National Priorities List
(NPL). Based upon public comments received the Agency
will then determine tt the site is to be added to the National
Priornies List (NPL).
Once a site has been added to the N PL, the Agency begins
a search for any parties that were responsible for the
contamination at the sne. ff some are found, the Agency
begins negotiations wnh these individuals/companies to
obtain their cooperation in paying for and cleaning up the
sne.
Nexi, a Remedial Investigation (Ri), an in-<:lepth, ex~ensive
sampling and analytical study, is conducted to assess the
nature and extent of the contamination and the potential
risks. A Feasibilny Study (FS) is then prepared to examine
and evaluate various remedial alternatives or cleanup
options.
Following a 30-day public comment period on EPA's
proposed plan and the draft FS report, EPA chooses a
specttic cleanup plan and outlines the chosen remedy in
the Record of Decision (ROD). The Responsiveness
Summary documents all comments received during the
30-day comment period and the Agency's response to
each.
At this point the Agency again negotiates wtth the
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) (those that
contributed to the contamination), to determine who will
pay for the remaining phase of the process, develop the
Remedial Design, and clean up the stte. ff no PRPs are
involved or they will not cooperate, the Agency conducts
the remaining stages of the process utilizing money from
the Supertund trust account. During the final phases of the
3
process It .ncy will bring legal procedures against
uncooperati~RPs to recuperate money expended from
the Supertund trust in order to replenish those funds.
Once the Remedial Design (RD) (which includes the
engineering plans and specttications) is completed, the
actual sne cleanup, or Remedial Action (RA), can begin.
After RD/RA activnies have been completed, the site is
monnored to ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup.
Certain measures require ongoing operation and periodic
maintenance. This is called the operation and
maintenance phase.
It generally takes 18 to 24 months to complete the RI/FS
phase before the RD/RA phase begins. The RD phase
takes approximately 12 months to complete while the RA
can take several years to complete. At sites where the
groundwater is contaminated, several decades may be
necessary to re mediate the contaminated groundwater.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
ACTIVITIES
The following is a summary of the phase I and phase II field
activtties which occurred during January and February
1991 and September and October 1991, respectively.
1. A total of 332 surtace and subsurtace soil samples
were collected, including 188 collected for on-stte field
screening purposes and 144 collected and analyzed
through EPA's certified laboratory program (CLP).
Elevated levels of chromium, copper, lead, and nickel
were identttied mainly in the area of the sludge drying
beds.
2. A total of 72 groundwater samples were collected,
including 29 hydrocone, 29 temporary well, and 14
permanent monnoring wells. The results indicate the
presence of on-site and off-stte voe contamination
from the shallow water table down to bedrock depths.
The voe plume eX1ends from the main building ap-
proximately 1200 feet to the east-southeast.
3. A total of 7 drinking water samples were collected
during the two phases of the RI from four nearby
private wells. No contaminants were identttied at
levels of concern to human health.
4. A total of 11 surface water samples and 14 sedi-
ment samples were collected from two streams bor-
dering the sne as well as the adjoining stream just east
of the site. VOCs, chrom·· COPp€ eke!, and
cyanide were detected in th ace wa,.,r and sedi-
ment.
RISK ASSESSMENT
To determine the potential effect of site-generated
contamination on public health, welfare and the
environment, a risk assessment was conducted. The
following summarizes the preliminary risk assessment
findings:
CONCERNS FOR CURRENT LAND USE
Adverse noncarcinogenic effects for on-site workers
who are exposed to chromium or voe-contaminated
soils through the incidental ingestion or dermal ad-
sorption of sludge and/or soils are of principal con-
cern.
The ingestion of groundwater contaminated with in-
organic chemicals is also of concern due to the
migration potential of the inorganic chemicals from
the sludges/soils into potable drinking water
downgradient from the site.
CONCERNS FOR FUTURE LAND USE
The use of potable groundwater contaminated with
voes is of greatest concern due to the potential tor
voes to migrate to existing residential wells located
downgradient from the site. Several exposure
scenarios include the consumption of groundwater
from the migrating voe plume and the inhalation ot
volatile organic contaminants while bathing.
The ingestion and dermal absorption of shallow soils
and creek sur1ace water/sediment by children and
adult residents is of concern.
Using reasonable, conservative exposure scenarios
tor freshwater aquatic life, the possibility exists that
some sensitive invertebrates may be adversely im-
pacted by chromium, nickel, and some PAHs in the
sediment. The presence of PAHs in the sediment is
not attributable to former site activities.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
The Final RI report should be complete by the middle of
March 1992. Based on the results of the RI, EPA will
evaluate the various alternatives or options for remediating
the site during the FS. The final FS report should be
complete by.end of ·ch 1992.
Upon finalization of the FS report, EPA will select a
preferred alternative or specific cleanup plan to be
implemented during the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action phase. A Proposed Plan fact sheet will be sent out
in late March 1992 describing the cleanup plan. EPA will
hold a public meeting in the near future to discuss the
findings of the RI/FS and to present the Proposed Plan for
cleanup of the site. Notices will be sent to those individuals
on the site mailing list and published in local newspapers.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
As part of the SUperfund program, a Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) of up to $50,000 is available to one community
group to hire a technical consultant to assist them in
interpreting or commenting on site findings and planned
cleanup. Citizens interested in the TAG program may
obtain an application package by calling or writing the EPA,
Region IV Technical Assistance Grant contact listed
below.
Rosemary Patton, T.A.G. Spec/al/st
CERCLA State Program Unit
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region JV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
EPA has established a Superfund Community Relations
Program with the objective of informing and involving the
public in activities and decisions made about Superfund
sites. Community Relations is a team effort, involving the
collaboration of technical and enforcement staff, as well as
expertise in community relations, public affairs, and health
issues.
The Agency has developed a Community Relations Plan
(CRP) for the JFD Electronics/Channel Master site.
Numerous community interviews were conducted as part
of this GRP. Those interviewed included Oxford residents,
businesses, and governmental officials.
To ensure that the community is kept informed as
information becomes available, the Agency prepares fact
sheets (such as this one), press r 1ses, newspaper ads
and notices, small discussion 1,1s, conducts public
meetings, mails out pertinent ltterat e, and establishes an
information reposttory to retain all documents prepared by
the Agency.
EPA has established an information reposrtory at the
following location:
Richard H. Thorton Pub/le Library
Corner of Main and Spring Streets
P.O. Box 339, Oxford, North carollna 27565
[phone]
Contacts: Mr. Arla/ Stevens, Librarian
Ms. Violet Coats
The rGposttc-~II contain all the final plans and reports
about the sn .• lud1ng the Admnistrative Record which
is all legal documentation used to determine the remedial
action to be taken.at the site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE FOLWWING:
McKenzie Mallary Diane Barrett
Remedial Project Manager
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
Community Relations Coord.
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
Rosemary Patton
T.A.G. Speclallst
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland St.,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404)347-TT91
Chuck Pletrosewlcz
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404)347-TT91
Publlc Health Advisor
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
c/o U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland St.,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
Jack Bu11er
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
State Project Manager
Superfund section
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone: [phone]
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS:
If you know of someone else who would like to receive information concerning the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Superfund
Srte, please have them complete the address form below and mail to the address provided. Thank you.
NAME:-----------------------------------
ADDRESS: ___________________________________ _
CITY, STATE, ZIP: _______________________________ _
PHONE NO.:-----------------------------------
AFFILIATION: _______ ~-------------------------
Return form to: Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
••
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NORTH SUPERFlN> UI¥'.. BRANCH
87
•
·=========,1• RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER SUPERFUND SITE
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
On Thursday, September 1 0, 1992, the Regional
Administrator of the Region IV Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) which
selected lhe cleanup remedy for lhe JFD
Electronics/Channel Master Superfund Sile on which the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural
Resources conditionally concurred.
The April 1992 Proposed Plan Fact Sheet presented a
number of possible alternative remedies. The two seiected
are, Alternative #4 for Groundwater and Alternative #4 for
Sludge/Soil. The selected remedies address the future
unacceptable risks posed by the Site to human health and
the environment from use of contaminated groundwater and
contact with contaminated sludge/soils. The metals and
volatile organic compounds in the groundwater will be
extracted and treated on-site by the processes described
below. The sludge/soil containing metals will be treated on-
sile through a process that reduces and solidifies the
contaminants in the sludge/soil also described below.
GROUNDWATER
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
with Alkaline Chlorination, Precipitation/Filtration, Air
Stripping, Carbon Adsorption. Since there are both
metals and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater,
several processes will be used to permanently remove and
destroy · contamination in the groundwater by treatment
systems. Activities involved in this remedy include:
• Construction of six or more extraction wells placed
within and along the periphery of the plume to pump the
contaminated water out of the aquffer.
• The extracted groundwater will first pass through an
equalization .tank for pH and t8fll)8rature adjustment.
(pH is the measure of acidity or alkalinity of a liquid or
solid material.) Following equalization, Alkaline
Chlorination with the use of compounds such as sodium
hypochlorite and chlorine gas will be used to destroy
cyanide as well as the volatile organic compounds in the
groundwater.
• Piecipitation/Filtration will be used to transform
inorganic substances in groundwater into solids and
remove them from the liquid waste stream by forcing
the groundwater through a filter.
September 1992
• Air Stripping and Camon Adsorption will also be used lo
· remove the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) lrom the
groundwater. The groundwater will flow into the lop of
an air stripping cylinder while air is forced into the
bottom. The water trickles down columns where the
contaminants change from a liquid slate to a gaseous
state. This process of forced air separates lhe VOCs
from the water. The water then passes through a
cartion adsorption filter trapping the contaminants. The
filters are then either recycled, cleaned and reused or
placed in a RCRA approved landfill.
• The treated groundwater will then be discharged either
to the local, publicly owned treatment worl<s (POTW) or
as surface water discharge to an unnamed branch of
Fishing Creek.
The estimated cost of $5,181,000 for this selected remedy
covers five years of operation, during which time the
system's perlcrrnance will be care~..:!!y monitored en a
regular basis and adjustments made to the system to ensure
optimum operating efficiency. Depending upon a number of
variables such as pumping rates of the extraction wells,
quantities of contamination in the groundwater, and removal
efficiency of each treatmerit process, the period of extracting
contaminated groundwater may last up to 30 years.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to
its beneficial use as a drinking water source. Based on all
of the information collected and analyzed during lhe
Remedial Investigation and the various alternatives studied
during the Feasibility Study, both the EPA and State of North
Carolina believe that the selected groundwater remedy will
achieve this goal.
SLUDGEJSOIL
Alternative 4: Excavation, Treatment with Oxidation
Reduction, Stabillzatlon, On-site Disposal and Capping
will achieve the cleanup goals established for this Site for
metals. Prior to implementation of the remedy, a treatability
study will be periormed during the Remedial Design to
ensure the treatment levels can be attained. Once the
treatment levels are met activities involved in this remedy
will include:
0 Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of sludge/soil will be
excavated from area of concern.
• Oxidation-Reduction i-ype 0, ,reatment whereby
contaminanls undergo a chemical process which is
designed to either destroy or convert inorganics in the
sludge/soil to a nontoxic or less hazardous compound.
Stabilization will be the follow-up treatment lo oxidation-
reduction. The puroose of stabilization is to reduce the
mobility of the remaining metals in the sludge/soil by
creating a low permeability that resisls leaching. The
metals are immobilized within a mixture containing a
silicate-or concrete-based fixating agent. The stabilized
materials will be placed back into the areas previously
excavated provided it meets specific standards.
Once the solidified material has been backfilled into the
excavated areas, capping will be used to cover the
material to minimize the infiltration and migration of
liquids. This process will also help to keep people from
coming into contact with the stabilized materials. The
nature of the cap to be used with this alternative will be
determined from the _resulls of the treatability study
pertormed during the Remedial Design.
The estimated cost of this selected treatment process is
$1,211,000.
Of the Alternatives protective of human health and the
environment and that comply with both federal and state
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requiremenls
(ARARs), the selected remedy provides the best balance of
trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
achieved through treatment; short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost; State and over-all community
acceptance, and the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element. For more information on the rationale of
the selection, and the Agency's response to commenls, we
encourage everyone to review the Reccrd of Decision
located in the information repository.
Both the EPA and the State of North Carolina believe that
the selected remedies are protective of human health and
the environment.
PROJECTED FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The EPA will mail a Special Notice Letter to the Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) in the near future. A 6<Klay
formal negotiations period automatically begins upon receipt
of the Notice Letter by the PRPs. EPA will negotiate with
the PRPs to determine if the PRPs are willing to pertorm
and pay for the remaining phases of the Superfund process.
If the PRPs are cooperative and present a good faith
proposal, another 60-day moratorium period occurs to
decide the procedures to be followed during the Remedial
Design' Remedial Action and Operation and Maintenance
• phases of the process. A Consent Decree is drawn up and
signed by both the PRPs and EPA stating what activities
were agreed to be pertormed. If no settlement is reached
within the specified time period, EPA may issue a Remedial
Design Worl< Assignment to an EPA contractor to begin the
worl<. The EPA would seek to recover costs from the PRP
which the Agency incurred during the Superfund process.
Alternatively, EPA could issue a Unilateral Administrative
Order to the PRPs requiring that they worl< be done.
The Remedial Design phase usually takes approximately
one year to 18 months to complete due to the many
activities required for this phase. During this time period,
additional field worl< (sampling) will occur to further define
groundwater and surtace water/sediment contamination as
well as establish parameters needed to implement the
groundwater pump and treat system. A treatability study will
also be pertormed to determine if the selected treatment will
achieve the remediation levels established. Once the
Remedial Design activities have ooen completed, actual
construction can begin on the Site.
The preceding information is a brief ovelView of the selected
remedies and future activities being provided to keep the
public better informed. We encourage the public lo review
the documenls housed in the information repository.
To review the Administrative Reccrd containing the Reccrd
of Decision and other legal documents, they are housed in
the information repository located at:
Richard H. Thornton Public Library
Comer of Main and Spring Streels
Oxford, North Carolina
Phone [phone]
•••
. ' ,.,
U.S.OFFIClt.L MA::...:
. ~\~rn•LTV . U.S.POSIAGf •
UNITED STATES j sEPl•'92 ti:!.im _ :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ,;GENtY: 0 .2 9 ::: •
REGION IV '-..~.;~tig~"l ·
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365 Kl:.l;tUVtU
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 OCT 0 !.! 199~
SUPERflJND SECTION
NORTH SUPERMDRBIJUI.BUNCH
87
S/F JF00014
MS ■ LEE CkUSbY, SECTION CHIEF
5UPERFUNO SECTION NC DEPT ■ OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
& NATURAL RESOURCES
P ■ O ■ BOX 27687 RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
•
• •
Fact Sheet
JADCO-HUGHES SUPERFUND SITE
Gaston County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION:
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency completed a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in September
1990. Based on the results of the study, EPA
selected a remedy that provides protection of
public health and the environment. The
remedy was published in the Record of
Decision (ROD), Septen:!:er 27, 1990.
The next steps in the Superfund process are
the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA). The Remedial Design is defined as
the development of all engineering plans and
specifications necessary to begin actual
cleanup at a site.
June 1991
Once all plans are approved, i.e., Health and
Safety Plans, Quality Assurance Plans, Con-
struction Permits, if necessary, then Remedial
Action, or the actual construction of necessary
treatment facilities can begin. Inspection of
all equipment occurs prior to the implementa-
tion of the process or the cleanup. This fact
sheet describes the Remedial Design/
Remedial Action process as it relates to the
Jadco-Hughes Site.
SITE BACKGROUND AND
HISTORY:
The Jadco-Hughes Site is located in an unin-
corporated area of North Belmont, Gaston
County, North Carolina. The six-acre Site is a
former solvent reclamation and waste storage
facility operated by C. A. Hughes, Inc. from
SUPERFUND PROCESS
REMOVALS
ENFORCEMENT
. ·. .. ·i ·:•·, ·-.. ' . . .. ······-·· I .. ,.
• , I .
. }l . · · .· . tlll«I
~" ,.~x~ii . ; ~.J!. ·_ -· llirul •'~~·-:I:'
}!\~t~
I COMMUNITY RELATIONS t
•
1971 to 197 5 and later leased to Jacdo, Inc.
until operations were suspended and conse-
quently ended in 1975. Aerial photography in-
dicates that the facility was active as early as
1969. During its operation, the Site reclaimed
used waste paint and ink-type solvents. It
also stored drummed materials consisting of
many waste chemicals and chemical waste
sludges.
MAJOR CONT AMIN ANTS TO BE
TREATED AT SITE
Vinyl Chloride
Toluene
1,2 Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetone
The State of North Carolina ordered the Site
to be closed in 1975 after complaints by neigh-
boring residents and the occurrence of chemi-
cal spills between 1971 and 1975. In
addition, the State _ordered the facility to be
cleaned up and, along with EPA, pursued
proper management of the cleanup under ex-
isting State and Federal laws. Reportedly, the
cleanup included the excavation of two pits
which were used to store solvents. These sol-
vents were allowed to percolate into the
ground. Also, on-site contaminated surface
2
• ,-·-·-·-·-• CherTyVtllo
' 0 ·, -~
~.. Stanley
~ 0 ~ Dallas
0
\ Beuemer-
• Cltyo
Ml Hol~
JAOCO-_'.!lt I
HUGHEso-I '· •
GASTON ! Gastonia Be t ;,,
COUNTY !
l-·-·-·-·-·-·
soil was consolidated and covered with clean
soils and revegetated in an on-site landfill lo-
cated in the southwest corner of the Site in
1978. Additionally, the remaining large
storage tanks, a mobile tanker, and eight
remaining drums were removed in I 983.
In 1983, the EPA initiated a Superfund Site
investigation. The Jadco-Hughes Site was
ranked and finalized on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1986. The first step
in the S uperfund process is to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). EPA negotiated with the various
firms that had conducted business with Jadco,
Inc. and C. A. Hughes, Inc. to perform the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. In
September 1986, an Administrative Order
on Consent was signed by EPA and the
Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs). The Ad-
ministrative Order outlined the terms under
which EPA would allow the PRPs to conduct
the RVFS. The Remedial Investigation was
completed in the Summer of 1990. The RI
confirmed that contaminated soil and
groundwater are present at the Site. The
groundwater is believed to be slowly migrat-
ing in a northerly direction from the Site. In
the later part of 1990, the PCB removal was
completed.
The extension of the public water line was in-
stalled to provide an alternate water supply to
•
potentially affected residents. This water line
extension was provided by local officials.
The RI/FS are available to the public in the
Gaston County Public Library Repository. A
public meeting to present a summary of the
RI/FS process and to explain the proposed
remedies was held on July 26, 1990. This
public meeting initiated a three week public
comment period in which the public was en-
_ _ -PII0POH"l IJN(
~-~ 1>qOP05£D POU.IAH(NI f'[NC[
•
couraged to review the proposed remedies and
respond to EPA.
EPA prepared a Record of Decision (ROD)
taking into consideration comments from the
public and the results of the RI/FS; The ROD
(available to the public in the Gaston County
Public Library Repository) specified the
Remedial Action selected for the Jadco-
Hughes Site.
o !iO ,con
• RECORD OF DECISION:
The ROD addresses the groundwater con-
tamination, which constitutes the principal
health threat remaining at the Site, as well as
the remaining soil contamination, which con-
tinues to be a source for groundwater con-
tamination. Groundwater remediation will be
accomplished by pumping and treating con-
taminated groundwater. Treated groundwater
will be discharged to a publicly-owned treat-
ment works (POlW), The discharge of con-
tamination into surface water will be
addressed by the diversion of the flow of sur-
face water and replacement of an on-site cul-
vert. Soil treatment will be conducted in-situ
with a soil vaccum extraction system followed
by soil flushing.
The major components of the selected remedy
include:
• Institutional controls and/or other land use
restrictions; groundwater monitoring;
• Groundwater recovery via extraction wells
and tile drain(s);
• Groundwater treatment via aeration and
carbon filtration to pretreatment standards;
• disharge of treated effluent to the Belmont
PO1W;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Treatability studies to ensure compliance
with PO1W pre-treatment standards;
Backup discharge plan;
Soil vapor extraction followed by carbon
adsorption of removed vapor;
Soil flushing by introduction in con-
taminated water;
Replacement of onsite culvert;
Redirection of spring water flow;
4
• • Monitoring of the Site, it includes
groundwater, surface water, sediments,
and soils; and
• Review of groundwater use every five
years.
In the event the P01W does not agree to ac-
cept the groundwater discharge, a contingency
alternative has been selected. This alternative
will not vary significantly from the selected
remedy.
CURRENT STATUS OF THE
SITE:
The period of negotiations for Remedial
Design/Remedial Action between the EPA
and PRPs Steering Committee began on
December 30, 1990. The period of negotia-
tions ended on May 30, 1991. Since the Steer-
ing Committee has not signed the Consent
Decree the EPA issued a Unilateral Ad-
ministrative Order which becomes effective
in June 1991. This document orders the PRPs
to perform the Remedial Design/Remedial Ac-
tion. If the PRPs decide not to do the work,
EPA may undertake these activities and pur-
sue civil litigation against the parties for reim-
bursement of Site expenditures.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS:
Community relations are vital to the Super-
fund process. Citizen involvement is stressed
in the Code of Federal Regulations governing
Superfund site activities. Since the Jadco-
Hughes Site was finalized on the National
Priorities List in 1986, EPA has conducted in-
terviews with residents of the area, local and
state officials, and other interested parties;
provided site information fact sheets; held
public meetings; published information in the
newspapers; provided public comment
•
periods on major site activities; responded to
citizen comments/concerns and established an
information repository at the Gaston County
Public Library. The repository contains all
relevant site documents prepared during this
process which are available for public review.
As part of EPA's responsibility and commit-
ment under the Superfund process, com-
munity relations activities will continue for
the duration of the cleanup process through pe-
riodic fact sheets, press releases, or informal
meetings. The site has appeared dormant for
a period of time, but before long activities
will begin. Citizens are encouraged to con-
tinue their observation of site activities during
the construction and cleanup process, and con-
tact us whenever concerns arise or you have
questions about what is happening at the site.
As indicated in the Superfund process flow-
chart on page I, we are in the final stages of
the process, yet the construction of the
selected remedial design and actual cleanup
activities will continue for years. To assist
concerned citizens at Superfund sites in ob-
taining a better understanding of all aspects of
this long, intricate process, EPA provides a
valuable tool to communities, the Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG). The grant offers up
PUBLIC INFORMATION:
•
to $50,000 to one incorporated, non-profit
group at a site to hire technical advisors to
help them understand existing information
and information developed during the Super-
fund cleanup process. There are certain
criteria a group must meet in order to be
eligible to receive this grant. For more infor-
mation about this grant, please contact Ms.
Denise Bland in the EPA Region IV Atlanta
office at [phone].
Please contact Diane Barrett, Community
Relations Coordinator, at any time when you
have questions or need additional information
[phone].
The Administrative Record is the official compilation of documents, data reports, and other infor-
mation important to the status of and decisions made relative to a Superfund Site. This informa-
tion for the Jadco-Hughes site is available for public viewing and copying at the local
information repostirory:
Gaston County Public Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
Belmont, NC 28012
5
•
For Further Information Contact:
Ms. Barbara Benoy _
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Mr. Reuben Bussey
Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Mailing List Addition
•
Mr. Steve Reid
State Public Information Officer
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Ms. Denise Bland
Technical Assistance Grants
Division of Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
If someone you know would like to be placed on the Jadco-Hughes Superfund Site mailing list,
please have them fill out and mail this form to:
Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
North Remedial Superfund Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Name: _____________________________ _
Address: ____________________________ _
City, State, Zip:---------------------''---------
Phone No.: _____________ _
6
•
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Administrative Oroer on Consent (AOC) -
A legal and enforceable agreement signed be-
tween EPA and potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) whereby PRPs agree to perform or
pay the cost of site cleanup. The agreement
describes actions to be taken at a site and may
be subject to a public comment period. Un-
like a Consent Decree, an Administrative
Order on Consent does not have to be ap-
proved by a judge.
Consent Decree -

A

legal document, ap-
proved by a judge, that formalizes an agree-
ment reached between EPA and potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) through which
PRPs will conduct all or part of a cleanup ac-
tion at a Superfund site; cease or correct ac-
tions or processes that are polluting the
environment; or otherwise comply with
regulations where the PRPs' failure to comply
caused EPA to initiate regulatory enforcement
actions. The consent decree describes the ac-
tions PRPs will take and may be subject to a
public comment period.
Feasibility Study (FS) -An analysis of the
practicability of a proposal; e.g., a description
and analysis of the potential cleanup alterna-
tives for a site or alternatives for a site on the
National Priorities List. The Feasibility Study
usually recommends selection of a cost-effec-
tive alternative. It usually starts as soon as the
Remedial Investigation is uderway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the "Ri/FS."
The term can apply to a variety of proposed
corrective or regulatory actions.
Groundwater -The supply of fresh water
found beneath the Earth's surface (usually in
aquifers) which is often used for supplying
wells and springs. Because groundwater is a
major source of drinking water there is grow
7
•
ing concern over areas where leaching agricul-
tural or industrial pollutants or substances
from lea.king underground storage tanks are
contaminating groundwater.
Information Repository -A file containing
current information, technical reports, and ref-
erence documents regarding a S uperfund site.
The information repository is usually located
in a public building that is convenient for
local residents --such as a public school, city
hall, or library.
In-situ (in place) -various methods of treat-
ment of contamination involves equipment
that treats soils/water in their physical loca-
tion; no relocation of the media is conducted.
National Priorities List (NPL) -EPA's list
of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned
. hazardous waste sites identified for possible
long-term remedial action under Superfund.
A site must be on the NPL to receive money
from the Trust Fund for remedial action. The
list is based primarily on the score a site
receives from the Hazard Ranking System.
EPA is required to update the NPL at least
once a year.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) -Any
individual or company -including owners,
operators, transporters, or generators -poten-
tially responsible for, or contributing to the
contamination problems at a Superfund site.
Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs,
through administrative and legal actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites PRPs have con-
taminated.
Record of Decision (ROD) -A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup alterna-
tive(s) will be.used at National Priorities List
sites where, under CERCLA the Trust Fund
pays for the cleanup.
•
Remedial Action (RA) -The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup that follows remedial design.
Remedial Design (RD) -

A

phase of remedial
action that follows the Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study and Record of Decision
which includes development of engineering
drawings and specifications for a site cleanup.
Remedial Investigation -An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to deter-
mine the nature and extent of contamination
at a Superfund site; establish criteria for clean-
ing up the site; identify preliminary alterna-
tives for remedial actions; and support the
technical and cost analyses of the alternatives.
The Remedial Investigation is usually done
with the Feasibility Study. Together they are
usually referred to as the "RI/FS."
Superfund -The program operated under the
legislative authority of CERCLA and SARA
that funds and carries out the EPA solid waste
emergency and long-term removal remedial
activities. These activities include estab-
lishing the National Priorities List, investigat-
ing sites for inclusion on the list, determining
their priority level on the list, and conducting
and/or supervising the ultimately determined
cleanup and other remedial actions.
Surface water -All water naturally open to
the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.);
also refers to springs, wells, or other collec-
tors which are directly influenced by surface
water.
8
•
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) -
When a potentially responsible party does not
agree to terms, such as a Consent Decree, the
Agency has authority to order the potentially
responsible party(s) to conduct cleanup ac-
tivities. If they refuse, the Agency will con-
duct the work and then sue the potentially
responsible party(s) to recover all costs in-
curred.
•
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, G~ )RGIA 30365
OFF!C:AL BUSINESS
PENAL TY ~DR PG1•.,'ATE USE. S300
Nort~ Remedial Superfund Br.
•
'f
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
Jadco-Hughes Risk Assessment,Fact Sheet
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) mandates that the Superfund
Program protect human health and the environment from current and
potential threats posed by uncontrolled releases of hazardous
substances. To meet this mandate, Superfund requires that a
baseline risk assessment be conducted for each Superfund site as
part of the remedial response process.
The baseline risk assessment provides an evaluation of the
potential threat to human health and the environment in the
absence of any remedial action. It provides the basis for
determining whether or not a remedial action is necessary and the
justification for performing remedial actions.
In general, the objectives of a baseline risk assessment may be
attained by identifying and characterizing the following:
0
0
0
0
0
Toxicity and levels of hazardous substances present in
relevant media (e.g., air, ground water, soil, surface water,
sediment, and biota)
Environmental fate and transport mechanisms within specific
environmental media such as physical, chemical, and
biological degradation processess and hydrogeological
conditions
Potential human and environmental receptors
Extent of expected impact or threat; and the likelihood of
such impact or threat occurring
Level(s) of uncertainty associated with the above items
The risk assessment process can be divided into four components:
0
0
0
0
Contaminant identification
Exposure assessment
Toxicity assessment
Risk Characterization
Printed on Recycled Paper
• 2 •
Contaminant Identification.
The objective.of contaminant identification is to screen the
information that is available on hazardous substances or wastes
present at the site and to identify contaminants of concern on
which to focus subsequent effects in the risk assessment
process. Contaminants of concern may be selected because of
their intrinsic toxicological properties, because they are
present in large quantities, or because they are presently in or
potentially may move into critical exposure pathways (e.g.,
drinking water supply).
The principal site contaminants at the Jadco-Hughes Site include
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), extractable organic compounds,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals.
Exposure Assessment. The objectives of an exposure assessment
are to identify actual or potential exposure pathways, to
characterize the potentially exposed populations, and to
determine the extent of the exposure.
Identifying potential exposure pathways helps to conceptualize
how contaminants may migrate from a source to an existing or
potential point of contact. An exposure pathway may be viewed as
consisting of four elements: (1) A source and mechanism of
chemical release to the environment; (2) An environmental
transport medium (e.g., air, ground water) for the released
chemical; (3) A point of potential contact with the contaminated
medium (referred to as the exposure point); and (4) An exposure
route (e.g., inhalation, ingestion) at the exposure point.
The exposure assessment for the Jadco-Hughes Site evaluated the
potential exposure pathways of air, surface water, soil, and
groundwater.
Potentially complete exposure pathways include:
0
0
0
0
direct contact with contaminated surface soil,
future use of contaminated groundwater as drinking water
source,
future recreational use of contaminated surface water, and
future contact with contaminated subsurface soil due to
construction activities onsite.
Potential exposure is characterized by the local setting. The
site is vacant and partially secured by a fence. Human access to
the site is infrequent and unauthorized. Tributaries A and Bare
small streams which flow adjacent to and converge downstream of
the site. They are not
j
i !
• 3 •
used as a drinking water supply or for fishing in the vicinity of
the site. Groundwater is not used as a drinking water supply
onsite but is a water supply resource offsite for residents
having operational wells installed prior to the provision of
municipal water connections.
Toxicity Assessment. Toxicity assessment, as part of the
Superfund baseline risk assessment process, considers (1) the
types of adverse health or environmental effects associated with
individual and multiple chemical exposures; (2) the relationship
between magnitude of exposures and adverse effects; and (3)
related uncertainties such as the weight of evidence for a
chemicals's potential carcinogenicity in humans.
Risk Characterization
In the final component of the risk assessment process, a
characterization of the potential risks of adverse health or
environmental effects for each of the exposure scenarios derived
in the exposure assessment, is developed and summarized.
Estimates of risks are obtained by integrating information
developed during the expos~re and toxicity assessments to
characterize the potential or actual risk, including carcinogenic
risks, noncarcinogenic risks, and environmental risks. The final
analysis includes a summary of the risks associated with a site
including each projected exposure route for contaminants of
concern and the distribution of risks across various sectors of
the population.
For noncarcinogenic chemicals, the predicted exposure level is
compared with an EPA reference level or reference dose (RfD). The
RfD is based on an evaluation of current toxicity data and is the
lifetime dose which is likely to be without significant risk to
human populations. An exposure level which exceeds the RfD is an
indication that there may be a concern for a potential
noncarcinogenic health risk.
The carcinogenic risk levels are proRabilities that are expressed
in scientific notation (e.g. 1 x 10-). An excess lifetime
cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 indicates that an individual has a one
in a million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at the site. The excess
cancer risk levels are upperbound estimates which means that the
risk levels are probably an overestimation of the actual cancer
risk posed by th~ site-relatid pathways. The EPA acceptable risk
range is 1 x 10-to 1 x 10-or one in ten thousand to one
in g million. Although, a risk range is designated, EPA uses 1 x
10-as the point of departure indicating that the preference
is for setting cleanup goals at the6more protective end of the
range. The cleanup goal of 1 x 10-may be revised to a
different risk level within the acceptable range based on the
consideration of appropriate site-related factors.
• 4 •
The current risk posed by onsite surficial soils contaminated by
PCBs was evaluated. This risk is associated with potential
contact with soil by people who have gained unauthorized site
acc6ss and resu!ted in a calculated risk level ranging from 7 x
10-to 1 X 10-,
Current use of residential wells located immediately downgradient
of the site was evaluated. The assessment identified that
compounds detected in potential residential water supplies were
below drinking water criteria or standards. As such, these
detected compounds do not pose a current unacceptable risk to
local residents.
The future potential risk associated with offsite groundwater use
as a drinking water supply was evaluated. Under this scenario a
contaminant plume is assumed to migrate, unremediated, offsite
and result in increased contaminant levels in residential wells.
The associat1d potentiaO additional lifetime cancer risk ranged
from 6 x 10-to 2 x 10 and the noncarcinogenic exposure
levels exceeded the reference level. These values exceed
acceptable risk levels.
The potential future risk due to exposure to contaminated
subsurface soil onsite was evaluated for a construction worker
involved in a hypothetical excavation activity. Th10potential
additio~al lifetime cancer risk ranged from 5 x 10-to
2 x 10-. These levels are below the acceptable risk range.
The noncarcinogenic exposure levels were also below the EPA
reference level.
The future potential risk associated with an offsite exposure to
contaminated surface water was evaluated. Under this scenario a
contaminant groundwater plume would discharge, unremediated, to
surface water resulting in increased contaminant levels in
surface water and a potential recreational exposure. The
associa7ed potentia! additional lifetime cancer risk ranged from
9 x 10-to 3 x 10-. The noncarcinogenic exposure levels
did not exceed the reference levels.
The baseline risk assessment indicates that the greatest
potential risk from the Jadco Hughes Site is via ingestion of
contaminated groundwater. Although, exposure to unsafe levels of
contaminated groundwater is not presently occuring, further
movement of the groundwater plume could cause offsite wells to be
contaminated with unacceptable levels of site contaminants. An
alternate water supply has been made available to potentially
affected residents. In addition, potential risks from exposure
to contaminated groundwater and other media are being addressed
in the proposed site remediation plan.
• •
Public Announcement ____________ ____. ___ _
ft
~
JFD Electronics/Channel
Master Superfund Site
EPA
FACT SHEET OBJECTIVES
This fact sheet provides a description of the
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Superfund site,
a summary of the site's history, and a brief
overview of the Superfund process (including a
time frame for future activities at the site includ-
ing Community Relations).
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master
property occupies approximately 13 acres at the
comer of Industrial Drive and Pine Tree Road in
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina.
From 1962 to 1979, JFD Electronics manufac-
tured television antennas at the facility. A
lagoon was built from 1964 to 1965 to dispose
of wastewater generated from a chromate con-
version process and a copper/nickel electroplat-
ing process. Channel Master bought the
property in 1980 and produced satellite systems
from 1980 to 1984.
Reported sources of contamination at the site
include the sludge lagoon, two underground fuel
oil tanks, an in-ground concrete waste oil tank,
Oxford, North Carolina
December 1990
soils contaminated with volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), and eleven sludge drying pits.
The North Carolina Department of Human
Resources-CERCLA (NCDHR-CERCLA) con-
ducted a site inspection on February 23, 1987.
Analyses of the lagoon sludge revealed the
presence of chromium, lead, arsenic, cyanide,
and VOCs. Sampling of the groundwater
revealed VOCs including dichloroethene,
dichloroethane, trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylene.
Channel Master initiated cleanup activities at
the site in June 1987 under the supervision of the
NCDHR-CERCLA Unit. These activities in-
cluded excavating approximately 17,000 cubic
yards of sludge/soil and disposing of it in a
permitted waste disposal facility. Approximate-
ly 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were
also excavated and thermally treated to release
the volatile organics. 1n July 1988, Channel
Master excavated and disposed of two fuel oil
tanks and one concrete waste oil tank.
Site visits were conducted by representatives
of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) in March 1989 and later by
EPA in September 1989. Based on these inspec-
•
tions and information collected since 1988, both
agencies concluded that contamination may still
exist at the site which warrants further investiga-
tion. This contamination may include soils con-
taminated with VOCs, groundwater
contaminated with VOCs, and metal-con-
taminated sludges located in the eleven sludge
pits.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Superfund process is a lengthy and ex-
pensive endeavor. The remedial process begins
with a preliminary assessment/site inspection
(PA/SI). This usually is conducted by the State,
to determine whether the site poses enough ·
potential hazard to warrant further study and
investigation.
The site is then ranked using the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS), a numerical ranking
system used to identify the site's potential hazard
to the environment and human health. Sites
assigned an HRS score of 28.5 or above are
added to the National Priorities List (NPL).
Next, a Remedial Investigation (RI) is con-
ducted to assess the extent and nature of the
contamination and the potential risks. A
Feasibility Study (FS) is then prepared to ex-
amine and evaluate various remedial alterna-
tives.
Following a public comment period on
EPA's proposed plan and the draft FS report,
EPA chooses a specific cleanup plan and out-
lines the chosen remedy in the Record of
Decision (ROD).
Once the Remedial Design (RD) (which in-
cludes engineering plans and specifications) is
completed, the actual site cleanup, or Remedial
Action (RA), can begin. After RD/RA activities
have been completed, the site is monitored to
ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup. Certain
measures require ongoing operation and periodic
• maintenance. This is called the operation and
maintenance phase.
It generally takes 18 to 24 months to com-
plete the RI/FS phase before the RD/RA phase
begins. The RD phase takes approximately 12
months to complete while the RA can take
several years to complete. At sites where the
groundwater is contaminated, several decades
may be necessary to remediate the contaminated
groundwater.
RVFS OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of an RI is to charac-
terize the nature and extent of the risk posed by
uncontrolled hazardous waste at aSuperfund site
by collecting extensive soil, sediment, surface
water, and groundwater samples.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
FIELD WORK ACTIVITIES
The following is a summary of the field
activities that will occur at the JFD
Electronics/Channel Master site starting on
January 7, 1991 and continuing through the mid-
dle of February 1991.
1. A total of 87 surface and subsurface soil
samples will be collected to: a) define the
geology underlying the site, and b) charac-
terize and define the lateral and vertical
extent of soils contaminated with either
volatile organic compounds or metals in the
eleven sludge pits.
2. Four surface water samples and 4 sedi-
ment samples will be collected to determine
if the site is impacting Fishing Creek.
•
3. "Direct push technology" is a relatively
inexpensive means of collecting
groundwater samples from depths of 15, 35,
and 55 feet below the land surface. Loca-
tions for six permanent monitoring wells
will be selected at the site based on the
results of the "direct push" sampling. The
purpose of these wells is to determine the
depth of the water table, variations in the
water table due to seasonal fluctuations in
rainfall, the direction of groundwater flow,
and the lateral and vertical extent of
groundwater contamination.
4. Five private well samples will be col-
lected to determine if the quality of the
groundwater is being impacted by con-
taminants migrating from the site.
The Final RI report should be complete at the
end of August 1991. Based on the results of the
RI, EPA will evaluate the various alternatives or
options for remediating the site during the FS.
The Final FS Report should be complete in May
1992.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
As part of the Superfund program, a Techni-
cal Assistance Grant (TAG) of up to $50,000 is
available to one community group to hire a tech-
nical consultant to assist them in interpreting or
commenting on site findings and planned
cleanup. Citizens interested in the TAG pro-
gram may obtain an application package by call-
ing or writing the EPA, Region IV Technical
Assistance Grant contact listed below; Other
questions or concerns regarding the site may be
directed to the Remedial Project Manager, Com-
munity Relations Coordinator, or TAG coor-
_dinator, listed below.
•
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
EPA has established a Superfund Com-
munity Relations Program with the objective of
informing and involving the public in activities
and decisions made about Superfund sites.
Community Relations is a team effort, involving
the collaboration of technical and enforcement
staff, as well as expertise in community relations,
public affairs, and health issues.
The Agency has developed a Community
Relations Plan (CRP) for the JFD
Electronics/Channel Master site. Numerous
community interviews were conducted as part of
this CRP. Those interviewed included Oxford
residents, businesses, and government officials.
EPA will establish an information repository
near the site soon. The repository will contain
all the plans and reports about the site. While the
information repository and EPA contact person-
nel are normally the methods used to inform the
public, EPA also uses fact sheets, press releases,
small discussion groups, public meetings, and
other techniques for informing the public
throughout the Superfund process.
UPCOMING ACTIVITIES
EPA has initiated a fund-lead RI/FS at the
site. The RI is scheduled to begin the week of
January 7, 1990. The Agency is planning a
public meeting on January 7, 1990. The primary
purpose of this meeting is to review the work to
be conducted at the site and address any concerns
or questions the public may have with respect to
Superfund and the JFD Electronics/Channel
Master site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION -CONTACT THE FOLLOWING
Denise Bland Suzanne Durham McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA -Region 4
Technical Assistance Grants
US EPA -Region 4
Community Relations Coordinator
US EPA -Region 4 345 Courtland St. 345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365 Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone [phone] Phone [phone]
Chuck Pietrosewicz
ATSDR
US EPA -Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone [phone]
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone [phone]
Jack Butler
Environmental Engineer
North Carolina DEHNR
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone [phone]
• •
Supcrfund Fact Sheet
Jadco-1-Iughes Superfund Site
Gaston County, 1\lorth Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet on the Jadco-1-!ugbe:, :,upt'rfonJ
site in Caston County, North Carolina, ha, t>:cn
prepared by the Region IV Offi,;e of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
purpose of this fa~t sheet is to inform inttresttd
citizens ,ind irxal offic:ials of the nature. ancl
status of EPA's activities at the site. This facr
sheet provides a brief background ,rnd history of
the site and descrilx.·s the remedial investigation
and feasibility siudy process (RVFS) that F.PA is
currently directing. Opportunities for public
involvement also are discussed.
sn·E DESCRIPTIO:'i AND HISTORY
The fadco-Hughes site is a six-3cre, unii;corpo-
rated area of North Beirn,,nt, N,)rth Carolina,
approximately twelve miles west oi Ch;1rlotte.
The site is transel·ted by ;111 unm1rned triburnry
· that flows north from the site and j<.•ins a second
tributary. This confluence co11tinues north ar,d
merges with Fites Creek, and ulti,m,rdy flows
into the Catawba River. The Catawba River is
the raw wati:r suppiy for the c·ities oU,·lt. Ho,ly,
Bdniont, and Gastonia.
Th" Judco-Hughes site. was originally a cherni--
cal storJge and recovery facility st:med in 1971
undc·r the ownership of C.A. Hughes, Inc. ~-he
bu:;iness purchased used waste pai11t and ink-
. type solvents from area industries and recovered
any use able portions for resale. In additicin, the
co1npany stored waste chemical sludges from
()ctober 1989
01anufJ(lllrt.rs thruui;liout rhc: rq~iun 3S -..vell ~,s
sludge resulting from the ci:s,illarion pl1:r;e of the
on-site recovery pr(Xes\.
Within the first year of opcra1io11, a violation of
county air quality st;\ncbrds 0C(:ul1'ed fr(•rn an in-
cinerator a1 the facility. 171e county subse-
quently revoked the focil:ty's i~ci11eration
permit. As a result, the fncility stored the w:i-:;te
materials in large-ciip:icity storage tanks on the
site.
[n May 1972, the business was leased to Jadco,
Inc. By this time, severnl thousand 55-gal10n
drums of sludge, along with several large-
capacity storage tanks, had accumulated at the
site. TI1e dr>Jrns contained unknown mixtures c,f
che.micals including, but not limited to, paint
resins, ink wash, t0luen~. benzene, and methyl
ethyl ketone.
In 1973, aliyi nhcr was spilkd into the cribuwry
on site, causing 1h,;, evacuati(,n of 30 families in
the area and a te.r11p(lrnry shutdown of the City of
Belmo11t's water intake system. During the next
two years, se,·eral othc.r watn quality violations
occurred, for which bo1h C.i\. Hughes, Inc. and
Jadco, Inc. wer('. fined. In I 975, a flash ilood
washed chwiica!s fro1:1 on-site drums into Fites
Creek. As a result, the business closed in Stp-
tember 1975. Jadco, Inc. was ordered to cease
solvent processing operations, and both con,pa-
nies were ordered to remove all chemicals and
drums from the site.
pa get,-
I
1
]
• JADCO -HUGHES SUPER.0 SITE
8~
~t;J -ccr
FORMER MOBILE t ~~. -~ TANKER LOCATION ~ a:_
1--LL
I-w w a: f-(/)
z ~ ct: (.)
LANDFILL AREA • • •
POSSIBLE BURIED DRUMS
N
CONCRETE PAD
SPRING
FORMER SULK STORAGE TANKS LOCATION
FORMER LOCATION OF DISTILLATION EOUIPM,ENT
CULVERT
0 100 200 ..-..--' SCALE IN FEET
page_l
• The State of North Carolina, in consul1ation with
EPA, pursued proper manageme.nr of the con1-
pany's cleanup of the site. under e,bting Staie
and Federal laws. From l 97 S to '. 978, faclco,
Inc. and C.A. Hughes, Inc. complied with or,krs
to clean up the site by rt:111,wing most of 1hc
drums, burying coniatninated canh and debris i11
an impound.rnent on site, and rcvegelating the
impoundment area. During 1983, the large
storage t:11:ks, a mobile tanker, and eight remain-
ing drnrns v.·ere-removed. EPA and the North
Carolina Division of Health Services (NCDHS)
analyied surface wate.r, sedimen1, and grollnd-
water samples following the. cleanup. 111 addi-
tion, NCDI-lS sampled five private drinking
water welis in September 1985.
WHAT IS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION?
A rerncdi;il investigation (RI) is an intensive study ·
of a Supcrfund silc. It is carried C,ul by a tc.im of
health and en•:ironmcntal speci,tisis such as
hydrogcologists, engineers, and biologists to.
determine the exact nature of 1he hazardous
wastes, the nature of the threat, if any. that may oc
posed 10 hum,1n health or the environment, and the
extent of any contamina1ion present al a site.
Typically, the RI report descdb,.cs the l)'!)e and
extent of on.site and off-site contamination, the
effects of contamination on surface. an,1 groundwa-
ter, and the degree of conlliminalion in the soil.
To achieve these findings, envimnmental and
waste s,unplc.s will be collec1e<l throu&hou\ the
site. In some cases, samples mny be col\e.ctcd at
off-site locations to detcnnine the extent of con-
wnin~tion. In addition, monitoring wells will be
instalk<l to sample ground water.
'Inc sample, are then careful!)' shipped to labora-
tories to determine wh:1t kind of cont.arnin;nion
exists at the site. The laooratory rcsul1., are U>en
presented in a draft RI report. Based on this infor-
mation, a risk asscs.,rnenl will be conduc1cd to
estimate the, conl.1minanL1' polenti<.11 imp~1ct on
human healU, and the environment.
• Under CERCLA, EPA conducted fur1hcr studie,
and used the data gathered to rank the site for
inclusion on the N3tional Priorities Lisi (NPL).
.Bcnwse of the threat of ground,~·ater conta111ina-
tion. EPA added the Jadco-1-lughe; site to the
NPL in Ck1ober 198,1.
EPA thtn n,gotia1ed with th~ ,adous finns that
bad (;ondticte.d business with fatlco, Inc. and
C.A. Hughes, Inc. to perfonn an RI/FS. An
Administrative Orda on Cons,:~t, outlining the
t<:rms uutkr which EPA will allow the fir:ns ti)
conduct the Rl/FS, was signed in September
1986. A work pian for the Rl/FS was finalized
on March 30, 1988, and 1he Project Ope.rations
Plan, whkh provid~.s technical specifications for
tht performance of the Rl/FS, was approved on
September 27, l 988.
PUBLIC COMt,tEt-iT PERIOD
Once the Rl/FS is comple1e, the RI and FS
Reports, along with EPA's proposed plan to
remedy contamination at the site, are made
available for public review. A copy of the
proposed plan, which also includes a brief
description of the RI/FS results, will be maiied to
intereste<l parties and all persons who have
re{luested placement on EPA's mailing list for
the site. EPA will hold a public meeting one
week after the proposed plan is published and
. mailed, to present rt'.sults of the Rl/FS, to
discuss the proposed plan and to encourage
public involvement. A 30-day public eo111ment
period begins with publication of the propose<l
plan and continues approximatdy 21 days after
the public meeting. Citizens can submit w:ittcu
co111n1ents on the remedial alternatives consid-
ered for the site within this time period. The
public meeting will be recorded so as to docu-
11\ent the. community's comments and to assist
EPA in preparing the Responsiveness Sununary.
The Responsiveness Sun,mary is a report that
summarizes the community concerns and EPA 's
responses to these concerns. EPA then will
page'#
WHAT IS A FEASIIll 'STUD\"!
TI,e feasibility study (FS) is I.he portion of the procc,s wl1cre EPA envif(HHncntJI cnginc~rs and c,L'ier technical
sw.ff considc.f, des..:rib,.,, and evaluate or,tions for (.:leaning up 1ht site 1:-i::u.c.d Of: RI inrom1;11iori
As f<2"-1_}ui.rcd by the Supt.'.1fund program, the 1--='$ tcarr: 1j,:.::igr,,,-: ::1e-;mup ;:i\~tn19.G..-('S so 'th~!t c?rtain cl'llcrin arc n:ct by
at kast one of Lli('. ;\hC-n1;·1tivc~. Thes~~ ..:.-rite ti~~ ir1du;:!-;
Overall protection of human he.11th and the envinm:r,.:nl ~· ackqua!e eii.J11ination, reducti1Jn, 01 control of
all pou:ntial 1isks posed by tile site
Compli3nce with all of Lhe applicable or n;.icvant and apprnpriat1:. rc.quin;ml~l1b, .;stabli~J1l.d hy Fe.<leral or
State ht'J.lth and cnviro11men1.at statutc.s, or provide £ffHind.s fQr invoking a wah·er
Reduction of the. toxici[y, nwt'ility (JX)t.cnti:-il :,:id k•rij:",ncy ti) m<y•C), 0(-volun1c> of bti/3Idl)us sut,st.ances
or contamirrnnt,
Short-tam effectiveness vf the rt'rne..dy a:ld u½:~ irnp..i.:t t.heri~rnc-Oy migr.r have on t.he c\·)mrncnity and the.
environmi.:nl during the. impkmcnLlti0n
Impleme.nt:.=lbility, or the. cr,pability of a sekdcd rcm,::<l)' w work at a s~ciflc site
Cost-dfoct.ivencss of construction, OJX'nH!on, and maintc-nancc of the aite.mative over the lift of the
project
Accq,tancc by the Swie, and
Acccpt.incc by the-community.
The nine C.ritcriu for sek.t.ting an altcrnalivc will v:.1r)' in importance depending on site-sp1?.cific. conditions.
prepare a fon11al decision document called a
Record of Decision (ROD) that ,unimarizes the
decision process and the sde.,,ted remedy. The
ROD will be submitted to the EPA Regional
Administrator for approval. Upon approval, the
design of the remedy will be developed and 1he
implementation of the remedy can begin. EPA
will pn:pare and distribute a fact sheet to the
public that explains the remedial design.
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
EPA has developed a community relations pro-
gram under Superfund to respond to citize.ns·
concerns and needs for information as well as to
enable residents and officials of a site co111111u-
nity to participate in decision-making. At all
NPL sites EPA develops a community relations
plan (CRP) that identifies interested parties and
the concerns and questions existing in the area.
The CRP is based upon discussions in the com-
munity with local leaders and private citizens. In
response to their concerns and the level of
interest present, this plan ideniifies techniques
EPA will use to communicate effectively with
the community as the RI/FS proceeds. These
communication efforts often include telephone
contacts, s111all informal meetings or formal
public meetings, news releases, correspondence,
and fact sheets. EPA also establishes an infor-
mation repository where reports and other
dcK'umcnts are made available to citizens. The
address of the i11fonnation repositor)', which
contains the CRP developed by. EPA for the
Jacko-Hughes site, is listed below. Jn addition to
the CRP and the preparation of this fact sheet,
EPA will work in cooperation with State and
local officials to present information to citizens.
page.~.
r, :1 .1. -n ,1
As p;,i-t or the Sup.d program, EPA is pro-
viding communities with an opportunity to apply
for Technical Assi,iance Gr,rnts (TAGs). The:;e
grants (one per site) of up 10 $50,000 are de
sign,'d to enable community groups to hire a
technical advisor or consultant to assist them in
interpn:.or commenting on site findings and
the planned cleanup. Citizens who are interested
in the TAG program may obtain an application
package by calling or writing the EPA Region
IV Te('hnical Ass:st:,nce Grants Contact listed
below.
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. E11vironmenrnl Protection Agency
Region JV
345 Co11rtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Mr. Michael Henderson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agrncy
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Mr. Reuben Bussey
Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Mr. Brnce Nichols,)rt
Project Ofticer
North Carolina Dcparnnent of Environment,
Heal.Ii, and Natural Rc,011rces
Division of Solid Waste Munagernent
Superfund Section
P.O. Box 2687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
[phone]
Mr. Steve Reid
State Public lnfonnation Officer
Nonh Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Man.igement
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 276 ! 1-7687
(9 I 9) 733-4996
Mr. James Doyle
Technical Assistance Grants Contact
Chief, Contracts and Grnnt Support Unit
Division of Waste Managen1enc
U.S. Environmental Proteui<.>11 Agency
Region IV
345 Counbu1d S trcet, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404)347-22.,4
ATSDR
• ......
Q,)
Q,)
~ ......
t.)
~
1600 Clifton Road, N.E. (E-28)
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Office of the
Administrator
Office of Office of Program Operations -'--Policy and and Management
Office of the External Affairs
Assistant
Office of Administrator ATSDR Information Resources -Washington Management Office
I I I I Division of Division of Division of Division of Health Assessment Health Studies Toxicology Health Education & Consultation
J 1 O Regional Offices 1·
0 ~
&EPA
u-· · States Office of E mental Protection Enforcement •
Age y (LE-133)
The Public's Role
In Environmental
Enforcement
March 1990
To carry out its mission and to serve the
needs of the American public, ATSDR
conducts activities in the following areas:
PUBUC HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
l!'.)Evaluate data and information on the
release of hazardous substances into
the environment to assess any current
or future impact on public health,
• develop health advisories or other
health recommendations, and identify
studies or actions needed to evaluate
and mitigate or prevent human health
effects. ATSDR conducts health
assessments for all waste sites on the
National Priorities List and in response
to petitions from concerned individuals
and organizations.
HEALTH [NVESTIGAIIONS
l!'.Jlncrease our understanding of the
•
relationship between exposure to
hazardous substances and adverse
human health effects, through
epidemiologic, surveillance, and other
studies of toxic substances and their
effects.
EXPOSURE AND DISEASE REGISTRY
l!'.]Establish and maintain a registry of
persons exposed to hazardous
substances and a registry of serious
diseases and illnesses in persons
exposed to hazardous substances in
the environment.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
l!'.]Provide health-related support to
states, local agencies, and health care
providers in public health emergen-
cies involving exposure to hazardous
substances, including health consul-
tations on request and training for first
responders.
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
l!'.)Summarize and make available to
the public data on the health effects of
hazardous substances, identify
significant gaps in knowledge, and
initiate research in toxicology and
health effects where needed.
HEALTH EDUCATION
l!'.]Develop and disseminate to physi-
cians and other health care providers
materials on the health effects of toxic
substances, establish and maintain a
publicly accessible inventory of haz-
ardous substances, and maintain a
list of sites closed or restricted to the
public because of hazardous sub-
stance contamination.
APPLIED RESEARCH
Mconduct or sponsor research to
increase scientific knowledge about
the effects on human health of
hazardous substances released from
waste sites or of other releases into
the environment.
~
•
1. Introduction
\Vhat can the public do to stop
pollution" This question is asked El'1\
every day by citizens who have seen a
pollution problem in their community
and want to solve it.
This leaflet presents the first basic
steps any member of the public cnn take
to help correct a pollution problem. It
describes approaches that can help the
reader deal with the types of violations
most often encountered by the public.
Unfortunately, space does not permit
coverage of every possible rare case, or
situation.
Section 2 tells you how to determine
whether enforcement techniques can
help in dealing with your particular
pollution problem, and how to make
observations that can be used
effectively. It describes the basic steps
you can use in any pollution case.
Sections 3 through 6 address the
violations most often encountered by
the public in the major categories of
water pollution, air pollution, hazardous
waste pollution, and toxic substances
pollution. It describes some specialized
steps that may be useful for each of
those environmental media.
•
2. The First Steps
The two most importa11t things to do
when you see a potential pollution
problem are: (1] ,hake careful
observations of the problem and (2]
report it to the proper authorities.
You should fully record your
observations. \\'rite down when \'OU
observed the problem [both date-and
time), where rou observed the
pollution. and how you came to notice
the pollution. If the pollution problem
has occurred more than once or iS
continuing, write that down. If possible,
try to identify the person or source
responsible. If it is a truck dumping
wastewater or garbage, write dov1'n the
license plate of the truck. the type of
truck if possible, and note any signs or
emblems on the truck. If you have
noticed a particular type of smell, write
down your best description of the smell
or odor. If the pollution is visible and
you have a camera, take a picture. If
possible, you may want a friend,
neighbor, or family member to confirm
your observations.
Once you have carefully observed the
problem and written down your
observations, vou should call the
appropriate local or state authorities to
inform them of vour observations. Look
in your local telephone book in the
government pages for the county or city
office that might handle the problem.
Typically, such offices will be listed as
environmental. public health, public
works, water pollution, air pollution, or
hazardous waste agencies. If you cannot
find a county or city office, look for a
state government environmental office.
It may require a few calls to find the
correct office, but hang in there!
Once you reach the appropriate office,
give the official all the information on
what you observed and ask him or her
to look into the problem. You should
ask the official whether the problem you
have identified is likely to be illegal,
how common it is, and how and when
the office will investigate. Make sure
you get the person's name and
telephone number. If the person does
not call you back or respond promptly,
call the person back and ask what is
going-on.
If the city or county env_ironmernal
agency does not respond adequately to
your telephone call, you may call back
and ask to speak to the official
supervisor or boss. If the supervisor is
not available, get his or her name and
. address. You may then write this person
a letter describing the problem you have
observed and explaining your
dissatisfaction with the office's response
to it. Or you could contact the
appropriate state environmental office
directly, by telephone or letter. If you
cannot get an adequate response from
local or state environmental offices, or
you cannot find a local or state office to
call, you may call the U.S. EPA regional
office that covers your area. A listing of
all the U.S. EPA regional offices, with
telephone numbers, is in the last section
of this booklet.
If the pollution problem persists and
the local, state, and regional U.S. EPA
offices appear unwilling or unable to
help, you may contact U.S. EPA
headquarters in Washington, D.C. If you
do not believe the government agencies
have adequately responded to the
pollution problem, and you believe the
pollution is illegal and the problem
appears to be continuing, you may have
certain individual rights under the
citizen suit provisions of the various
federal environmental laws that you can
assert to remedy the pollution problem
yourself. You may wish to contact your
own attorney or a public interest
environmental group. A listing of
national and state eilvironmental groups
is contained in the Conservation
Directory, published annually by the
National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C., and available in
many public libraries. If you win such a
lawsuit, the polluter will likely be
required to correct the problem causing
the pollution, pay penalties to the
United States for violating the law, and
pay your attorney's fees.
Finally, if you are told that the
pollution problem you have observed is'
legal, but you believe it should not be
legal, you are free to suggest c~anges in
the-law by writing to your U.S. Senator
or Representative in Washington, D.C.,
or to your state governor or state
legislators to inform them of the
problem. Local libraries should have th<>
names and addresses of these elected
officials.
• •
3. How To Identify And Respond To
A Water Pollution Problem
Periodically, people may become
concerned that pollution of a river,
stream, lake, or ocean is occurring. This
concern may be caused by the sighl of
an oil sheen on the surface of a river.
stream, or lake. It might be caused by
their observing a discoloration of the
water in a streani or a pipe dischargi11g
apparently noxious liquids into a water
body. Concern might also arise because
an unusual odor is emanating from a
body of water, or a bulldozer is seen
filling in a marsh or wetland.
While some water pollution is an
unfortunate consequence of modern
industrial life, there are national, state
and local laws that limit the amount
and kinds of water pollution allowed,
and in some cases these laws
completely prohibit certain types of
water pollution. Sometimes it will be
easy for a citizen to identify water
pollution that is a violation of the law,
and sometimes it will be difficult to
identify the water pollution problem
without sophisticated equipment.
Here are a few general types of water
pollution problems a citizen might
observe:
Rivers and Lakes -A citizen might
observe wastewater flowing out of ~
pipe directly into a stream, river, lake,
or even an ocean. Persons are only
allowed to discharge wastewater into a
water body if they have received a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permit
and they are complying with the
requirements of that permit. NPDES
permits limit the amount of pollutants
which persons are allowed to discharge.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to tell
with the naked eye if a person is
complying with the terms of a NPDE.S
permit. However, some reliabie
indicators of violations are a dischc.Jrge
that leaves visible oil or grease on the
water, a discharge that has a distinct
color or odor, or one that contains a lot
of foam and solids. Further, i.f there are
dead fish in the vicinity of the
discharge, this is a strong indicator of a
water pollution violation.
Citizens should be aware that all
persons who discharge wastewater to
U.S. waters must report their discharges.
2
These monthly ~eports [commonly
called Discharge i\.'lonitoring Reports, or
"DMRs"} indicate the amount of ·
pollutcrnts buing'discl1nrged a11d
whether thu dischargur has cornpliud
with its permit during the course of tlw
month. These reports [DMRs) are
avnilablti In the public through state
environmentnl offices or EPA regional
offices.
Wetlands or Marshes -Under the
Federal Clean Water Act, persons c.Jre
only allowed to fill wetlands
(commonly known as marshes or
swamps] pursuant to the terms of a
special discharge permit, commonly
called a Section 404 permit. "Filling a
wetland" generally means that a person
is placing fill or dredge material (like
dirt or concrete) into the wetland in
order to dry it out so that something can
be built on the wetland. The Section
404 wetlands program is jointly
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA. In general, the
United States is committed to
preserving its wetlands [sometimes
called the "no-net loss" program)
because of the valuable role wetlands
play in our environment. In brief.
wetlands provide a habitat for many
forms of fish, wildlife, and migratory
birds; they help control flooding and
erosion; and they filter out harmful
chemicals that might otherwise enter
nearby water bodies.
In general, there is usually no way to
know if a wetland is being filled legally
or illegally without knowing whether
the person has a Section 404 permit and
knowing the terms of that permit.
However, if you notice fill activity going
on in a suspicious manner, e.g., late at
night, this may suggest that the wetland
is being filled illegally. If you see a
wetland lieing filled and are curious
whether there is a permit authorizing
such filling, you may call the local
Army Corps of Engineers' office or the
EPA regional office in your state. If
possible, you should tell the Army
Corps or EPA the location of the
wetland being filled, what kind of
filling activity you noticed, and who is
doing the filling.
Drinking Water -The Nation's
drinking water is protected through the
Feclornl Safe Drinking \Vater t\ct. Under
this law. suppliers of drinking water are
n;quired to ensure that tlwir \\'l1lur
complies with federal standnrds (kno\\'n.
as mnximum contaminant levels. or
.. ~·ICLs") for various pullutan\.'U11Hl
chemicals. such as coliform bacteria. If
drinking water suppliers exceed a
federal standard, they arc required to
immcdiatelv notifv their users and
implement -measu;es to correct the
problem. While you may not be able to
tell if your drinking water is meeting all
fedeial standards without testing
equipment. if you notice any unusual
smell, taste, or color in your water, you
should immediately notify the person
who supplies your water and the
appropriate state agency.
In many of the circumstances when
citizens become aware of a water
pollution problem, there are actions that
they can take to begin the process of
correcting the problem and forcing the
violator to comply with the law. The
first step is always to make careful
observations of the pollution event that
you are observing. It is best to make a
written record of the time and place of
the sighting. As many details as possible
should be recorded concerning the
nature of the pollution, for instance its
color, smell, location, and its "oiliness··.
It is extremely important, if possible.
that the source of the pollution be
identified, including the name and
address of the perpetrator. If the
pollution is visible and you have a
camera, you nrny take a picture. If
possible, you may \Yant a friend,
neighbor, or family member to confirm
your observations.
Oncu you have cnrdu!ly obsurved thti
problem c.rncl written down your
observations, you should call the
apprniJriate local or state authorities to
inform them of your observations. Look
in your local telephone book in the
government page·s for the county or city
office that might handle the problem.
Typically, such offices will be listed as
environmental, public health, public
works, or water pollution agencies. If
•
you cannot find a county or city office,
look for a statH guvtirnme1il
em·ironmental office.
:\s the next step. a determination
must be nwdt: as to tlw lt:gality of lll()
discharge. If the rlischargu is. in f.ict.
illegal. the perpetrator must be
confronted, tho discharging of pulluta11ts
or the filling of the wetland must be
halted. and, if feasible. the
endronmental damage caused by the
perpetrator's actions must be corrected.
Confrontation of the polluter is most
practically achieved by contacting the
local. state, or federal environmental
protection agency. In general, the state
endronmcntal agency is responsible for
making a preliminary assessment of the
legality of the pollution event observed,
for investigating the event. and, if
necessary, for initiating an enforcement
action to bring the polluter into
compliance with the law. The citizen
may also contact the U.S. EPA regional
office that covers your state for
assistance. A listing of all the U.S. EPA
regional offices, with telephone
numbers, is listed at the end of this
booklet.
If the pollution problem persists and
the local, state. and regional U.S. EPJ\
offices appear unwilling or unable to
help. you may contact U.S. EPt\
headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Lastly, if you do not believe the
federal, state, or loeul governments frnve
adequately responded to the pollution
. problem. and you believe the pollution
is illegal and appears to he continuing,
you may have certain individual rights
under the citizen suit provisions of the
various federal environmm1tal laws that
you can assert to remedy the pollution
problem yourself. The Federal Clean
\!Vater Act provides that a citizen
adversely affected by water pollution
may bring a lavvsuit on behalf of the
Unitt-)d States to correct tlw problurn. If
you want to do this, you will probably
need a lawyer to make an assessment of
the illegality of the pollution event and
your chances of succeeding in a lawsuit.
There are a number of public interest
organizations who can be contacted that
are in the business of bringing this kind
•
of lawsuit. (t\ listing of national and
state environmental groups is contained
in the Consen-otion Dirnctorv. 1987,
32nd Edition, published by lhe National
\Vild!ife Fedmation, \Nashi11gton. D.C.)
if you win such a lawsuit. the polluter
wilt likely be required to correct the
problem causing thu pollution, pay
penalties to the United States for
violating the law. and pay your
attorney's fees.
Finally. if you have obtained
"insider" information that \.Valer
pollution is or.curring, the Clean \Nater
Act protects you from recrimination if
the polluter is ~·our employer. Your
employer may not fire you or othervvisB
discriminate against you based on your
"blowing the ll'histle."
To repeat, there arc t1A.io wiJys to
proceed if you suspect that water
pollution is occurring: either contact
your state EPA or the U.S. EPA to
disclose your information and/or initiate
your own citizen's lawsuit.
4. Air Pollution
Smoku·or Odor -Them are several air
pollution situations a citizen might
observe. You might observe visible
omissions of air pollutants, such as
black clouds of srnokn, cuming from a
source such as a factory or power plant.
You might also notice a discharge of air
1rnllutio11 becausu you Call smell a
strong odor. In either of these situations.
these discharges may or may not be a
violation of thu Clean Air Act.
'!'he Clean 1\ir Act does allow some
pollution discharges. The goal of the
Clean Air Act is to keep the overall
concentration of the major air pollutants
at a level that will protect the 1jublic
health. States then decide how thev are
going to meet these air pollution g0als.
A state may decide not to regulate a
particular category of air pollution
sources at all and to concenttate its
efforts elsewhere in meeting its goals.
Regulated sources may have permits
from the state allowing them to
discharge a certain level of pollution.
The best course of action for a citizen
to take in these two situations is first to
try to determine the exact source of the
pollution. If it is a visible discharge,
take a photograph. Also. note the exact
time, day and location you observe the
pollution.
Then notify your local or state air
pollution or environmental agency of
your observations. They should be able
to determine if the source you observed
is regulated, and if so, whether the
discharge of pollution you observed is
legal. EPt\ usually defors to the state for
enforcement. Only in limited,
appropriate circumstances does EPA
intervene to take enforcement action.
However, if you have difficulty in
getting a response from your stute or
local agency, contuct the nearest
regional office of EPA and report your
observati<ins.
Asbestos -Another situation n citizen
might encounter involves construction
work. Many old buildings contain the
hazardous material, asbestos. Asbestos
is extremely harmful to human health if
inhaled or ingested. When buildings
containing asbestos are renovated or
demolished, the asbestos is broken up
and can become airborne and, therefore,
a health hazard.
•
EPA regulations require all parties
associated with renovations and
demolitiol1s involving asbestos to notify
EPA of the work and follow certain
work practice requirements aimed at
eliminating or at least minimizing the
amount of airborne asbestos. These
requirements largely consist of wetting
the asbestos at all stages of the process
so that it does not become airborne. The
regulations also require the asbestos to
be stored and disposed of in a particular
manner.
There are several ways a citizen might
help identify a violation of the asbestos
regulations. If you pass a construction
site. you may notice large amounts of
white dust coming from th"e site or
scattered around the site. These could
be violations if the debris in question
contains asbestos. One way a citizen
could verify that asbestos is involved is
lo~king for a brand-name label stamped
on insulation that is still intact.
Otherwise, trained inspectors will have
to take samples and laboratory analysis
of the debris must be done to verify that
it contains asbestos.
The most effective action to take is to
notify the nearest EPA regional office
about the site. EPA personnel can then
check their records to see if they have
received notice of the demolition or
renovation, and can do an inspection if
it seems likely that" asbestos is involved.
Auto Warranties -The Clea11 Air Act
requires that motor vehicles sold in the
United St'ates meet prescribed emissions
standards. In order to ensure tbat
vehicle emissions remain low for the
useful life of the vebicle, manufacturers
are required to provide broad emission
warranty coverage for vehicles that are
less than five years old and have been
operated for less than 50,000 miles. This
warranty applies to defects in any part
whose primary purpose is to control
emissions, such as the catalytic
convmtr-r, and in any part that· has an
effect on emissions, such as the
carburetor (except parts that have
normal replacement intervals, such as
spark plugs). Manufacturers must make
e~issions warranty repairs free of
charge for any labor or parts. If you
believe you arc entitled to an emissions
4
•
warranty repair, contact the person
identified by the manufacturer in your
owner's manual or vvarrantv booklet.
If you are' nut satisfied \\'ilh the
manufacturer's response to your
emissions warranty claim. you may
contact EPA for assistance by writing:
Field Operations and Support Division
(EN-397F), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460.
Removing Emission Control Devices -
The Clean Air Act also seeks to prevent
automotive pollution by prohibiting the
removal or rendering inoperative of
emission-control devices by new and
used car dealers, repair shops and fleet
operators. In addition, gasoline ret2.ilers
are prohibited from introducing leaded
gasoline into motor vehicles which
require unleaded ·gasoline, and gasoline
that is sold as unleaded must not
contain excess lead or alcohol. If you
know of a violation of the
anti-tampering or motor vehicle fuel
rules, please contact EPA by writing to
the address listed above.
The Clean Air Act also has a
provision allowing citizens to sue any
person alleged to be in violation of an
emission standard under the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. section 7604).
5. Hazardous Waste
Abandoned Sites, Barrels, etc.
\/Vhen citizens see leaking barrels (or
barrels that look like they might leak),
pits or lagoons on abandoned property,
they should avoid contact with the
materials, but note as thoroughly as
possible their number, size, and
condition (e.g., corroded, open, cracked)
and the material leaking (e.g., color,
texture, odor), and report these lo the
local fire department or the hazardous
waste hotline [phone] or
202-267-2675).
If possible, take a photograph of the
area, but du not get loo close to the
materials. lf the substances are
hazardous, the statute most likely
involved is the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA or the
Superfund law), and EPA or the state
should take the lead. Under CERCLA,
citizens have tbe opportunity to, and are
encouraged to, involve themselves in
the community relations program which
includes citizen participation in the
selection of a remedial action.
A citizen may file suit against any
person, including the United States,
who is alleged to be in violation of any
standard, regulation, condition,
requirement or order that has become
effective under CERCLA provided that
the citizen gives the violator, EPA, and
the state sixty days· notice of the intent
to sue. A citizen suit cannot be brought,
however, if the United States is
diligently prosecuting an action under
CERCLA.
Hazardous Waste Facilities
When citizens encounter leaks,
discharges or other suspect emissions
from a hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal (TSO) facility, they
should contact their state hazardous
waste office or the local EPA Regional
office to determine if the facility has a
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) permit or has been granted
interim status to operate while it applies
for a RCRA permit. Any citizen may
obtain copies of a TSO facility's permit
•
and monitoring reports. which would
document any violations, from the state
agency or EPA Regional office.
A citizen may bring a civil judicial
enforcement action against a RCR,\
\'iolator provided he gives the \·iolator.
EPA, and the state sixty days notice of
the intent to sue, during which time the
state or EPA may pursue an
enforcement action. \-Vith certain
limitations. a citizen may also bring an
action against any person who has
contributed to or who is contributing to
the past or present handling of any solid
waste, including hazardous waste, that
may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human
health or to the environment.
Transportation Spills
If. you see a spill from a truck, train,
uarge or other vehicle, you should
report it immediately to the local fire
and police. If it is possible to read any
labels on the vehicle, without getting
too close, then you should report this
information as well.
If you see a spill from a barge. ship, or
other vessel into navigable waters or the
ocean, such as an oil spill from a tanker,
you should report the spill and location
to the United States Coast Guard, or call
the hazardous waste hotline (1-
800-424-8802 or [phone]).
Citizens who provide information
leading to the arrest and conviction of
persons who commit certain crimin.:il
violations under CERCLA may be
eligible for a reward of up to $10,0011.
These awards nre often offered in
connection with a violator's failure to
make a required report on a release of a
hazardous substance or the destruction
or concealment of required records.
•
6. Pesticides And Toxic Substances
When citizens encounter instances of
pollution involving pesticides or toxic
substances, the law that was actually
violated will most often be the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air 1\ct. or the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Most violations of the Toxic
Substance Control Act or the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act will be discovered only by persons
with special training or with access to
information that is not generally
available to the public.
TSCA
Violations of the Toxic Substances
Control Act [TSCt\) that the public
might observe include:
-Demolition of a building containing
asbestos ·without proper measures to
keep the asbestos contained.
-Improper storage or disposal of
transformers containing PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls).
-Improper storage of asbestos.
If you think you are seeing such a
violation, you should contact: Office of
Compliance Monitoring [EN-342), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, or call the
National Response Center for Oil and
Hazardous Material Spills at (800)
424-8802.
Citizen suits are authorized under
TSCA (15 U.S.C. section 21;1 Y). Citizens
may sue violators of provisions
concerning PCBs, asbestos, required
testing of chemical substances,
notification to EPA before
manufacturirig or importing new
chemicals. or beginning a significant
new use of chemicals.
FIFRA
Citizens may encounter violations uf
the provisions of the Federal
Insecticide, Fun8idde and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) that govern the use of
pesticides. FIFRA requires that
pesticides be used by the public only as
specified on the label. Many pesticides
are labeled for use only by specially
licensed applicators. Others have been
banned from almost al! uses, except for
particular uses where no other pesticide
is dfective.
Violations of FlFR1\ that citizens may
observe include:
-Sale or use of banned pesticides
that are not registernd with El't\. These
would lack the EP1\ registration number
that must appear on every pesticide
label.
-Use of pesticides in a manner
inconsistent with the directions on the
label.
-Application of restricted-use
pesticides by unlicensed applicators.
-False or misleading labeling or
advertisement of pesticides.
If you think you are seeing such a
violation, you should contact: Office of
Compliance Monitoring (EN-342), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, or call the
National Response Center for Oil and
Hazardous Material Spills at (800)
424-8802.
There is no citizen suit authority
under FIFRA.
EPCRA
The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know LaVv
(EPCRA) requires a wide range of
businesses that manufacture, import,
·process, use or store chemicals to report
certain information to federal, state and
local governments. For example, these
businesses are required to report annual
estimates of the amounts and types of
toxic chemicals they mleased or
disposed of during each calendar year.
The data must be reported to EPA and
to state agencies, and they are available
to the public through an EPA
compilation called the Toxics Release
Inventory. The data in this inventory
may be used by the public to examine
the practices of particulnr
man uf actu rers.
If you believe that a business that was
subject to the EPCR,\ requirement failed
to report to the Toxics Release
Inventory, you should contact: Office of
Compliance Monitoring (EN-342), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency",
Washington, D.C. 20460. A business'
failure to report t0xic releases may also
be challenged through a citizen guit
under 42 U.S.C:. section t 104f;[a)[1).
•
7. For Further Information
State and local governments have
responsibility for enforcing most
environmental laws in the area where
you live. You can locate them through
your telephone directory. In most
communities, the responsible agency is
the city or county health department. t\t
the state level, there is usuallv an
environmental agency that ca~ries out
the pollution-control laws, while an
agriculture agency often handles
regulation of pesticides.
EPt\ operates primarily through ten
regional offices, which will help answer
your questions if your state or local
agencies have been unable to do so.
Each region has a staff specializing in
each of the environmental programs
discussed in this publication. To locate
a person who can help you, call the
public affairs office in your EPt\
regional office.
These offices and the states they cover
are:
Region 1:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 7:
Region 8:
Region 9:
Region 10:
•
Uoston {617) 835-]42.t CT. MA. ME, NH. RI. VT
New York City (212] 264-2515 NY, NJ. PR. VI
Philadelphia [phone] DE. DC. MD, PA, I'.·\
Atlanta (404) 257-300.J ,\L. FL, Gt\, KY, ~IS.
NC. SC, TN
Chicago (312) :153-2073 IL, IN. Ml, MN,
OH, WI
Dallas [phone] . AR, Lt\, NM, OK, TX
Kansas City (913 757-2803 It\, KS. MO, NE
Denver [phone] CO, MT, ND, SD,
UT, 'v\'Y
San Francisco Ct\, HI, NV,
[phone] Guam, American Samoa
Seattle [phone] t\K, ID, OR, WA
* U.S. GoHrnrr.cnt l't'intlnf' Ofric,•: 1990-721-182
• •
14 August 1989
'ID: File
FR.CM: Jack Butler
SUBJECT: Telephone coiwersation with David Wingerd, Dyantec
(404/681-0933) about Channel Master/JFD Electronics,
NCD122263825
Mr. Wingerd contacted our office on this date to obtain
background infonnation on the subject site. Dynatec is preparing
a Comnrunity Relations Plan for the subject site. Mr. Wingerd
will meet with me at our office in Raleigh at 3:30 P.M. Thursday,
17 August 1989.
JB/ds/channel.doc/p.13
•
1 . G,eu.,II ,(_ S. l3a,,. ~ +l-
-2. /1'/u,i,, c ( /( 6 v av..,-)
3. e~19,t(r:, ~ /-t,1V5e.,._
4; )ljL/£ Ltt, U4-2,l-LB)_
< i0 ,'/Ir ff r;., J. ?-0 1. r
~ ~~LL, ~\s'-\"Ll'l.---
·1 , 1-..., ~ E L \:. C ::., b •-~-
3 . u 'tct.m..JSJ--' u~ i\::t:
?,~~~
'~:~~--
•
C µAN 1\/~l, ftA-STEe r1 e:eT; rJG-
JJ ly 11 1 19g7
A -We-n d etnc -L-
i./O '-I/ 3 '/ 7 -7 7 9 /
( '117) c/p;·os r)
9/ 7 '7'3Y 9'?//
31,;i_ 9r::;--<id 19
5/G -f/66 ~-J-ooo _
q,q. "13~ -4"\'1(..
. 10 _Q_ .:;) '" VE1tr c) i0 ·o r.) 12.. .. , "-' Cr\ (1 I cl .. T:3 .3 . 2.-g O \
(\Jc.., A+\~ ,ber;crc..,\ '..:s d;\~; c_e.. ( '1 i C\) 7 3 c, -;::i~o \
/f/C_ so/ e,r.Ta.>Jcl df,:a,-,clz (Cf!I/) 713~~J>tJ/
_0?E]'A_
1
N~ls(: $ite tj.d)r:,"t_._(J.i~ (l./~4)3~7-71'1/
l)..S.f.PA -o~c C.404).3'+7-.2fc>4[
• •
27 June 1989
TO: File
FRCM: Jack Butler
SUBJECT': <llannel Master, NCD122263825
Mr. David "Cllarlie" Wingerd, Dynatec Corporation, contacted
our office on this date concerning the subject site. Mr. Wingerd
reported that his company is conducting the public relations
portion of the JFD Electronics/O!annel Master remediation. Mr.
Wingerd can be reached at [phone]. Mr. Wingerd and I
discussed the history of this site. We will both be at the
meeting with EPA, the State, <llannel Master, and JFD Electronics
on July 11 or 12, 1989.
JB/ds/channel.doc/p. 9
A·EPA' Cl
Overview
Federal Law/
Regulations
Un,ted States Office of · Jacuarv '989
•
Environmental Protection Pi.Jblic Affairs (A-t 07l
A_g_e_n_c_v _________ w_a_s_h_,in.'--D_C_2_04_60 ____________ _
Environmental
Backgrounder
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous wastes are produced by large businesses and industries, such as chemical and manufacturing plants, and seine small businesses, such as dry cleaners and printing plants, which could pose short-and. long-term health and environmental hazards unless they are properly managed and disposed. EPA generally defines hazardous waste as that which is toxic, corrosive, flammable, ignitable, or reactive. The Agency specifically lists 450 wastes and wa~te streams as hazardous.
Over the last few decades, these wastes were often c,_relessly disposed of on land and their toxic cc,mponents eventually seeped into ground-water and drinking water supplies. As evidence of contamination increased, Congress ·gave EPA authority under a new federal law passed in October 1976 to regulate these •.astes to prevent them from contaminating water scpplies or creating other environmental or public health hazards.
EPA now regulates hazardous waste under the federal Resource conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The first comprehensive set of RCRA regulations, effective in November 1980, set up a "cradle-to-grave" regulatory scheme, controlling the waste from the time it is produced through its ultimate management, treatment, and disposal. Integral to this scheme is a tracking system which ensures that the waste is sent to and arrive$ :1.t an approved manageinent or disposal facility. The tracking system requires the·use of a special form, called a "manif€st," which is filled out by the generator sending the waste to a disposal facility. The manifest is then signed by the company that is transporting the waste, and signed again by the receiving facility. A copy of the signed manifest is
• then returned by the receiving facility to the
generator. If the. generator does not receive the for,.,
after a specified period of time, he can then take
steps to track down the waste or report the loss to
appropriate authorities. This system is specifically
designed to prevent random dumping of these wastes on
land or in waterways.
waste Management
In 1985, nearly 267 million metric tons of hazardous
waste was managed in about 3,000 regulated treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. These facilities
must either have a full permit or must have applied to
receive a permit while meeting interim standards.
Land-based facilities are required to have ground-
water monitoring systems (wells) to detect leaks. All
facilities· must also meet a number ·of other conditions,
including maintaining liability insurance and emergency
contingency plans. All land-based facilities built ·
after October 1984 must be "state-of-the-art." This
means they must have two liners, a leak detection
system, a leachate collection system (to catch leaks),
as well as ground-water monitoring wells. Bulk. li:quids
(those wastes most likely to leak from a landfill) are
prohibited, unless they are placed in containers with
absorbents.
As EPA learned more about existing management practices
and baseline regulatory controls were established for
disposal, the Agency turned its attention to waste
treatment prior to disposal. Treatment prior to
disposal cah reduce both the volume and toxicity of the
waste, and thereby further reduce the potential for.
harm to human heal th or the environment.·
Land Disposal Ban/Treatment
RCRA was amended in 1984 to give EPA broader
authorities. In a significant action, congress
required EPA to phase-out the land disposal of
hazardous wast"e. Under the so-called "land ban"
provisions, hazardous waste will have to be treated
using the best available technology to reduce its
toxicity before the· remainder of the waste .can be
disposed of on land. Currently, in most cases, the
best available technology anci. the industry's preferred
treatment method is incineration, which effectively
destroys the organic components of the waste. However,
chemical and biological treatment can be used in some
cases. In August 1988, EPA banned the land disposal of
one-third of the most toxic wastes on its list of 450
hazardous wastes unless these wastes are first treated
2'
•
State/EPA
Programs
General
Statistics
·-------•-------with the best available technology. Some two-year
exemptions were granted until treatment capacity
becomes available, as allowed under the law. The
Agency plans to complete the phase-out for all wastes
by 1990, to be fully-effective in 1992.
sma11 ouantitv Generators
Since September 1986, small businesses that produce
small quantities of hazardous waste (between 220 pounds
and 2200 pounds a calendar month) have had to comply
with most of RCRA' s hazardo.us waste requirements,
including sending their waste to regulated hazardous
waste facilities. These businesses fall into 22
industrial categories such as auto service shops, dry
cleaners, printers, and equipment repair shops. The
wastes can include cleaning supplies, paints, and other
chemical products.
waste Minimization
EPA believes that up to one-third of all hazardous
waste can be eliminated before it is produced and
requires disposal. This approach is called waste
minimization and it has a number.of benefits, including
reducing potential pollution from waste disposal, and
reducing the.producer's disposal. costs and liability.
Waste· production can be minimized a number of ways:
• through product substitution, such as using fewer
hazardous substances in a manufacturing process and by
segregating the waste disposal stream so that some
components can be reused or recycled. EPA has a number
of initiatives underway to accelerate waste
minimization efforts, including developing a national
computer clearinghouse so that waste mini mi z;:.t i.on
information is available to all those who arR
interested. The Agency is also developing a number of
technical publications and has distributed funds to 14
states to help them set up pilot waste minimization
projects for the regulated community.
RCRA encourages. the states to manage and enforce the
federal program, with prior EPA approval and oversight.
Nearly every state is authorized to man~ge part or all
of the RCRA program ..
Nearly 3,000 regulated facilities.store, treat, or
dispose of hazardous wastes. Of .. these, 325 are land
disposal facilities, of which 60 are commercial. The
remaining land disposal facilities are privately owned
and are for use only by the owner (called "on-site"
facilities).
3
More
Information
•
• EPA regulates 321. hazardous waste, incinerators. Of
these, 15 are. commercial incinerators, with an
additional 12 commercial incinerators under
construction.
For further information about EPA's hazardous waste
control program, citizens can call the Agency's RCRA
Hotline toll-free at 1-800-424-9346 or, .in Washington,
DC, 382-3000 .
4
&EPA
United S1a1es
•
Environmental Protection
Agency
011,ce ot E~ergerc,1
and Remfl' ,a1 Resoor.se
Wasn,n C 20460
Superfund
Fail '.}1. ·;
Wl-iiF ,3-,8 7-00 I A
Congress enacted the CCJ!q)rehensive Envirol'lll!ntal Response,
COTlpl!nsatien, and Liability Act (~), caimonly knCMn as
Superfund, in 1980. This law created a tax en the chemical
and petroleun ina.istries and provided a broad Federal authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of·
hazardoJs substances that may endanger public health or welfare
or the enviroment. Over S years, Sl.6 billion were collected
and the tax went to a Trust Fund for cleaning up al:>andoned
or uncontrolled hazardOlll waste sites. The u.s. EnvirOl'lll!ntal
Protectien Pqency (EPA) is responsible for running the Superfund
prcqrm,. On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendrl'ents and
Reauthorizatien Act (SARA) was signed into law. SARA increases
the Trust Fund to $8. S billien over S years and strengthens
EPA's authority to conduct cleanup and enforcement activities.
Under the Superfund progr11111, EPA can:
• Pay for the cleanup of hazardoJs waste sites when
those responsible for such sites cannot be fo.Jnd or
are unwilling or unable to clean up a site.
• Take legal actien to force those responsible for hazardrus
waste sites that threaten public health or the environnent
to clean up those sites or pay back the Federal goverl'lll!nt
for the costs of cleanup.
The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:
• Sha:t-tem ranovals where actions may be taken to
address releases er threats of releases requiring
pcaTl)t response.
• Longer-term ranedial responses that pennanently and
significantly reduce the dangers associated with
releases er threats of releases of hazardaJs substances
that are aeriaJS l:JJt not i.tmediately life threatening.
They can be concllcted ooly at sites en EPA's Natienal
Priorities List (NPL).
Remedial and ranoval responses include, but are not
lunited to:
• OestrC7fing, detoxifying or ilffnobilizing the hazardous
substances oo the site thro.iqh incineration or
other treaanent technolcqies.
• • Containing the subs ~ on-site so that they can safely remain there and pcesent no further threat,
• Removing the materials fran the site to an EPA-approved, licensed hazardcus waste facility for treatrrent, contairment, or destruction,
• Identifying and restoring contaminated ground water, halting further spread of the contaninants, or in sore circumstances providing an alternate source of drinking water.
,
I
SUPERFUND PR()CESS
r---llEMOVALS-. --]
C ~:'ORCEMENT
. . •-<,?4(, ..
~~~ijit?
-·••·/Sfody\-
··••>•-_5••\i
C ii Piiblilh .
cJ..;..;~;;J
. _. _. <-·6 ......
·-•iri~ch,dr ~r --. oeclsi<ili
::.:'---:-=. ':-·
..... 8·••·· .. t~na~f~~.
. ::¢1e#11rip / ;
I COMMUNITY RELATIONS I
Prepare & Maintain a Community Relations Plan
Establish & Maintain an Information Repository
Establish Information Contacts
Conduct Informal Meetings
Inform Local Officials
Issue Fact Sheets
Issue News Releases
Hold Public Meetings
Provide for Public Comments
Prepare Responsiviness Summary
. Assist in Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
t
•
•
• Exhibit A
Supedund Process
I
SPL R•nl1l'lg·
i...1 :.~-l,
Comrr.~ni:~ Rela::0;:_s
ln 1 no. Congress enacted the Comprehensi~e Er.vironmental
Response. Corr:pensa11c-n. and Liability Act (CERCLA. more
commonly k.nov.n as .. Supe:fund"1. This acl au1horizes EPA 10
resrlonC io :ch::ises or threatened releases c-f hazardous
substances 1hat may endanger public health or welfare. or the
environme:,t.
T:1:::, exh;":,:· pro1.1des a wnplificd explanation of how a
king-term Superfund respon~e works a! sites like Hipps Road
1. A.fler J s1;e 1s dis~ovcred, it is 1!lvts11gate:!. usually by :!-ie
Stale.
:. The S:ate thcr, rcni.:s the site using a system that takes into
accou."'\t:
:; Possible health risks to the human population.
: Poten:ial hazards ~e.g. from direct con1ac1, inhalation.
fire. or explosion·1 of substances at the site.
: Polen::al for the substances at the si1e to contaminate
:hinl:::ing wa:er supplies.
: P-)le:-.:;a! f-:-: :!"-.c ;ubstances at the si:e 10 pollute or
ol!ie:w:se harrr. the en1•1tonmen1
If the problems a: a site are deemed serious by the slate and
!:PA. the ~::e -...::1 be lis.:ed on :he .\".;i:.'c:1·:c: p,_._,n//ts L:J:
:·.',,"p:_ a :::-: :--.a::~~:-:·~ . ..,crs; hazarCJus was1e sites
E\ery rne or, the .'-"PL. :s e'.:g1C'lc :.:ir federal Superfund mone:,.
3. If a site:.: .l~:.-'.'10:-:10:1 :hereof poses an ir.:mir.ent threat to
Ful'i;: hea:::', or ::,e <!r,·.:ronmenl at an)-time. EPA may
conduct an tme:genc:, :esponse referred 10 as an immtd:.::t
rt~ov.;! c-:::o-:
.a. Sex!. EPA us:.:J.!1~ conducts a rtmtdia/ iintmgiJtion (RI)
T~e F..i asses5es ~-)w serious the contamina1ion is. wha1 kind of
con;am1nar:1s are present, and characterizes potential risl:::.s to
the community. As part of the RI. EPA lypically conducts an
enC.a:1gerr.ien·, assessmen\ Iha\ describes 1he problems at the si1e
,-----
5
Fe1ub1l1:y
s:. -:; Cc.1ei1,;;-P:.1:-:·
D~,:F.
Communi::-Relatio:-:s
and the potential health and er.vironmental consequences :~ no
further action is 1al:::.en a1 the site.
5. Following completion of t~e RI, EPA perfo:-:ns a /ta;;b:!;:y
rn.1dy (FSl which examines various cleanup alternatives and
e,a!uates them on the basis of 1echn1cal feas1t-ility put-Ii:
heal'.h effec1s, env1ronrr:enta! impacts, institutionai cor.ce~ns
lincluding compliance v•l\h s1a:e ar.d loca! laws: i:-:-.::iac: 0r: :he
community, and cos1. The findings are presented in a draf; FS
repon,
6. Following completion of the draft FS report. EPA holds a
public comm,,,, ptr1od \o receive cilizen input concerning the
recommended al1erna1:ves Citizer.s may pro,·1de commer.:s
either orally a: pubiic meetings or through wr:uen
correspondence to EPA.
7. After public comments have been received. EPA then
chooses a sptc1f1c c!tan1.,1p p!cl"t
8. Once the design is finished. 1he actual remedial activities of
!he site can begin.
The time necessary 10 comple1e each of these s:e;,s varies wi1h
every s11e !n general. a remedial irwestigatior. feas1bil1t:, m.:d~
tak.es from one to 1wo yea.rs. Designing the -::lea:-,..:::i ;,la:-: :nay
tal:::.e six months And :mple!T'.en::a.; \!ie :e~e.::. -:=:~ a::·_J.;
c0:-.:a:~:':"'.e:-:: or re:-r:.0•ai o[ :~.e wa5:c -~a:-, :ai:e f:.:,;;; one ::-
three years. If ground wa\er is invclved. ::ie :·inai ..:!ear.".:p ma;
tal:::.e many more years.
Ongoing communit:, re!a:ions ae1:v:11es d\.!ri:,g a ..:!ean'.l;, inciuJe
public meetings and other a.cti"ities intendec! 10 !(eep c::::e;,s
and of~iclals infor!":"lec! a:,d to e:1cou:age p,.:t•!ic input. These
activities are scheduled throughout 1he course of the re:nedia\
cleanup process. Spe::~ic ac:ivi:ies ~·a:-~ from site 10 site
depending on the level and nature of i::onccr:,. The range of
communitv relations activities that can occur is described tn
EPA's Co.mmuni1:, Relations Plan for the site.
I !\!AILING LIST ADDITIONS
To be placed on the mailing list to receive informa1i-)n on 1he Hipps Road Landfill site. please fill ou•, a:,d
mail this form to:
Address:
. ..\ffiiiation:
Phone:
L _______ _
Btnrly Mostly
Ol'ict o.r Public A.Ha.'"!
l./'s. EPA -Rtg10·ri 1v
.345 Cot..rtland Strttt NE
Al/aMa. GA 10165
------------
United States
•
r.: ronmenta1 ?rotect1on
CY
Office of Emergency
and Remeo1a1 R, s00nse
Wasn,ngton D 60
so,·cg '98€
WH/FS-86-005
·oEPA
Ho,/ D::les
Su~rfund W:>rk?
In 1980, Congress passed a law
called the Comprehen::;ive
Environmen1al Response,
C:ompensa1ion. and l.iaUility Acl
(CEHCLA}. CERCLA cri::a1ed a tax
on the chemical and petroleum
industries. The money collcctcJ
from the tax goes 10 a Trust
Fund to clt:an up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste
s1tes. The mG:".!Y has con1e to be
called the Superfund. The U.S.
E11vironmental Prolec1ior1
A~ency \EPAl 1s responsilile for
running the Supedund program.
Undt!r the Su11erfu1Hl pr:.;b:-;;:1t.
f.PA can:
Identifying Superfund SitaJ
'
National Priorities List (NFL)
and Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
This fact sheet describes the National Priorities List (NPL) and
the Hazard Ranking system (HRS). The NPL is EPA's list of uncon-
trolled or abandoned hazardo.ls waste sites identified for possible
long term retredial actions un1er Superfund. The HRS is the chief
method EPA uses to rank the potential risks posed t:1j hazardoJs
waste sites.
Camunity involvement is an irrnortant part of all actions at
Su~rfund sites. EPA provides a public ,eam,ent r,eriod follCMing
the prcposal of sites in the Federal Register (a Federal docunent
that lists oolicies and reoulationsl, D.Jring this o:mnent pericx1
yoo can c-::,m,ent on the technical basis of the HRS score and give
additional facts.
The first step in the Superfund process is to identify abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardrus waste sites. EPA does this thro.Jgh a variety
of methods, including reviewing records and information provided t:1j
States, handlers of hazardoos materials, and concerned citizens,
Next, EPA or the State conducts a preliminary assess,rent to
decide if the site poses a potential hazard. If the preliminary
assessi-ent shCMs that the site does not present a [)Otential hazard,
no further action is taken, If the site does present a
serioos i!!tni nent threat, EPA may use Trust Fund noney to take
itmediate "renoval" action,
If the preliminary assessment shCMS that a contamination
problem exists b.Jt does not pose an i!!tninent threat, EPA will
perform a ncre extensive study called the site inspection.
. • Pay for the cleanup of
hazardous waste si1cs when
those responsihlo for such sites
cannot be found or are unwilling
or unable to clean up a silo.
• Take legal action to force
those responsible for ha:t.ardous
waste sites that threaten public
hea\lh or !he environment lo
clean up or pay for tbtt cleanup
of those sites or reimburse EPA
for 1hc co~ts of cleanup.
The law authorius two kinds
of response actions:
• Short-!erm removnl actions
where imm~diatu or.lion, 1n...1y he
laken to aJdrl!SS rclca::;cs or
threats of releases requirinij
expedited r~:,ponse.
• l.onger-lerm remedinl oclions
that stop or Sl1Us1an1i11\ly reduce
releases or threats of releases of
hazardous s11bs1ances that are
serious bu! not immediately
life-threatening,
Response actions may include.
but are not limited lo:
• Removing hazardous materials
from the site to an EPA·
approved, licensed hazardous
waste facility for lrealment.
containment, or destruction
• Contuining the waste on-site
so that it can safely remain there
and present 110 further problem.
• Oestroying or 1re.aling the
waste on-::;ite through
inr.ineration or 0Ihcr innovative
1echnolugics.
• Identifying and removing the
source al i:;round woter
co11taminat1on. anU h..ilting
further SJ.Hcud of 1he
conlaminants.
This foci sheet is one of a
series prcpareJ by the Suµcrfund
Comm1111ity Relations Pro\:jr.1111 In
help r.1ti",cns undcrst..ind ltnw
1hc Sup1:rfunJ proi:;ra1n wur~ ..
What Is
the' P\Jrpase
of the NPL?
How Cb Sites
GP.t on the NPL?
What Is the HRS?
Ho.I !):)es the
HRS -.Ork?
nie NPL serves to notify th lie of sites that EPA
decides may represent a long-term 1hreat to public health or
the envirorrrent and so rMY need remedial action. A site included
on the NPL can undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund.
Renedial action involves activities such as contail"ll1ent, treatment,
and disposal that will bring site conditions to the point that no
further actions are needed, EPA uses the NPL to help set prior'ties
for cleanup of Superfund reme<!ial sites.
To be included on the NPL, a site ITLISt either have a score of 28,50
or m:,re on the HRS, or it 1!1l1St be chosen as a State's top-priority
site, or it ITIJSt meet all three of the follc::wing criteria: (1) the
U,S, Department of Health and Human Services has issued a health
advisory recomending that peq,le be reiroved frcn the site to
avoid exposure; (2) EPA determines that the site represents a
significant threat; and (3) EPA determines that re-redial action is
m:,re cost-effective than rel!Oval action.
EPA publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register listing
sites it is prq>o5inq to add to the NPL. Typically, a 60~ay
public ccmrent period follc,,,1s this publication, The 6o--day ccmnent
period allc,,1s yoo to review inforination ab:Jut the prcposed sites
and to let EPA knc,,,1 if yoo agree or disagree with the HRS score
used to prooose the site. After considering relevant ccmnents
received during this time, EPA adds all pt'q)()Sed sites that still
meet the conditions for listing to the NPL throogh final rulemaking.
The Hazard Ranking Syste,n is a scorin:;i system that evaluates the
potential relative risks to pujlic health and the environment rosed
by different sites. It does not deternine if cleanup is possi~le
or worthwhile, or the amount of cleanup needed, Rather, it allc,,1s
EPA to cc:n,:iare the potential risks presented by different sites.
Preliminary assessrrients and site insr,ections provide infor<Mtion
for the HRS, The HRS produces three scores:
• The first score measures the possibility of hazardoos substances
spreadinq off the site throogh qroond water, surface water, or air
and re~chinq populated areas, Only the first score is used to
place sites on the NPL, and is generally called "the HRS scnre.•
• '!'1e second measures the possihility of [)P.C')le ccning in direct
contact with hazardous substances.
• 1'1e third measures the possibility of fire or explosion caused
by hazarrlous substances.
1'1e second and third scores are used to identify sites that need
rerroval actions.
Why Are Sites on
the NPL Presented
in Groups of 50?
~y Did EPA
Select 28.50 as
the Cutoff Score?
Haw Often
Are SitP.s Added
to the NPL?
If a Site Is
on the ~L,
Will it be cleaned
up?
Who will pay
for: r,~sponse
actions?
Can EPA Begin
Taking Act ion
at Sites on
the Proposed NPL?
Haw D:Jes EPA
Determine
Funding Priorities
Am:::lnq NPL Sites?
Will Sites on
the final NPL
Keep Their: Priority
for Res,JOnse Action
After New Sites
Are Added?
• EPA grrups sites in this manner because it considers sites within
each grcup of 50 to have approximately the same priority for
cleanup.
EPA first selected 28. 50 as the cutoff HRS score because it produced
an NPL of at least 400 sites, the l!\inim.un set by the SUperfund law.
The law set no upper limit on the size of the NPL. To be 0:Jn.Sistent,
EPA has continued to add sites "'ith scores of 28.S0 or atove. The
cutoff was selected to meet legal requirements and cannot be used
to determine ho, severe the risks are at a site.
The Superfund law requires that the NPL be updated at le11st once
a year. EPA intends to propose sites for the NPL three times a
year and to add previrusly pt1J[)05ed sites to the final NPL twice
a year.
Not necessarily. EPA will study the nature ancl extent of the
problems at an NPL site before determining if it requires reiredial
action.
EPA attE!'!t)ts lihenever possible to have those responsible take
remedial action. Superfund will pay only when those responsible
cannot or will not pay to clean up.
Yes. EPA may undertake r-em:,val actions and start the reredial
investigation an:! feasibility study (RI/F'S). The RI/F'S deter,nines
the nature and extent of the site proble-n.s, identifies alternatives
for remedial actions, and suppr,rts technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. However, the remedy selected cannot be ~leirented
until the site is on the final NPL. Re,rovals can also be taken
before a site is listed on the NPL.
In large part, EPA uses the NPL to deterrnine high-priority sites
for cleanup paid by the TrJst Fund and to takP lP.qi!l a~tion
against those responsible. HowP.ver, funding of 11ctions will not
always take place in the order ·that sites are listed on the 'IPL,
NlllTlerrus factors such as state prioritiP.s, cost, engineering,
availahle cleanup technologies and engineering capabilitiP.~ influence
the order in which actions will be funded,
Not necessarily. Once new sites are includP.d on the final NPL, the
priority for starting work on sites previrusly on the NPL may
change, However, EP~ will continue fundil'Yl the cleanup of sites
"'here it or: the State has already begun to. takP action;
Hew l..Dng Wi 11
Renleciial Action
Take?
The ti.me required for renedial act depends on the site.
can involve many stens, incluning a rerredial investigation,
feasibility study, and design and i~lernentation of the re,edy
selected. In a feo,, cases, the only action necessary may be to re-rove
drums of hazardous materials or ~ty storage tanks -actions that
take little time. In nost cases, a response action may involve
different and expensive measures -for e~le, cleanir¥:_l polluted i
ground ~ater or dredging contaminated river bottans. In these
cases, it can take several years of COl\)lex er¥:_lineerirq analysis
and design work before the actual response action can begin.
For further information on the Superfund Program,
call toll free l-800-424-9346
' 1~·1"o'r;.,;;;,! .. · ,1 :-: , : . ; , ••. ,:·,.,
ana Remea1a1 Res;
Wasn,ngton DC
Sering 1986
WH/FS-86-004
Public Involvement in the
Superfund Program
How are local
citizer'\S involved
in decisior'\S about
cleanup actions in
their a::mrunities?
In 1980, Congress passed a law
called the Comprehen:iive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
[CEHCLA). CERCLA cr~ateJ i lax
on the chemical and petroleum
inJuslries. The money collecteJ
lrom the tax goes lo a Trust
Fund 10 clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous wc1ste
siles. The money has come lo be
called 1he Superfund. The ll.S.
F11vironmenlJl Pro1ectiu11
Agency [E::Pt\l is respo11~1hle for
runn,n~ the SuperfunJ 11rogram.
Under lhe Superfund rrosram.
EP.A, can:
To guarantee that local citizens are involved in decisions about
cleanup actions in their cormunities, the U.S. Environn-ental
Protection '/>qency (EPA) has established a Superfund CatmJnity
Relations Program. This Pro::iram helps inform citizens in an area
where a hazardous waste response action is underway or planned.
But the goal is not just to provide information to the local
ccrmunity, F,qually ill'()()rtant, the CaTnlnity Relations Prograr,
also gives local citizens a voice in decisions ahout actions that
may affect them.
The information that citizens provide to EPA about the history
of a site is very valuable to EPA in planning a response action.
Citizens' kno,,ledge about when and how a site was contaminated has
helped EPA select the areas in and arrund the site where saimling
and ronitoring are needed. EPA may also learn about who is
responsible for a problem frc,n discussions with camunity meonbers.
EPA also considers citizen concerns in choosic,g how to clean up
the site, s0 that the cleanup actions will deal wi~h the proble-ns
especially iJll:,ortant to the C0'1ffllnity,
Cainunity relations activities are scrnewhat different during
a short-term "rem::>val" action and a longer-term "ren-edial" action.
D.Jring a re,roval action, the On-Scene Coordinator (the person in
charge at the site) has t0 protect public health and property
until the irtrnediate threat is over. D.JriJ'l(J such til"IE!s, the primary
camunity relations activity is to inform the camunity about
response actions and their effects on the ccrmunity. D.Jring a
renoval action, there is often very little time to involve citizer'\S
in how the site will be cleaned up because of the urgency of the
problem.
• Pay for the cleanup of
hazardous waste s11es when
those responsible for such sites
cannot be found or are unwilling
or unable to clean up a site.
• Take legal action to force
lhose responsible for ha:t.ardous
wasle sites that 1hrea1cn public
health or lhe environment 10
clean up or pay for \hi;, cleanup
of 1hose siles or reimburse l:.PA
for the costs of cleanup.
The law authorizes two kinds
of response actions:
• Short-term removal acl ions
where immedia\i:, actions may lie
!ale.en to addrt!SS relr.ases or
threats of releases requiring
expedi1ed respon58.
• Longer-term remedinl oclions
that stop or suUstantially reduce
releases or threats of releases of
hazardous substances I hat are
serious but not immediately
lif e-thrt,ah:ni ng.
Response actions may include,
but are not limito<l lo:
• Removing hazardous materials
from the sile 10 an EPA-
approveJ, licensed ha·£ardous
waste facility for trea1inent,
containmenl, or destnu;lion.
• Containin~ 1he wasle 011-sile
so thnl ii can safely remain there
and present no furlluH prnLl ... m.
• Oeslroying or treating 1he
waste 011-sile through
indncration or olhcr innovative
technologies.
• Identifying and removing the
source of ~round water
conlaminitlion. and hc1lting
furlhcr s1•read of the
contaminonts.
This lac! sheet is one of a
series prcp.1red by the Suµcrf1111il
Comm11111ly Reh1tinns Prot;rJ111 lo
heir r:iti:t:ens u11der)IJnd 1,ow
1\ic Supcduntl prn..:ran, wod • .s.
D.lring a rerroval action that lasts longer than 45 days or a
reinedial action there is ITOre ~rtunity for citizens to learn
about EPk activities and CQlfflJnicate their concerns to EPA.
Catm.inity Relations Plans
EPA learns about ccrmunity concerns by conducting com1.mity
interviews. These are informal discussions with local residents and
goverrvnent officials, usually at individual's hemes or offices.
Through these discussions, EPA learns about the history of the site
and gains a basic understanding of the concerns of the ccrmunity.
EPA uses this information to prepare a Camunity Relations Plan
for sites where rerroval actions last longer than 45 days and all
ren-edial actions. The Plan o.itlines in detail the activities EP~
will conduct to make sure that local residents can express their
opinions and concerns abcut the site, and are kept inforTIP.d of any
actions at the site througho.it the Superlund cleanup process.
There are many ways EPA exchanges information with the
CCJTmJnity. Typically, one of the first steps is to set up an
information file that contai~5 accurate, up-to-date documents on
the site. Tl'le file is usually located in a public building that
is convenient for local residents -such as a [)Ublic school,
librarf, or to,m hall. File materials may include ne-ws releases,
fact sheets, and technical reports abcut EPA's activitiP.s and the
contamination problem at the site.
A contact person is very intJOrtant. Residents may contact
this pP.rson to answer questions about the site. This contact,
usually a Superfund ccmnunity relations staff person in the nearest
EPA Regional Offie'!, can answer questions thro.igho.it the Superfund
process. A State staff member will be thP. contact person when the
State manages the cleanup.
~ile the information file anr'I conta~t person are normally a
part of every cx:r.m..inity relation~ program, EPA also uses a variety
of other activities to ensure that local citizens are inforn-ed and
given a chance to participate:
• Small discussion gro.ips in which concP.rned citizens can excharqe
inforniation with g:,verrvnent officials;
• LargP. public meetings at which many cO'IT'Unity m'!M/Jers can
gather to listen to presentations ahout site devP.lop-rent,, r3ise
issuP.s, express their concerns and as~ questions;
• News releases issued to the iredia announe'! milestones in wnrk
at the site, such as the beginning of construction;
• Fact sheets sumnarizing current kn0wledge about the site's
problems and cleanup options under consideration.
In sc,,,-,e cases, EPA may be limited in the amount o• infor,,,ati0n
t.'1at it can make available to the public. For examole, EP.~ usuall·;
tries to pursue legal action to make those responsible f~r th~
contamination at a site pay for or conduct the clP.anup. As a
Can Citizen Input
Really Influence
EP~ Cleanup Plans?
• •
result, there may be sc,ne sensitive or conficlential information
that, if disclosed to the puhlic, could damage the gcverrnent's
legal case.
Before all major decisions are made on remedial actions at a
site EPA gives the public an qJPOrtunity to co,r,ent. Camunity
involverrent is particularly in'{)Ortant durir,:i the public ccmnent
period provided after the Re!redial Investigation/Feasibility ~
(Rl/FS) is CCJll)leted. This report describes the contamination and
the response actions being considered. A cc,;yy of the draft RI/FS
is placed in the information file, and other copies are made
available for public review. Because the report itself may be
quite long and techical, EPA usually prepares an<I distrib.ltes a
fact sheet at this time to su:m1arize the results of the study.
Caffrunity members may also be invited to attend ,,c,rkshcps or a
public me€ting to discuss the response actions •
. The feedbacl< that E:PA receives fron the public during the
o::mnent period is one of the factors EPA considers in selectiru
response actions. EPA also considers the reliability, the
effectiveness and the cost of construction and maintenance of each
alternative.
Public camieRt and involvement have significantly influenced EPA's
plans for cleanups in a number of instances and citizens have
provided EPA with valuable information about conditi.ons at a site.
For exa1'l) le:
• At a site in Illinois, local citizens and businesses ex:-,ressed
concern that EPA's proposed cleanup alternative would limit the
use of a nearby lakeshore and hann the town's econany, In res;,onse
to these concerns, EPA develO(led another cleanur alternative that
preserved the town's use of the lakeshore.
• At a site in Minnesota, local residents expressed a strong
preference for treatment of local contaminated wells over connec-
tion to the reservoir supply of a nearby city. After careful
consideration of information provided by the residents, EPA proposed
a plan to treat the local wells to remove contaminants.
• Local residents are often an excellent source of information.
Many have lived in an area for years and can help identify t~ose
responsible and help locate illegally disposed waste sites in the
neighhortlo:>1, Many times local residents have called the National
Response Center (l-800-424-8802), a special nuntler set up to
re[)Ort hazardoos materials that present an irminP.nt threat,
Altha.igh ~PA tries to inclurie the comunity's preferences in
sPlectinq a ren-edy for the site, req\,lireri1ents of the Superfu:1d la· ..
may lead EPA to select a response action that is not the ccrm.inity's
fir$t c~oice, that is, the remedy t~at is m::>st effective, consid~~i~
cost, reliability and permanence.
The goal of the Su;:,erfuncl c0<m1unity relations pro::Jra"' is to
• • ensure that citizens are kept as well-informed as possible about
cleanup plans and progress and, at the same time, have a Sl!rf in
decisions about Superfund actions taken in their camunities.
PU.blic involvement in Superfund contributes to sound decisions and
greater protection of public health and the envirom-ent.
For further information on thP Sur,erfund Program,
call toll free 1-800-424-9346
Community Involvement / Remedial Process
I Tedullcal Asslslanca GranlS I
Nollc:e ot Avallablllly ol
FS and fad Sheel,
Public Mealing and
Comment Period
BITE INVESTIGATION
NOTICE l£TT£RS
RD/ RA NEGOTIATION I Responsiveness Summa,y I
ID Public Convnenl
1=~~ 1J-----~=~E=~----~ ... 1 _R_8:9_1a_:mrn_ .. ,s_P1an_un_lly _ _.l
I Sheet on Des.!iact I
·•
•
oEPA
Congress enxted tne
ComC)fenensi-.e EnVtfc,,'lffllftUII
Respo,,se. Comoen111,on, and
L1ib1bly Act tCERCL>J. COffifflOIII¥ .
known as Suoerlund. ,n '980 Trus
law created I lP Of'\ lhe Cl'\effltC.11
ind petroleum industries Ind
provided I bta.d Feder-' lutnor11y
10 respand d1rec,ty to rN1~ or
tnre.tened releases ct na.z1rOOus
subs11nces u,11 may endlf19C'
p.,.b11c helltn or welfare or tf'le
envuonmen1 Ovet' 5 yeais. S 1 6
b1lt1on were collected and 1ne 1aa
..... en1 10 1 Trust Fund lo, ctean1ng ..ip
aoanctoned o, unconuolled
ndzardOus wnte s,tes Trie V 5
Env,ronmen1al Pro1ec11on Ag~ncv
(EPA1 15 resoons1ble to, runn,ng tne
Suoertund program On Oc1ooe, 17
The Superfund
Remedial Program
Under the Superfund Remedial Prograr,,, the u.s. Envirol'l1'En~al
Protection "/>qency (EPA) takes lorq-tem cleanup actions to
step or substantially reduce releases or threats of releases
of hazardaJs substances that are seriOJS but not ilmlediately
lif~threatening.
He,., Does EPA Learn About Potential Rernedial Sites?
EPA learns abcut sites for potential reinedial action
thrOJQh a variety of SC1lrces, including required reporting,
rOJtine inspections of facilities that treat, store or dispose
of hazardOJs wastes, visible evidence, and citizen reports.
Once a site is identified, EPA or the State reviews any available
docunents on the site, in what is called a preli.Jninary assessn-ent,
to detemine if further action is needed. Sane sites do
not require further action because it is detemined they do
not threaten ht.mlllll health or the envirol'ITl!nt.
If a potential problan does exist, EPA or the State
conducts a site inspection. ,YPically, the site inspection
involves collecting information ab:ut the site -for
example, types of soils on site, strearrs or rivers on or
near the site, number of ~le in the area, weather conditions,
and who owns or: cperates the site. Sil!IPles of wastes, soil.
well water, river water, and air are collected to detemine
what hazardcus sublltanc:ea are on the site. Samples also
are taken near17t to deterlftine if the substances have traveled,
or migrated, elllf fran the site.
1911. Ille Superiund --·· and Reautllal'IZlloOII Act !SARAI WIS ..,..., "''° law SARA onct-u,e
Trust F....:I 10 Sl.5 -...., 5
yea,s and at1•111t11ens EPA's
IUIIIOlily 10 co,,duct c:iNnull and
enfo,ceme,tl ICtMl..S.
Undef IN s..,pe,tuNI llf09'1ffl, EPA
can.
• Pav ,.,, ,,,. -01 hallldous
waste snes wnen t"°51 rnpons,ble
to, '"'" SIIH cannot t)e found Of
1,e unw1U."9 Of Wl\llble: 10 de,ln up I
s,1e
• T ,11r.e ieg.t action 10 to,ce ,nose
resoons•tMe IOf ri.uard°"s wnte
sitH 1~1 tnreaten put>t,c t'\ealtn or
the en..,1ronmen1 10 dean UO thOH
sites or Plv baclr. 1ne Federal
p.Nnent fo, the C011S of
dMnl,p.
The '9w 11,1thonzes two 1unos of ·--: • s,,on . ...,,, _.,. -·
actoOnS mav De ._.., 10 ac1111ns
•-Of llveats of•-~ -•-se
• ~-tMffl -resoc,,,ses
that pennanenrtv and ~n,t,canuv
r9duea the dlnget'S IHOC .. ted w,tn
·-Of llvNIS of ........ ot
hazardous IUbS\lftCn that 111
senous but not 1mmedi11etv lite
1n,e1tttfflng Thev can be conducted
ontv II sites on EPA"s N,1t10NI
Pnom1es List INPLJ
Remed"I and removal ,esQOnses
,ncklde. bul 1ft no• 1,m,1ed 10
• Oesuov,ng. oe101.dv,ng or
,mmob.i,z,ng the naurdOus
IUOSI.-.CIS on the Sile througn
1nc1ne,1tion or otner ue,1trT1en1
11cM01o9oes
• Contll"'"9 tl'le substances on-s1
so that lhe'f can s,teiv ,ema,n tr,E
and presen1 no h,,1rtner 1nrea1
• Re,now,ng the ma1er1,11s trorn ,r
site to an EPA-iO()ro..,ed licensee
nat1tOOus >NHle tac1htv tor
\fUuner11 c0n1a,nmen1. a,
deSlh,,1CIIOl'I
• ldef''111tv,ng af"ld 1e~101,n9
con11m1nate<1 grouno -,111.tte• na11
luttr\er sp,eaa ot tne con1am,nd'"
o• 1n some c1rcumstan..:~':i oio-.,c
1n al1e1na1e sou•ce at or,m. nq
w11e1
• Based on information obtained fran the site inspection,
EPA uses its Hazard Pankinq System (HRS) to calculate a
score for the site that indicates if hazardous substances
have migrated through ground water, surface water, and air
or if they have the potential to migrate. Sites with high
enough scores are considered for EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Sites on the NPL present the most serious
problems among hazardous waste sites nationwide and are
eligible for long-term remedial actions through the Superfund
program.
What Is the State Role in the Remedial Process?
States play an important role in the rerredial process.
Sane States receive money fran EPA for identifying and managing
sites thraigh a formal Cooperative Agreement. Further, States
are always responsible for the long-term maintenance of a
site once the rerredial response is finished. The new Superfund
law establishes a miniimin level of State participation in
all phases of CERa.A response actions fran preliminary assessnent
to deletion of sites fra11 the NPL. States also must be notified
of.Federal negotiations with potentially responsible parties
and remedi-al activity managed by EPA. The National Contingency
Plan (NCP), the Federal regulation that guides the Superfund
program, is being revised to rP.flect these new State involverent
requiranents.
What HapPens During a Remedial Response Action?
A remedial response has two Nin phases, a Remedial Investigaticn/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and a Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RO/~). Cm"ing the RI/FS conditions at the site
are studied, the problem(s), if any, are defined and alternate
methods to clean up-the site are evaluated. A typical
RI/FS takes approximately 25 months to CO!IPlete.
In the remedial desian and remedial action phases, the
recaml!nded cleanup is designed and construction undertaken.
The design phase takes approximately 9 months to cmiplete.
The tilne required to ~lete the remedy varies according
to the ca,,plexity of the site.
n.aring a remedial investigation, EPA or the State
collects and analyzes information to determine the type and
extent of contanination at the site. Aerial photographs
INl'f be taken of the site and surrounding area to map the physical
features of the land, including rock formations and sa.rces
of water. A variety of techniques are used to locate contaminated
gromd water and blried druns or tanks that might contain
hazard0US substances. Sanples are taken fran soils, druns, lagoons, rivers,
ground water, and air, then analyzed by EPA-apprOYed laboratories
to determine if hazardous substances might be present and,
if so, the type and amount. EPA or the State reviews and
interprets results of the laboratory analysis.
• • Once the extent of contamination is known, the feasiOility
study can begin. During the feasibility study, specific
alternate remedies are considered and evaluated by EPA and
the PJt)lic. The cptions EPA may consider are:
• Removing hazardrus substances frOT\ the site to an
EPAapproved, licensed hazardrus waste facility for treatment,
containrrent, or destruction,
• Destroying or treating the waste on-site thrruqh incinerati0r.
or other treatl'ent technologies,
• Containing the waste onsite so that it can safely
remain there and present no further problei,,, and
• Identifying and r8!10ving the SOJrce of grrund-water
contamination, and halting further spread of the
contaninants.
In rare cirCI.JIIStances, the recamended raredy may
involve relocatinq residents to prevent further exposure.
Design and construction activities are conducted under the
supervision of EPA and the U.S. Arffl't Corps of Enqineers, or
the ~tate can manage all site activities on its own.
How Is the Best Cleanup Alternative Chosen?
EPA must take into accoont certain factors specified in the
NCP for evaluatinq remedial action alternatives at hazardrus
waste sites. In addition to protecting human health and
t~e environrent, the raredy chosen must:
• Be technically feasible, considering the location
and conditions at the site,
• Be cost-effective, and
• Use pennanent solutions and alternative treaanent
technologies or resource recovery technologies as much
as possible.
Can EPA Make Those Responsible Pay?
EPA always makes a thorough effort to identify and locate
tholle responsible for causing ecntanination pr-oblans at the
site ("potentially responsible parties"). To save Superfund
rrc,nies for those cases where no responsible party can be identified,
EPA will take legal action to make tholle identified as re
spcnsible pay for the ccats of cleanup actions. Although
EPA is willing to negotiate with private parties and encourages
voluntary cleanup, it has the authority under the Superfund
law to legally force those responsible to take specified cleanup
actions. All work performed by responsible parties is closely
guided and supervised by EPA and must l!'eet the sare standards
r·equired for actions financed thrrugh Superfund.
.Can Local Citizens Get Involv n Superfund Cleanups?
To ensure that the local public is involve-:! in Superfunrl actions,
E:?11. conducts camrunity relations activities. These cU,xts
are designed to inform local officials and residents ahout
c,~ncl it ions and rleve lq::,n,ents at Super fund sites and to make
. .:;l1,·~ tflrtt th~ concet'ns of the camiunity ar~ ca,,,,unicateC to
;::;,.; and State officials. EPII. or the State also r,repares a
camiunity relations plan that is tailor~j to th~ needs of the
cannunity near the site. A ca,n,unity relations nlan is r,rer,are~
for all reiredial sites and for all removal sites where activities
last longer than 45 days. The plan describes the activities that
will ~ conductecl to encourage citizen input and inform the
camiunity of progress at the site. Camiunity relations activities
may include holding [)t!riodic infor:nal n-eetings of sinall groups of
interested citizens and governnent staf.f, or larger public
forums that include a presentation abaJt activities at the
site and a question and answer r,eriod. Information also
can be provided through technical SUl!l'Tlarie,; a,,,J t:11-e distrirution
of fact sheets such as these. In addition to the camiunity
relations plan, C?A '"'ist conduct several other puhlic involverrent
activities for remedial actions. The canpleted feasibility
study report with a preferred remedial alternative must be
availahle for public cannent for at least.21 days. During
the public ccmnent period, EPA may hold a public n-eetinq to
discuss the range of alternatives that were analyzed, and
the rationale for recamending a ~rticular alternative.
EPA then r,repares a Responsiveness Si.:m,ary describing significant
caTTnunity caments on the pr~ed remedial action and the
alternatives ,x,n,-i,1,!r,!'1, The public involver11ent proce,;,; will
be repeated if EPA decides that a new alternative that is
significantly different fron the original alternative is ~nst
appropriate for the site.
• &EPA
Congress enactea U,e . Comp,enensn,e Env,ronmental
Aesgonse. Comoenu11on . .,,., L,.01h1y Acl 1CEAC1.AI. commonly known as St.1perlunc2. ,n 1980 Th,s tavw created • 1a.. on me cl'lemQ dnd petroleum industries and p,o._.1ded a brGld Feoe,a, ~IP'lonf';'
ro resQOnd d1rect'"1 10 retuses or 1rirea1ened rete.ses of hazardous subs11nces 1n11 m,av end.Inger puOhc ne.it" or w .. t,,e or u,e
env11onmen1 0.-et" 5 vears. $1 6 b1ll10n ..,.,.,. coHected M"d lhe , ..
-Nenl to. Tri..,St Fi..,nd '°' cl4Nn&ng 1,,tQ at>anCIOned 01 1,,1ncontr0Ued
s1urOO..s w1ste s,1es Tl,e U S ("' -.. ---.....
..;r,rea States
Env1ror:,,..enta1 ~,otec:1on Agency
Clf,ce 'Jf :J"!"ergerc·.-
r .:ie~ed1a1 ~esoor.se n,ngton DC 20460
= '" '397
'Ni-, o;.a?.,:CJR
The Superfund
Removal Program
Incidents involving hazardous substances that ~resent an i!m\inent threat to h1.m1an health or the envirOl'lnent ~ay occur or be discovered in any camn.inity at any tiJne. These kinds of incidents may include, but are not lunited to:
• Illegal disposal of toxic materials or hazardous wast
• I!Tlproper handlirq or disposal of hazardous substances at landfills, indistrial areas, etc,
• Spills of hazardous substances when a truck or train overturns,
• Discharges of hazardous substances into the air or water during a fire.
The U,S, Envirionnental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund E!rergency Response Program was created to respond to situatio, such as these.
How Can EPA Respond to Releases or Threatened Releases of Hazardous Substances?
Under Superfund, EPA may respond to releases or threats of releases of hazardais substances by starting a rE!IIIOYal actia,, A ra110Yal action is a short-term action intended
•. 11,e s~ Amendments
.,,., A-°'°'1-Act !SARAI WH signed ,nto law SAAA ,ncruses u,e TruSI Fund to SI 5 llolloon o,,e, 5 YNB.,,., Str"'9111ef'S EPA's ""'l'lonl't to conduc1 cl..,o;p .,,., enforc_, octrv,tlft
Under tlle Supe,!und p,ogram. EPA CM!:
e Pl¥ fo, tl,e C-UO ot l\alltdoYS waste s.tn wnen tl'IOM rnoons,tMe fo, suc:11 s,tn cannot lie found or ore u'1Wdlln9 o, u,,_ to CINn uo • s,te
• T .... 189a ICIIOft 10 fo,ce tllOM ,.__ fo, I\IZIIIIOus wost•
go,,emment fo, u,e costs of CiMluP.
The law ..,u,o,,zn two o,nds of
,._ .. ICtlOftS.
• 5"ott·t---· -· ICIIOftl may lie ta., to ilddrns reteun or 1nruts of reteun requ,nng P,Offllll ,_,._
• lonott·t""' ,.,,,_ ,.._,,.,
11\11 -UV .,,., "'9"'f1C1ntly reclue<I tne ~ UIOC141ted ..,tn reteun o, tnruts of ,_ ot
l\al-1 IUDS!lt!CH lrllt 1te
-• but not ,mm-tely lfe tnru,.,,,ng n,.., can lie ~ted
only It "''" on EPl,s Nltl()nal
• Oes1r0y1n9. de1011"°1ng , 1mmot>iliz1ng the nazardO,..
si..,bstanc:1s on thl s111 1nr 1nc1nerauon o, 01n1, treatr 1ecnno109,es
• Cont11n1ng tr,1 substanc, so tnot tnev can wtei,, ,., and grn,ent no f1,,1nner 1nr,
• RetnOvlng the ma11r1a1s
site to ,n EPA-aopro"ea. 1
h&Z11do\,s wHte fac11irv fc treatment. conta,nment. o destruct'°"
• ldent1f";'1ng and restON'Q cor11am1n1ted ground wau
fur,!'I@' cor1•~ '"'' ..... --.-•
to stAlize or clean up an incidentAsite that poses a
threa~o hi.,,an health or the enviroill!-at. These actions
may include:
• Ranoving and disposing of hazardcus substances,
• Constructing a fence, posting warning signs, or taking
other security n-easures to control access of hunans
or animals to a site,
• Providing alternate water supplies to local residents
·.;here drinking water has becane contar,inated,
• Tempcrarily relocating area residents.
Under Superfund, rernoval actions can last no longer than
12 months in duration or cost more than S2 million, althcugh
ex8!1')tions may be granted in certain cirCUITIStances.
Because the purpose of r"!!!IOVal actions is to respond
to more i.ntnediate threats and because they are short-te?ffl
actions, they generally cannot deal with long-te?ffl envirol"IT'ental
problems like are~wide contamination of grOJnd water. In
that event, the On-Scene Coordinator refers the site to EPA's
Ranedial Respcnse Program for further investigation and assessment.
Remedial actions are longer-term actions that StCI) or
substantially reduce releases or threatened releases of hazardOJs
substances that are seriOJs but not umediately life-threatening,
Remedial actions can be undertaken only at sites on e:PA's
National Priorities tist (NPtl, which identifies the meet
sericus uncontrolled or abandoned hazardOJs waste sites.
EPA often conducts both removal and rE!lllldial actions at NPt
sites.· Rernoval actions may be
required if an illlrediate threat is discovered during remedial
work. Rernovals also rrust contribute to the efficient perform!nce
of ar?f long-term ralledial action,
How Does the RanoYal Program Work?
The National Continae~ Plan (NCPl, the Federal regulation
that ~ides the Super und program, c:utlines the roles and
~•pouaibilities of each agency involved in responding to
re\enaea x threatened releases of hazardOJs substances.
The U,S, Coast Guard has primary responsibility for response
to relNaes in or upon the coastal and other navigable waters
of the United States, and EPA has primary responsibility
for inland responae.
The first step in EPA's reiroval program is the discOYery
of a release or threatened release of hazardOJs substances
that presents a threat to public health or the environnent.
EPA may be notified thrOJgh the National Response Center (NRCl
at the 24-hOJr telephone nl.l!lber l-800-424-8802, which is ~rated
t,y the u.s. Coast Guard, or be contacted directly by States,
cOT111Jnities, industries or individuals.
TA.RC notifies the appropriate ~rml!nt agencies
and otl!1111l''ials when a release is report• EPA's On-Scene
Coordinator evaluates the situation, and based upon this evaluation,
may WM Superfund money to clean up the incident if thoae
responaible for the incident cannot or will not conduct the
cleanup, or if State or local officials are unable to respond.
Other goverm-ent agencies may be called upon for assistance
· .. hen necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of the
release.
Who Pays For Removal Actions?
Sane removals are paid for or conducted by those responsible
Eor creating the eirergency. rn addition to past and present
cr,,mers or operators, those responsible may include generators,
transporters, scorers, or disposers of hazardous suostances.
The rest may be paid for and conducted by State or county
response tear"5 with their own funds, or by EPA, using Superfund
rroney. When Superfund rroney is used, EPA may take action
to force those responsible to reimburse the Federal gover1Tent
Eor the costs of the cleanup.
How Can '{ou Obtain Information On Removal Actions?
Superfund makes every effort to ensure open, t~ay
camn.inication with the public. In removal pr~ram activities,
EPA appoints a spokesperson to provide information concerning
the release, inform the cam,unity of actions taken, and respond
to irquiries. In addition, nearby residents and State and
local officials will be notified of rernoval activity as clcee
to the start of the activity as possible, If ort-site activities
last longer than 45 days, EPA will interview affected parties
to determine their concerns and information needs. Fran these
interviews, EPA will prepare a formal plan for conducting
caTmJnity outreach activities.
&EPA
s-
Environmenlll Protacllon
Agency
Office of
Solid W-111d
Emergency Reopol\N
Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants
Office of Emergency and Remedial RMponN
Hazardoua Site Control Oiviaion (OS-220)
WHAT ARE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Publlcallon No. 9230.1.QIS/FS
January 1990
Quick Reference Fact Shfft
Bachround of Prv,ram •· In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) -otherwise known as 'Superfund" -established a trust fund for the cleanup or hazardous waste sites in the United States. CERCLA was amended and reauthorized when Congress passed the Supcrfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) or 1986. The U.S. EnvirOnmental Pro1ection Agency (EPA), working in concen with the States, is responsible for administering the Supcrfund program.
An imponant aspect or the Supcrfund program is citizen involvement at the local level in decision-making tbat relates to site-specific cleanup actions. For this reason, community outreach activities are underway at each or the 1,200 sites !bat are presently on, or proposed for listing on, the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is EPA's published list or the most serious abandoned or otherwise uncontrolled· hazardous waste sites nationwide, which bave been identified for possible remedial cleanup under Superfund.
Recognizing the imponancc or community involvement and the need for citizens living near NPL sites to be well-informed, Congress included provisions in SARA to establish a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Program intended to foster informed public involvement in decisions relating to site-specific cleanup strategies under Supcrfund.
In addition to regulatory and legal requirements, decisions concerning cleanup initiatives at NPL sites must take into account a range or technical considerations. These might include:
• Analytical profiles or conditions at the site;
• The nature or the wastes involved; and
• The kinds or technology available for performing the n=ary cleanup actions.
The TAG Program provides fwlds for qualified citizens' groups to hire independent technical advisors to help them undentalld and commcnt on sucb technical factors in cleanup decisions affecting them.
Ink Prqrifiom of Ehl Ttdmic,I #!f?!P Gnmq Prrit 4M
• Grants of up to SS0,000 are available to community groups for the purpose or hiring technical advisors to belp cilil.em understand and interpret site-related tecbnical information.
• Toe group must cover 20 percent of the total costs of the project to be supported by TAG funds.
• The group must budget the ClpCllditure of grant fwlds to cover the entire cleanup period (wbicb averages six years).
• There may be only one TAG award per NPL site; however, the grant may be renewed.
Printod on Re<ycled P11p,1r
USES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Citizen groups may use grant funds 10 hire technical advisors 10 help them understand information
tha1 already exists about the site or information developed during the Superfund cleanup process.
Acceptable uses of these grant funds include payments 10 technical advisors for services such as:
• Reviewing site-related documents, whether produced by EPA or others;
• Meeting with the recipient group to explain technical infonnation;
• Providing assistance 10 lhe grant recipient in communicating the group's site-related concerns;
• Disseminating interpretations of technical infonna1ion to the community;·
• Panicipaling in site visits, when possible, 10 gain a bener understanding of cleanup activities;
and
• Traveling to meetings and hearings directly related 10 lhe situation a1 the site.
TAG funds may 001 be used 10 develop new information (for example, additional sampling) or 10
underwrite legal actions in any way, including lhc preparation of 1es1imony or 1he hiring of expen wimesses.
You can obtain a complete !isl of cligillle and ineligillle uses of grant funds by contacting your EPA
Regional Office or the Headquaners information number listed at the end of 1his pamphlet. In addition,
this infonnation is included in the EPA publication entitled The Citizens' Guidanc, Manual for the Ttchnica/
Assistance Grant Program (OSWER Directive 9230.1-03), also available from your Regional EPA Office.
WHO MAY APPLY
As stated in the 1986 Superfund amendments, groups eligilllc to receive grants under the TAG
program are those whose membership may be affected by a release or threatened release of toxic wastes at
any faciliiy listed on the NPL or proposed for listing, and where preliminary site work has begun. In
general, eligillle groups arc groups of individuals who live near the site and whose health, economic well-
being, or enjoyment of the environment are directly threatened. Any group applying for a TAG must be
1_19nprofit and incorporated or working towards incorporation under applicable Stale laws. Applications are
· encouraged from: ·· · ·
• Groups that have a genuine interest in learning more about the technical aspects of a nearby
hazardous waste site; and
• Groups that have, or intend to· establish, an organiz.ation to manage a gram eflicien1ly and effectively.
For example, such groups could be:
• Existing citizens' associations;
. • Environmental or health advocacy groups; or
• Coalitions·Of s11d1 groups formed to deal with communiiy concerns about the hazardous waste si1e
and its impact on the surrounding area.
Groups that arc !!Q! eligil>le for grant funds are:
• Potentially responsible panies: any individuals or companies (such as faciliiy owners or operators, or
transponers or generators of hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or contributing 10, 1he
contamination problems at a Superfund site;
• Academic institutions;
• Political subdivisions; and
• Groups established and/or sustained by governmental entities (including emergency planning
commiuees and some citizen advisory groups). ·
CHOOSING A TECHNICAL ADVISOR
When cb0011ing a lech.Dical advisor, a group should consider the kind of technical advice the group needs most and whether a prospective advisor has lhe variety of skills necessary to provide all of the advice needed. Each technical advisor must have:
• Knowledge of hazardous or toxic waste issues;
• Academic training in relevant fields such as those listed above; and
• Toe ability to translate technical information into terms understandable to lay persons.
In addition, a technical advisor should have:
• Experience working on hazardous waste or toxic waste problems;
• Experience in making technical presentations and working with community groups; and
• Good writing skills.
Technical advisors will need specific knowledge of one or more of these subjects:
Chemistry: Analysis of the chemical constituents and propenies of wastes at the site;
Toxicology: Evaluation or the potential effects of site contaminants upon human health and the environment;
Epidemiology: Evaluation of the panern of human health effects potentially associated with site contaminants;
Hydrology &lid Hydrogeology: Evaluation of potential contamination of area surface water and ground-water wells from wastes at the site;
SoU Science: Evaluation or potential and etisting soil contamination;
Llmnology: Evaluation of the impact of site runoff upon the plant and animal life of nearby streams, lakes, and other bodies of water; · ·
Meteorology: Assessment or background atmospheric conditions and the potential spread of contaminants released into the air by the site; and/or
Engineering: Analysis or the development and evaluation or remedial alternatives and the design and construction or propaaed·deanup actions.
A grant reclpienl may choose to hire more than one tech.Dical advisor to obtain the combination of skills required at a panicular site. For c:xample, a group may be unable 10 find a single advisor experienced in both hydrology and epidemiology, two of the skills most needed at its site. Another approach would be 10 hire a consulting firm that has c::rperience in all the needed areas. The Cilizml' Guidanu Manual for tM T~chnical Assistance Gram Program identifies other issues that citu.ens' groups may wish 10 consider in hiring a technical advisor.
ADDrnONAL INFORMATION
For further information on the application process or any other aspect of the TAG program, please
contact your EPA Regional Office or call the national information number, both of which arc listed below.
An application package is available free by calling the EPA Regional Office for your State ( sec map on back
cover). Each application package includes all the necessary application and certification forms as well as a
copy of The Citizen's Guidance Manual For The Technical Assistance Grant Program. This manual contains
sample forms with detailed instructions to assist you in preparing a TAG application.
EPA Supcrfund Offices
EPA Headquarters
Office of Emergency & Remedial
Response
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
[phone]
EPA Region 1
Emergency and Remedial
Response Division
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
[phone]
Connecticut, MaiM, Mass«huseas, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vamont
EPA Region 2
Supcrfund Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
[phone]
New leney, New Yorlc, Puerto Rico, VIJ!lin Islands
EPA Region 3
Supcrfund Branch
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
[phone] · ••
Delaware, .· District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania; Virginia, West Vu-ginia
EPA Region 4
Emergency and Remedial
Response Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
( 404) 347-2234
•
Alabama, Florida, . ~ Kmtucky, M"ississippi,
North Carolina, S9"lh Carolina, Tenrwsee
EPA Region 5
Emergency and Remedial
Response Branch
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, n.. 60604
[phone]
lllinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
Supcrfund Program Branch
Allied Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
[phone]
Amzn.sas, Louisiana, New Maico, 0/c/Qhoma, TtrJJS
EPA Region 7.
Supcrfund Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
[phone]
Iowa, Kansas, M"issowi, Nebraska
EPA Region 8
Waste Management Division
. 1 Denver Place
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
[phone] . .
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakot~
Utah, Jlyoming .
EPA Reatc,a'
Superfund Programs Branch
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 454-744-1766
Anzoria, . Ca/ifomilJ, Guam, Hawau, · Nevada,
American' Samoa
EPA Region 10
Superfund Branch
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
[phone]
Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska
Soperfund/RCRA Hotline
[phone] or 382-300'.l
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area (for information on programs)
N atloual Response Center [phone]
(to report releases of oil and hazardous substances)
EPA Superfund Offices
•
&EPA
Ur,1ted States E rwrronm1nt1I Pr01ec11on Agenev • W'11F5-ll~7
wu,ttr 1986
Superfund Glossary
1bJs gtossaiy defines terms often 11sed by the U.S. Envtronmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff' when describing act:Mttes wx:ler the Comprehemtve
Environmental Respon.9e. Compematton. and J.1abt1tty Act (CERCJ.A commonly caJJed Superfund), as amended 1n 1986. The deftnittons apply spedfically to the Superfund program and may have other meanings \\'hen 1 >sed tn different drcumstances. ltalictzed words tnduded 1n various deftnJttons are detlned separately 1n the gtossaiy.
• AdmJmuatnoe Order on Conaent (AO J: A legal and enforceable agreement signed bero,em EPA and por•nrtal/11 rnporwtbl• parttn 1P~) whereby PRJ>s agree to p,,rlorm or pay the co.t of site cl•anup. The agreement describes actions to be taken at a 11te and may be subject to a public comm•nt ~Mod.. Unlike a conunt d«rtt. an admtnlstraUve order on consent does not have to be approved by a Judge.
Air Slripplq: A treatment ayatem that~-. or ·atrtpa·. uolanle OPJ1Cnk compounds from contaminated ground WOiff or surf~ wa.ce, by forclJII an ll.ll"ltream thrnugh the water 1111d causing the compound& to evaporate.
Aquifer: An undffl1'0W'd rock formation composed of matenals auch u sand. soll. or grava that can 11 ore and aupply ground WOiff to wellt and aprtnp. Moat aqulfen UMd In the United Sta!a are Within a lhOUNnd feet or the earth·• aurlace.
Cardzl01«11: A aubatance that causes cancer.
Carbon Amorptlon:
A treatment aystem where contaminants are removed from ground. wat•r or surface wat•r when the water ta forced through tanlu containing activated carbon. a apttlally treated matertal that attracts the contaminants.
Cleanup: Act.tons takm to deal wtth a reJeue or thrute!Wd releue of luuardoiu subltAnca that could afl'ect publJc health and/or the mVlronmmt. The tenn •c:1eanup· II often Uled broadly to delcrlbe
vanoua rapol\M acao,w « --of rem.ala/ -,o.,.. IUdl u the rem.ala! '"uen,a~UUW s1ud.11.
co-eat Penod: A Ullle perlOd durtng wtuch the publlc can ITlleW and comment on YVI-doa&ments and EPA actions. F'or example. a com men I pertod la pl'OV!ded whffl EPA proposes to add sites 10 the Na110nal Prto,mes Ltst. Also. a m1n1mum 3-week comment pertod la held 10 allow community membera to review and comment on a draft Jecu1bt11r11 stud.11.
• Co-uni')' Relations (CR): EPA·• PfOIRlll to Inform and lnYolve the public In the Superfund procaa and respond to community concuns.
Comprebenslw Environmental Response, Compensation. and LlabWty Act (CERCLAJ: A Federal law puled In I 980 and modified In 1986 by the Superlund Amendments and Reau thortza uon Act. The Acts created a apeclal tax that goea tnto a Tnat F\md, cosnmonly known u S~nd. to tnvsupte and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled huardoua wute altea. Under the procram. !PA can either:
• Pay for llte c!Hnup when pe,Uea reaponalble for the conwntnauon cannot be Joc:ai.cl or are un1PIJlln& or unable to petfonn the wwtl.
• Take lel&al acuon tor-puU• reaponslbJe for Ille _,am!NUGQ to dean up the aue or pay back the Federal pvnmail for the ~ ol lhec!Hnup.
Count Decl9I (CDJ: A Jep1 clocwnent, appl'O\led and taaued by I Judce. that fc-...,al!•PS UI ..,eement reached betftffl EPA and po1ennau11 ,-,01111i. partta IPIU'II where PRP9 WIii pm-aD or pan or a S~M aue cleanup. The conaent dec1'ft deKrlbes acuona that PRPI are required to pmonn and ta aubjeet to a public comment perll>d.
Connet Lab "'°Cnm: Labnratortea under contract to EPA which analyze soll. water. and wute aampa taken from areu II or -Superfv.nd. lltea.
Coet-lUl'ecehc Altwdte: 11ie dftnup altematM ldected for a lite on the National l'l1otttta LIit bued on technical l'eulblllty. permanence. rellabll!ty. and coat. The telected altematM does not require EPA to ~ thc Jeut apenallle altematl~. It requires that If there are -ral cleanup altemattva available that deal effectively vmh the probleml 11 a aue. EPA muat choose the mnedy on the basis or permanence.
rellab•llry. and cost.
Coat Recovery: A legal process v.·hen po1en1iaU11 rnporiatble parties can be requl red 10 pay back the Federal government for money It spends on any cleanup acuona.
Jr:nc1aACerma1t Auesamellt: A atucly conducted u • aupplemcnt · a remedial 1nuaagano11 to · determine the nature and atent o contamination at a S~u.nd silt and the rtsu pc,eed to publlc healt and/or the envtrorunmt. EPA or State agenelea conduct the study when legal action II pendlllg 10 require poun1tall11 raporiatble
partla to perform CII' pay for the • cleanup.
ICIIIORallellt: l!:PA'a efl'orts. thrDugh legal action I! ne, euy. 1 fOT'Clt pocenttall11 respol\Slbt. pam. to perfonn or pay for a Supeefuna Ille dfttwp.
Sllforcement t>eclliloo Document (SDDJ: A public tlocwnent that e:q,laina EPA'a ldec1lon of a dftnup altematM at a Supe,fvn, Ille throuCh UI !PA e,if-.U acuon. Similar to a Record qf D«ufon.
Smrouaental lt.NpoaN ,._ (SRTJ: EPA hulrdaul -le apaU who p""1de 24-bllur tecbnlcal -latance to !PA Reclon Officea and Statea d\U1ni all cypea emerpnctea trMllvlng reJeua at buardous -le lltea and ap!III of l\uG7dous Sllbata!INS,
hulbOlty SmtlJ (PSJ: 5ft Remedial /nuestleallOnll"eulbllltii
Stud.11.
Grol&lld Wai.er. Water found beneath the eanh ·• awface that fill pores between inatertal9 audl u and. aoll. or gravel. In aqulf.,., lfO\IJld water accun In aulllctent q1,1,1r1uuea that II can be med for drlnkJn&-.ater, impuan and othe: purpaeea.
Huar,I ,,.,., ., ... (BltSJ:
A acortn& 9Y1lein Uled to evaluate potential rel&IM r1alla to public health and the enVll'ONllffll from releuea or threatened releuea of llcuardo!U suo,(,GIINS, EPA and Statea UN the HRS to calNlate a 11te acore. rrom o to 100. baled on the actual or potmtlaJ relaM of llcuard.oua subslallCflfrom a sue 1/lrough air. surface wain. or ground waler to affect people. This acore 11 the prtmary factor uaed 10 decide ,r a harardoua waste aue ahould be placed on the Na11011al
Pnor111n LISI.
• Hu.udou• Subaraace: Any material that poee a threat to public health and/or thr ,nvtronm,n t. Typical huardous substanct5 ar• maten&Ja that an, toxic. corrostvr. 1gn1table. explos1v,. or ch•mtcalJy reactive. Hydtolo,:y: Th• aclrnce dealing With th• prop,rurs. movrm,nt. and rfTects o( water on th• earth's aurface. In the aotl and rocka below, and 1n th• aunaaphen,. lllclDer.tloa: Bununc of cet'U1n typea of IIO!Jd, Uquld. or paeoua maten&Ja under conU'OUed condltlona to datroy hazardoua wute. lllfonaatloa Repoeltory: A rue containing current lnfonnauon. techntcal reporta. and reference documents regarding a Superfu"d atte. The tnfonnauon rqlOSltOJy la uauaUy located ID a publle bulldlnC that la COmenlcnt (or local reatdeni-.uch u a public IChool. City hall. or libruy. Leacb••e: A contaminated bquld reawung when -ter percolates. or tnc.klea. truouCh wute matenala and collecla componrnta of thoee wutea. Leachlnl may occur at landlllla and may reauJt In llamrdoua aubslanca entering 1011. au!faar U>Cltff, or "round walff. IIOllltortq Well■: Speclal weUa drtlled at 11peClflc locauona on or off a huardoua 111Ute alte where "round wacn can t,. umpled at aelected depth■ and atudled to detenntne ll\lch tJunp u the dlrectJon In wtllch "round U>Cltff !Ion and the types and ■-Illa ol contamtnanta preaenL Jllatloul 00 uut Hen ilou Sabatucea ~tiJaJ 11' l"ltD (JIICP): The Federal I I dt!IOII !Jlet guides the s~ prapem. Jllatloaal Prtortu. LIi& (NPL): EPA'a lllt altbl-t aenoua uncontrolled or lllandoned huan:loua wute aues Identified (or possible lon1•1erm l'ffllftflal rnportH uatna: money from the Trwt Fu"d. The Ital la bued pnmarlly on the ac:o" a aue recetva on the Huard Rarurl"" S11a1rm IHRSJ. EPA la required 10 update the NPL at leu1 once a year. • National Reaponae Center (NRC): The center operated by the U.S. Cout Guard that recelvra and rvaluat" reports of oU and luizordou, substance n,Jeurs Into th• •nvtronment and notlll,. the appropriate agencyta). The NRC can be contacted 24•houn a day, toll-free at 18001 424-8802. National Reaponae T-(NRTJ: Repreaentauvea or 12 Federal agenctea that coordinate Federal responaa to nauonally •aan1ncant pollutlon lneldcnta and pl"IIYlde adv1c:e and technlcal _,stance to the l"DJIOlldlnl agcncy1al. Oa-Sceae Coon:lillator: The Federal official who coordlnata and dlrftta Superflind ,._, caca.ona. Oper.ble llllft: An acaan ta11en u one pan o! an -■II alte dNnup. For eump~. a ctlltlon a«: IC" ayllem couJd be lnllalled to I rapidly apreadlnC "l'OUnd•!Nmr contamlnanta whlle I more comprehcnalw and loni•term l'ffllftflGI lnuatlgatlOIIIJNrbcl,. atud11 la undawa,,. A nwaber oper.ble unit■ can be llled ID tbe COWN ol a alle clftnup. Operadcnl &Dd llaiatenence l<>AMJ: ActlYltt• CIIIICNCled at a alte after a rnpori.w acaon OCCW'S, to cnaure that the clecfflup or contaJnment ayatem la fwxltonlnl properly. Pana Per IIWDII (ppb)l?uU Per IIWJoa (ppm): Unlta CllllllnOnly uaed to apraa low concentnu-al contaminant■. For aample. I CIIIJlft of lrlChloraelhylene (TCEJ ID I mJlllon OW1Ce1 of-ter la I ppm: I ounce of TC!: In I bllllon -or . -lei' II I ppb. 11-drap of ?CE la MUied In e COlllpelltton-eta IIWlmm.tn, pool, the -ter Will contaJn about I ppb of ?CE. PoceatlellJ lelpoulllle Pan, (PRPJ: Any lnd1Ytduall1l or compeny(al (111Ch u owuen, aper111on. tnNponen. or lfflffatonl potentially responsible l'or. or contnbuun, to. the contamination problem, 11 1 Superfund atte. Whenever poalble. EPA requlrea PRPI. through 1dm1n1a1rauw and legal 1cuona. to clean up huan:loua wute alts they ha,·r contaminated. Prellmlnary Aaaeaameat (PA): The proceu or couecung and M!Ylewing avallabl• 1nforma11on about a known · or ausp,cted huardoua "'Ute 11t, or n,Jus,. EPA or States uae this lnfonnauon to det,rmine 1r the site requires fW'ther 1tucly. If further · atucly ta needed. a •II• lnsp«non ta undertak,n . QuaJJty Aaaur.nc:e'ilaallty Control (QA/QC J: A ayatem of procedurea, checlcl, audits. and co=vr actlona uaed to enaure that fidd work and labor.tory analysts durln& the lnveallptlon and clftnup of Supe!fulld alts meet eatabbahed llandarda. llecord ol Dedatoa (aODJ: A public docwnent ~t npl11m which clftnup aJtern■tlYefal wtll be llled at Naaonal PrlorUla LIit lllta ~ tbe 1'nllt Fund pays for the cleanup. The Record of Decta1on II bMed an IDl'ormatton and ta:balC91 analyala .-,.led durln& the l'ffllftflal ~atlOnifeaS'bcllq, 1N1t11 and mnatderauan of public commenw Uld commwuty -. ... •esr,ai ■-poue Tam ialtTJ: Rq,I 1mtauva of P'edenl. State. and local acme•• who may -••t ID caardtnauon or actMU. at the request of the On-SC..W Coordinator or Ramadtal Prr,J«f .IIGIUIQCI' befcn and clunni l'DpOIIN a.t:ao,u, lemedlal Ac1loll (JtA): The actual conauucuon or tmplemaltatton phue !Jlet Collon the 1rrl1a1 cfatg" or the aehcted deanup altemallW! et I Ille on tbe Nat10nal l'r1ottaau.t. leir:11:l n.1p (111)): An encsneen~:' that follow9 the Record qf n wtlcn techNcal clr.wtnga and apedflcauona are developed (or the 11Ubaequen1 ,-mftltal action at a 111e on the NGUorull l'rforUla Lui. ■...edlal ._.tlptlo1117eu111Wty Study: TWo dlallnct but mated 11ud1es. They are uau&Jly perfonned at the Mme tune. and t~lher re(eff'ld to u the ·RIIP'S. They are intended to: • Gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent or contamination 11 a S~rfurtd 11tr: • E1tabll1h crtter1a for cleanln& up the a11r:
• Iden~ and ICften cleanup altemauva ror NIMdlal acaon, and
• Analyze In detail the technology and ca.ta or the altemauves.
Remedlal Project Manacer
(RPM): The EPA or State offictal responsible for overaeetng remedial rnpon.w ac:uvmes.
Remedlal ReapoDM: A long-lenn action that 1topa or 11Ubatanually
reducea a ~ or threatened
releue or /Muardoua 1ubltanca
that 11 ■er1ou■. but dos not poee an 1auned1ate threat to pubUc health
and/or the mvtronment.
Removal AcUo11: An 1aunedlate ac:uon taken Oft!' the &hon-term to acldrela a releaM or threatened
relaM or llcuardoua ■ubltanca.
Reaoun:e Couenatioll alld Recover7 Act (ltCltA): A Federal
law that establllhecl a rqulatory aystem to track huardoua
wbatancea from the ume of ,enerauon to dlspneal The law requires Nie and ■ecur-e pnadures to be used In uuuna, traNportlnC, ltor\nl, and dtapcaln& or llcwudoua ll.lbstanc19. RCRA la datped to prnentnew.WXll!Dtrolled
huardaua-lellta.
Reapoue Acdoll:
A C£RC!A-authorued action at a Superfund Ille lnVOlvtnC either a &hon-term ,.,,._, CldMln or a
lon&•tmn rwnwdlGI raportN that may Include. but la not Umtted to, the folJowln& acuvsue.,
• R~ huardoua matertala from a Ille to an EPAapproved.
llcenaed huardoua waale l'adllty for uuunent. contain 1n•, or
datNctloft.
• Contalnln& 1111 wate eafelJ on-11te to el•mtnew AU1ber problems.
• 0.troyll'I or •wane the_,,
on-,ue ualJII Uldllill'lltfGn or other technoloCJ•·
• lden11fy1n1 and l"ffllCl\'UII the aoun:e of ground-wat.,.
con1am1nauon and hallln& funher movement or the contaminanll.
• ReapoDaiwneH Summar,: A 111mma,y of oral and/or wrmen publtc commenta received by EPA during a com menr ,-""'1 on key EPA documents. and EPA's re■ponKS to those comments. The responsive-neu summary ts espectal!y valuable dunng the Record qf Dec1■1on phue at a 111e on the NOllOnal Prtortna LIii when ti htghltlhll coaunWllty cor:cerna ror EPA declaton•mallen.
R!.lk A■aeaa-t: An evaluauon performed u pan or the -.dial
1,u,esneauon to -condluona at a S~nd Ille and delfflnllle the l'lall poeed lo public halth and/or the envtnmment.
lite 1111,pecUola (II): A lechnlcal
phue that followa a JMWUlftllUU'\I
-nwnt dealped to collect -atenaaw lnfonnauon aa a
haardoua -te atte. The lnlonnatlon la uaed to 1011ft the llte With the Huard Rantl"9 S.,mm to determine whether raponas acaon
la needed
Saperfluld: The -name uaed for the C-,,lfflffl81..., !:rwtronm•ntal RaponM.
Compen■atton. and UG.IICllq, Act. a1ao re!emd to u the nwt Fund.
Sapelfluld Amelldll •11 ad lleaatllonadoa Act
(&ARAI: Modlflcauons to CERct.\ enacted on October 17, 1986.
Sl&lface Water. Bodin ol water
that are above .,-ouncs. ~ •
l"lftn. lalle■• and -
Treatmellt. Stonp, 111111 Dls,-al racwt, (TID hcllitfl: Any
bulldlftl. IINCNft, or lnllallallOn wbeft a lulmnfoul lUNCG,_ ha been treated. ltored. « dllF ,.-,_ TSO factlltle■ are rqulated by EPA and Statea \Ulder the R-CDIINPUGIIOII and R~ Act.
Trut 1'luld: A P'\.lnd eet up under the Com~MnSl&le !:nutronmffl!GI RnponN, Compmla!lml. and Ucablllll/ Act to help pay ror wanup
of huardou1 wute stt• and to take 1e1aJ action to fon:e thole reapon■

l
b
l
e

for the Ill• to clean
them up.
Volatile Orlaalc COmpoud:
An orpnlc lcarbon-contalnln&l
compound that evapontn
(volattllzesl readily at room
tempenture.
Water Pwffyor: A public uUIJty. mut\lal water company. county ..,.ter dtstnct. or mun1c1paltty tha deltven dr1nk1n& water to cuatomers.
Superfllnd Acronyms
AO -AdmlnlstnlM Order on c-tt
CD-C-een•O.C.
CERCL\-Cornprehamlve
EnVlronmental Re■ponae. Compensation, and Liability Al:t C 11180
CJl -Coaunwitty Relauona
BDD-Enl..aceu,eut Dedalllll
Doc:wnel:lt
IUtT-~!alR F • Tam
PS-,_,!blhty St\ady
llltl-Huard RanlllnC s,.um
JlfCP-Natlonal Oil and ~
Suba~ CoatJIIIGICJ Plan
NPL-Natlonal Pr1orlU. I.Ill
NltC-NatlOllal P IFIII• Cmter
NltT-Natlonal P&.p01• T-
oec -On.SC-c-dlnator
a.11-o,a.uon and Main-
ppmlppb -JiU'tl per mllllonlpU't
per bllUon
PRP-Potenually ~ Pa
PA -Pn1Un1na1J Alrncm mt
QAIQC-Qllallty~:
Control
IIOD-R-.1 c' Dedelllll
ltltT -le&lonai Reipanle Team
RA-R 111I Action
RD-Remedial o.ap
II-Remedlal lrMsUptton
IIPII -Remedtal Pn,jec:\ llanqe-.
IICRA-a-n:e Conleff&Uon , Recovery A1:t of .1978
SI-Sttelftl1leCtlelll
SARA-Superfw\d Amendment!
and Reauthorua1ton Act or 1986
TSD -Treatment, Stonae. and 0taposa1rac1111y
voe -Volattle e>raantc Compou·