NCD980729602_19960201_Jadco-Hughes_SERB C_Fact Sheets 1987 - 1996-OCR

\kl\
•lEMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIL ACTION FACT SHEET
., ·~.:}:;:-. :;:~:r:-J:::·., ; ..
·--···.. JADCO-HUGHES SUPE8F:.UND,.SIJE: :/ ·
·,.'North Belmoh('Gastori' Couhty; N~rt#'-c~1rolln~'; :.'.'\:
R~giori 4 ' . ,.:
February 1, 1996
This fact sheet is not to be considered as a technical document, but has been prepared to provide the general public with a better understanding of what
has been occurring at the Site. For more technical information, p!e~e review the documents in the infq_rmation repos~ory. ·
INTRODUCTION
The Jadco-Hughes Superfund Site it located in an
unincorporated area between the cities of Belmont and
ML.Holly on Casori Street (North.Belmont) .. The Site is
approximately six acres in size and is located in an area
of residential and industrial land use. Aerial photographs
indicate that the Site was farmland until the late· 1960s
and was subsequently used for a solvent reclamation and .
waste storage facility until 1975. The majority of the Site
is revegetated. Remnants of the facility include: a fence
(now replaced with an 8-ft high barbed wire fence), a
truck unloading area, a corforete pad, culvert and building
remnants. The Site itself is relatively flat; land south and
east is wooded and undisturbed; west is industrial; and
north is private residences.
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION .
Both the Remedial .Design (RD) and Remedial Action
(RA) Reports were submitted in 1994 for EPA approval.
After specific changes were made to the documents and
an ESD was issued, both EPA and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
approved the RD/RA in September 1995.
The Remedial Design is a blueprint of the technologies to
be used to treat the contaminated soil and groundwater.
The Remedial Action is the implementation, construction
and· operation of the treatment technologies. -The
Steering Committee representing the various responsible
parties hired the firm Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to
develop the Remedial Design and Remedial Action
reports. Bid documents were sent ourto contractors for
bid in October 1995. Metcalf& Eddy (M&E) was awarded
the contract for Site remediation on December 22, 1995.
M&E in turn selected three subcontractors to assist in the
construction of the design.
The following information is. to provide the public with
more information about these two reports, and what to
expect at the Site as activities get underway ..
Site Preparation
, .. :,:i: .:•: •. 7/ ..
• Mbilization.ior construct!on began,in,J_c!!JM~ry;:,1~~i+-1iJ:'·:.
Start up a~tiv\ties consis\~ctof cle~r\ngrgrli~~~~l~Ct~·:t./:;': .
. grad1_ng of SOIi to create clea[l,:;l~!'.el1aw~-S.i!gff.l~l;};;:'.>~~
location of temporary S_1te offices, support fac_1ht!~s?.J~~l.
and parking during the.implementation of the Rf:;:if;;if{;:;\!i/(ftt
. . -~·:~;:;" ;·:-"'-:\(;':ft.
• Obtain necessary construction and operating permits _,,. ·
from the State and city/county; get electricity, water, , l:\-:
telephone connected to the Site.
• Place granular. material on access roads and on
temporary parking area. Fence working area to
restrict entrance to'only Site.workers.
• Construct a vehicle and equipment decontamination
facility, and install a personnel hygiene facility.
• Excavate an area for clean soil to be stockpiled and
used as fill material during the treatment of soil.
• Excavate and repair damaged sections of the,Site
culvert followed by slip-lining the culvert pipe.
• Construct a precast concrete chamber at the north
end of the culvert, block the concrete culvert on the
downstream side of the chamber, and install a sump
pump.
• Excavate, place and backfill drainage line on the
southeast portion of the property, including precast
concrete manholes.
• Excavate, place and backfill yard piping and/or
carrier pipes which will connect the extraction weils
and extraction drain sump to the treatment facility,
equipped. with intermediate and terminal precast
concrete chambers.
• Installation of control and power conduits.
• Construct a groundwater extraction system within the
Site boundaries including 4 extraction wells, a
subsurface drainage tile trench to collect
contaminated groundwater, and a groundwater
collection sump in the ring of the slip-lined culvert to
collect groundwater that is discharged to the culvert.
• Construct a surface water diversion Site spillway.
• Construct a gravity drainage · line to carry,
uncontaminated . gro·undwater": from the·' spring
discharge to the Tributary B north of the former
operations area. ·
Groundwater
The treatment equipment will be housed in a small
building on-Site which will be placed on a concrete slab.
The walls of the building will co'nsist of masonry blocks
with insulation and exterior siding; a metal roof; 6-foot
double door, and an exhaust fan arid automatic iouver.
• Each incoming line from an extraction well or trench
will be metered with a magnetic flow meter.
• The extracted groundwater will be treated in an
equalization and aeration tank. The air vented from
the aeration tank will be treated by carbon adsorption.
(See diagram featured at the end of. this section}
• The water discharged from the treatment system will
be pumped through the sanitary sewer system for
treatment at. the Mt. Holly publicly owned treatment
works (POTW).
2
• • A monitoring program will be implemente'd to assess
the performance of the groundwater,. extraction,
-~ •• ' . I .,,. aeration and discharge system compqQelits.-P.eriodic
monitoring of the groundwater will, be. performed to
assure that the remedy is working. · -·
• Analytical results measuring the efficiency/effective-
ness of the remedy will be tracked.
• A Construction Health & Safety Plan will be prepared
to ensure that all remedial construction activities are .
pertormed safely and in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements, and that all persons on Site,
the general public and the environment are protected
from exposure to Site-related contaminated material
during implementation of the remedial construction
activities at the Site. ,; ( > · , -: ,-· ·
A. GROUNDWATER SYSTEM
·A[IIA~
[X~Pni:,.:~ ---1,
~ ~= •---------l
(f1JI\R)
Soil
""'""oc TO Afl.lOSf'IU!t:
1-----::g.~~t!'iv
PUOUO.l O'¥itl£ll lftl:Al\olOIT _,
Figure 1 .
The remedial design includes the installation and
operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system
which will:
• control migration of landfill contaminants toward the
groundwater, and reduce existing contaminant levels
in subsurface soils to levels amenable to subsequent
treatment via soil flushing operations.
• Treatment of soils in · the : former landfill, and
approximately 500 cubic yards'of soil from the former
· operations area will be consolidated into the former
landfill. (Site map on next page}
C;.l
-----

-
PRCP£R TY U'-IE
f()A!,l[R LANOnLL AREA
fORI.IER OPERATIONS AREA
I
I
0 50
H;;;;J
PL[O/!K PIWPrn lY
lOO!t
I
~l,',.l<IJ[5
l•fl(Jl'U~l'f
.,, <O.
c:: ro ~ 0,
E: ro u,
'5' (D
0
3
~
0,
:::J ~
0, ro 0,
0,
:::J 0.
0 .TI (D
iu ~-0, ro
?'
• The SVE system constnln includes consolidating
surplus excavated soils from the_ groundwater
·extraction system and treatment facility construction
_into a soil cap on the surface of the former landfill.
• -The design indicates that 5 lateral vapor extraction
trenches will be spaced 60 feet on center in the landfill
area. A total of 400 linear feet of trench is planned.
• Air inlet points will be established in the former landfill
area that enhance the flow of air through the soil to the
vapor extraction wells.
• Vacuum blowers will provide the driving force for both
the extraction and treatment of soil vapors. Vapors will
flow through a piping system to the blowers and from
the blowers into the granular activated carbon filter
units. (Figure 3 featured below is a diagram of the
system.)
Soil Flushing System
Soil flushing will be implemented in the former landfill area
when soil vapor extraction is no longer effective.
Construct a soil flushing -system utilizing some· of the
components of the Soil Venting Extraction (SVE) system
and installation of a soil flushing collection trench.
B. SVE SYSTEM .
SVE TRENCHES
,\·
VAPOR
UQUlO
SEPA.RATOR
TO SOIL FLUSHING
SUMP MANHOl[
Two-inch dieter perforated piping will be installed a/
. shallow depths in each of the.trenches to provide water:
-for flushing operations. It is expectect,that the VOC
content in the first 10 feet of soil. will be',i;~pstacitially
redyced by the end of the first year of operation of the soil:
vapor extraction system. The primary funcjioii _of the soil.
flushing syste'm' will be to flush voes contained in the 2-3 -
feet of soil below the 1 O foot level.
A soil flushing water collection trench will be installed
down gradient and adjacent to the former landfill area.
This collection trench will collect future "flushed" water
from the landfill area ..
Water from the soil flushing system will be supplied by the .
: main waterline on Cason Street.'-Soil flushing water will
be collected in a manhole sump and pumped to the .
. treatment facility. This sump will also collect .condensate
from the soil vapor extraction equipment.
I
I
4
.·..: .. Construction Schedule ' .. • ,· .. \
It is anticipated that construction of the groundwater
treatment system, soil vapor extraction system, and the
soil flushing system will be completed in May 1996. A .
tentative·schedule of construction activities is featured on
'the following page as Figure 4.
MIST I
flLTER I
:,·
Off-Sm:
OtSPOS~L; '.
. Figure 3
I VAPOR-PHASE I
I CARBON
AflS~PTION (s)l
CARBON
CHANG[OUT
AIR DISCHARGE
TO 0A TMOSPHERE
~-ACTIVITY
1, 1/SD',1. -OV,i.l. <:, R,i. ~I( P\.AH;
ll(MCD,i.llCII COAL \oOmC>,nON l'V.N,
, 0 A 11. ""-"N. "':«!;[!HAI. ~SI~ •
2. c~nnvc 111toHC •
.. i I'll(~~~~ ~Met.:.:·;:'•.·:: •. • i'-·
•_,4, ~~~~-~~:~~Ar:·:.'••';_',<),,
' S, SPUWAY. CUL\OIT »10 OIVJNM;( UN( • •
:: ~~~,;;:=i~,]~t~:u~ .. ;c·~:. f -.,
l'!STAU.A110N
:.l DIIJJN"-GC U<C CONSll!UCllON
ll. CJICUCIWAlO'I [XTIIAC110N S'l'STI:11 ·
1,1 UntACllON 'IICU. l<STAU.ATION
l.l tu: D1WN CONSTI!VCllON
t.J l'IPCU€ C00S11'!1JCTlON
l,4 QIKJI.H)WAT[R 011lAC110N S'1'51(11 -7, (Jl(UCIWATDI TRUTIIOIT S'r'!;TEII•
7,1 Olt!ll.lC)WAlO'I TR[ANOH !IUUllHC
CONITM.ICTION 7.l OIIO.NOWAlLII lR(AN(NT S'r'!;TEII
[°'-"""OIT ,tJC) IN$TRUWOITA110N
1HITAUA110N 7.J c;IICUC,WAltR ll't[ATl,l(MI S'r'!;ltM
COWWISSICHNC
I. 0 t, 11 ~ (REVISIONS)
I. 5011. Vl#UI. DCTRACTION S'r'!;TEII •
I.I SOI.. VN"f:A [l(lRACllON TRtH0-1
IHSTAUATION t,J SOI. V>PO#I. ['tlll;ACTION Sr.5TEII ---1.J SOI.. r:» IHSTAL.LAllON
1.4 SOI. VN'OII. OTRACTION Sr.ITEM
CcaMSSICNNC
10.SC..n.USMNOSVS'JOI•
10.1 SC.. ruJSHHO SVSTEM CCll[CnON
T1IOICH IHSTAU.AI\ON ,
10.l SC.. ntJSHINC S'l'S'IOI [()UIPYO<t
IHSTAU.ATION
11, CO<SfflVCTIOH 0.0'SC0UI U<0
DOloallATlON
U. ~ INSPCCIION R(P()RI PflEPA~ATION•
U. l!SC!'A l'Mf\N"'l·JISPCCTION •
11. IJS{j,A flHAl INSPCCTION •
15. RA J!Ol'Oilr Pll(J>IJIATl()H,
1 •. IJSC!'A "£VO! _'!,A ~[PCfll ·
11. Sff'IOI Ol'CRAIION •
·= ' CONl1NJ0US .O.CTI-.IIY
MORE INFORMATION?
" .. " " " '" "' '" ,., '" '"
. ·-1-:-' ·, ... .,. .... .
MOTE, lHIS SC>trouL.t IS TtNTAnV[ w111 l![Sf'[Cl
10 Ill[ NOIVIOU"'l [U:IIENTS IN lH( $01[DUL[.
M SO.CCltD J!OIEOl>J.. CONIRACTOIII IIAY
IIOOIN THE IH'IIRII CCU'U110N OAl[S, l'IIIOW)Cll
lHAl M OATE FOR l}t( C:OWU:TION rT 1HE
~~~ (::.1 ¾:? ~ USO'A INSPCCIICJ<S
Figure 4
om
'" '" "' "' "' "' "' "'
•·.
J
' ,, ·• •' '
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
""' "" "' m J!>7 I J1t I J65
I
,
, ..
::7i~-·;,
~.-:~~ .. ~.
If you need more information about the Site, please
contact the following:
Copies of technical documents are placed in the
information repository for public reading. The repository
is located in the:
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
..... 3~Courtlandnd_Street, N.E .....
Atlanta, GA 30364
Phone: [phone], ext. 2047 or 2073
s
Gaston Pu_blic Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
. .. _J3e!l'(lo~tJJC 28012
Phone: [phone]
'. ·.I
; I
• ·~" 1:.. .• . -:-·•:r+, •.
: -'. '; 1 ·.• ' '
' '
J I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
:Atlanta,:Ga::30365 ..:Z"i·
j ' ,,
.. ,, .-.
' l l : i
' .,
'
North Superfund Reltledlal Branch
·Diane s·arrett, Community Relations Coord.
.. :·Micha.eLToW'nsend; Remedial Project Manager
.,. . {1.~l~!:!··i:;
•
. -...
-~. . ~ ,., ,.., . -~ ,.::-u•.,• _-t J • ~.
.~~ : .., ,.. '· -~· ._ . '
... ,
".
''
:.;· ~ .u-;°, ,"l~'j•~-.~ ., • ~ ,._,,•
~-1g•.,; ,._ .. '
•• ~ ... "l",'\J'tl• "'-1 ,, ~.r.·e. ·,. ..
. ":,·:-•.·· ' ,.,,.. .. " -. ~ ~ .. ...,_ .· ..
"~~•, ,>r
·t.:.~-•.J r,,.._,,.n.• <lllf•II. I
~-~L~' -~ . .=-os:_?.0G~'~---.,
P[Nt,:.;~•
F,'JR
cr.,y,\TE
, 1~r:,;,-:r,n 00.3 2
Official BUSine'Ss·_.;.,,,-:_~,'-•:,7:·~e;r t .. •' ;,:ft.
.. ·. ·•.Penalty.for Private Use $300
S/F
RANDY ·MC EL VEEN, PROJECT
N.C. SUPERFUND SECTION
NC DEPT. OF.ENVIRONMENT,
~ NATURAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 27687
JAC00204
MGR.
HEALTH
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
6
, , I, 11-1 I,, I,, I
' !
RE(~t:IVEJ)
FEB O 8 1996
SUPEF,FUND SECT\CJri
\,il, fl,,, I, II'''', II .. , 111,,, /;,, .. I,, 1,1,,, I/,,/, I,,, f I I .. ,I
. , :~ ... ~•\i;,:;!fm ::::t~ ·t;;-'.~J~?-::r".tJr:·,•~·: ~-~;; i~·,:r:
The JADCO/Hughes Supertund Site is located on Cason
Street I in 'unin2orporated 1North'1Belmont, ·Gaston: County,
North Carolina-, ,The·Site encompasses approximately six
acres and is,situated in an ·area1oftresidential and industrial
land use. (See map forclocation)l?. •. i:.,.:
. . .~):1 .::;1~"i.~1; t;,11;ihlJff) i~I-'•
C.A. Hughes, Inc. leiised'the Site-pro'perty from John L. Fite
in 1971 and operatea:t1iii-facility,untilG1975. C.A. Hughes,
Inc. operated a· solvent recovery business, and also
accepted waste chemicals for distillation, resale, and storage
and/or disposal on the Site. In May of 1972 JADC0, Inc.
took over plant operations and continued to operate the Site
until August 1975.
The business purchased used waste paint and ink-type
solve·nts"fro~rii"a "iiioustries'~~isfiliefr'the··-rnaterials·; and'
reclaimed any usable portions for r~-sale. On the ~ide, the
company stored waste chemical sludge that.manufacturers
throughout the r~gion needed to discard.
., , , .. :A J£~i..~' 1!1~~:~p_f'f:?J'~if_'~r;~~:=" r,::~t~~~~i'.1.~~~.l}\:·iJ;tfJiJ·
In August of 1975 the State of North Carolinaioraered the
facility to cease opiirations and to remove·all ch\~'Mii:il1s·and • , ,,'<-·, ~._.,,_ ,.
drumsJrom the:Site1~A.number of businesses-w_ereJ,[nyolved .
in the transport~tion, disP,osal or -1(eatment •_ofii111aste
materials to arid;.trom the Site. EPA migqtiat~d:~j)b,the
various, firms .1( f;'ote nt_ial ly,. Responsible .P..?,rties ,( P..RPcs)). th at
had conducted.liusiness(with\laaco; lnq_'.anci'c.A, Hughes,-·
Inc. to pay for and:perfor"m the pursuing cleifn~up';i'ctions.
An Administrative.Order on Conse'nt with EPA was'a'greed
to by the various PR,Ps in September .. 1_9-86. ,-
The Remedill :; lnvestigation/Fe~~iliility -Study -was
completed in ~'ggf. · · · · ·· ' ·-' '· -· · -----
. .. ~. .
EPA issued-a
:,:;_,.Uni l:a t_e r a 1. ·
Administrative
Order in June
1991.
A Treatability
Study was
conducted in
May 1993.
PRP Steering
Committee
s u b-m i t t e d
Remedial Design
Work Plan
August 1993
Offlclai'Buslnesii ,4,q;;
Penalty for Private Use $300
.. n·; ,:tJ.{.,
•·l:•
U.S. •')H!~~i/·.•· ;•H!i .. t-----'-1 :~ .. t:2.~i_r,yy~-·---·-·•
• SUPERFUND -.Cr SHEET UPDATE HEGETVtU
NOV J 5 1993 JADCO-HUGHES SITE
SUPERFIINns1:cnoNBelmont, Gaston County, North Carolina
November 1993
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this fact sheet is to keep the public intonned, and provide an update on the status of activities that have been occurring at
the Jadco-Hughes Superfund Site since the July 1993 fact sheet update. The Potentially Responsible Parties' contractor, Conestoga-Rovers
& Associates, has conducted more investigative activities as part ot the pre-Remedial Design as well as conducted a Treatability Study on
both groundwater and soil to detennine it the selected remedies ot soil vapor extraction and groundwater pump-and-treat with activated
carbon adsorption wculd be effective. This update provides a brief report on these findings.
PRE-REMEDIAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES
The scope of the pre-Remedial Design investigative activities
inclt.ded the following:
a geophysicaVmagnetometer survey was completed in April
1993 of the northern portion of the Site to supplement the
subsurface investigations that were completed during the
Remedial Investigation in this Area and the geophysical
survey completed in the southern portion of the Site (9/90).
A geophysical survey is similar to radar in it's purpose to
determine what is in the distance that you cannot see, or
similar to a depth finder in indicating what is beneath the
surface of the water to a specific depth. The survey
determined that it is unlikely that there are any buried metal
objects such as drums or other containers in the area;
an analyses of one round of groundwater samples from
existing monitoring wells as part of the initiation of the
groundwater monitoring program to verity Remedial
Investigation data for the Remedial Design, and to assess
the impact of silts and sediments on metals concentrations
in groundwater analyses;
the installation of five additional monitoring wells and six
piezometers to characterize groundwater chemistry and
aquifer hydraulics, and to establish the Site sentry monitoring
system required by the selected remedy for the Site.
[Piezometers are small-<liameter, non-pumping wells used to
measure the elevation of the water table and rate of water
flow in an aquifer]; and
analyses of one round of groundwater samples from the new
monitoring wells to characterize groundwater chemistry and
aquifer hydraulics, and to confirm the vertical extent of
groundwater contamination.
The results of both groundwater and soil sampling taken during
this pre-Remedial Design phase, for the most part, confirms the
existence of pollutants discovered during sampling efforts of the
Remedial Investigation in 1990.
RESULTS OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
A ·treatability study" is normally a small scale test of a treatment
system either in a laboratory (bench scale) or on site (pilot) where
small quantities of the contaminated soil/groundwater are run
through the system to. detennine it the treatment method will
acccmplish the clean up goals set in the Record of Decision.
Groundwater: Utilizing the more common commercial extraction,
aeration and aGuvated carbon adsorption treatment process tor
groundwater proved to be successful (96%) in removing the
majority of volatile organic compounds (YOCs). ·Figure 1 below
is a generic illustration of how a groundwater pump-and-treat
system might be set up; Figure 2 illustrates the groundwater and
voe offi)as flow through a generic pump-and-treat system.
{f,";, CJ Gel !'ill:al Bel <>----..-=~
.,..._ -..., ._,. ...,...... -·
\\'atcr
From
Extraction
Wells
E1111.ilization
Tank
Figure 1
\'(IC
<HT-(;as
Treatment
Figure 2
( :arhon ,\fhorplinn
llnit To
Atmosphere
lfo;char~c to POTW
Soll: The soil vapor extraction (S.stem was set up on Site
as a pilot study in the former landfill area, and was conducted to
determine operational characteristics, desig, the off-gas treatment
system and to assess the effectiveness of this technology. The
pilot study was completed in April 1993 and the results
documented in the August :1993 Preliminary Design -Report·,;'{:
provided to EPA by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. Six tests •·.·.
were conducted of the SVE system with adjustments being made
during each testing period. to fine rune the system in achieving
maximum efficiency. Based upon the positive resuits of ttiese
tests, an effective SVE design can be developed and
implemented at the Site during the Remedial Action step of the .
Superfund process:" Fearured below is a schematic of the SVE '"
pilot system which was tested at the Jadco-Hughes Site. __ ,. ·. • ··-·. ,. :·. ,. -:: •; .o'.c' .,.:_ , •.
· . The SVE sys.s known to be. very effective in removing
volatile organic compounds from the soil.. Some ol the volatile
organic compounds detected during the SVE testing are:
Acetone . 2-Butanone
1, 1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane
·· .. ·, Ethyl Benzene'; '.f. · · ·. -Methylene Chloride'
. 4-Meth~-2-Penianone 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane •· · ·
Tetrachloroethane Toluene'
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane _ 1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethane . Total Xylenes'
['These were the predominant . volatile organic
encoimierad during the study.) . ,,:; .. ,.; .. , .. -
compounds.,·
For more detaikld and 'tech~ical site inio!'rnaticin contact: •...
•·· Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Mgr. ... North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
TO A IMOSPH[lf[ U.S.E.P .A., Region 4
rROu
TRENCH
,CR4
SAUPL(
POfllS
LC ----------------,
WA T[R TO ~~ GAUON OllUU
PI -PRESSURE INDICAT~
Tl -T[UP(RATIJRE"ll<!OICATOR
LC -LEVEL CONTRCU£R · .,
FIT -now INOICAllNO TRANSMITTER
FCV -now CONTROl..·V""-YE
PS\/ -PRESSURE AND VAa.JUM
RELIEF. VAJ.\ot ;
. Pictured below)s·a iypicai ·svE trench constructio~:· _
CAA
LII.IIT Of
EXCAVATION
"'" SIJf!fAC[
CCU,t.R
S\/E PILOT SYSTE~ JADCO-HUCHES S1TE
345 Courtland Stree~ NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
or visit the information repository which houses the
variious documents developed during the Superfund
process at:
Gaston County Public Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
Belmont, North Carolina 28012
Phone: [phone]
To be added to or deleted from the S~e mail list or to
express concern, please contact:
Diane Barrett, Community Relatiions Coordinator
· [at the EPA address indicated above]
2: I r.RAOE
TYPICAL SVE TRENCH CONSTRUCTION
JADCO-HUGHES SITE
' •' • SUPERFUND !er SHEET UPDATE
JADCO-HUGHES
July 11/93 Belmont, Gaston County, North Garo/ins
INTRODUCTION
The Region IV Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of North Carolina initiated
a Superfund site investigation in 1983 at the Jadco-Hughes facility. Based upon the results of that investigation, the
site was proposed for the National Priorities List and was finalized on that list in May 1986. The following is a flow
chart of the major stages of the Superfund process which is lengthy and involved. Many factors effect the length of
completion of all of the stages. As of this date we are in the Remedial Design stage. Once the designs have been
completed, actual construction can begin on site and the treatment process can get underway.
l!ilTt•
Dl•oov--y
NPL
Ll..t.lng
~la.I ~•Tblll'C.Y I----I nv-t. 1 oat. 1 onl-----{ 11t ucty
Pub I le: R.cord
Coonnom. o~ 0-.C:T•Ton 1--.-{
~,.1
0.-lgn
Ren.dial
A.ct. ran
BRIEF SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The Jadco-Hughes site is a six-acre, unincorporated
area of North Belmont, approximately 12 miles west of
Charlotte. (See Figure 1) The Site was originally a
chemical storage and recovery facility which began in
1971 operated by C. A. Hughes, Inc., and was later
leased to Jadco, Inc. in May of 1972. The business
purchased used waste paint and ink-type solvents
from area industries, then recycled the products to
recover any useable portions for resale. Over one
thousand 55iJallon drums containing many waste
chemicals were stored on Site as well as waste
chemical sludges resulting from the distillation process
of the on-site recycling operation. Due to numerous
spills and complaints by surrounding residents, and an
order from the State of North Carolina for the business
to cease operations, the Site closed in September of
1975. In addition, the State ordered the faciiity to be
cleaned up. From 1975 to 1978 Jadco, Inc. and C.A.
Hughes, Inc. complied with orders to clean up the Site
by removing most of the drums, burying contaminated
earth and debris in an on-site landfill located in the
southwest comer of the property which was covered
with clean soil and revegetated with grass, two in-
ground pits into which solvents were placed were
excavated. During 1983, the large storage tanks, and
a mobile tanker and eight remaining drums were
removed from the Site. The Site today is void of
buildings/structures and only the concrete foundations
remain. The EPA conducted site investigations in
1983 to determine the extent of contamination in
suriace water, sediment, and groundwater.
EPA conducted negotiations with the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and an Administrative
Order on Consent was agreed to by EPA and the
PRPs in September 1986 in which they agreed to
conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (commonly known as the RI/FS). Jadco-Hughes
submitted their work plan for conducting the RUFS
which was approved on September 27, 1988. A
NOTE TO READERS, any time the potentially
responsible parties conduct any work related to the
Superiund process, EPA overviews their activities.
~
I I ; \l O 50 1000
1 I 1
1
" I LJ...J===J
---,;=,'==-'<=====----===-~'±i==-=-=-=-== =~:;;;,,:;==;;:;:;,;;:;::;:=.:~~=======+-==:;1---Ll:_ CASON STREET s.R. Z0J5
CAA
2~27-15/02/90-12-0
10.DO!I C>J
SIUt>CE UJ<~S
-•.000 GAl
t:I.QJI.S..:._
1. CO...,POS!Tt AREAS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOCRAPHS
DATED F(ORUARY 12, 1968, 1-AARCH 17. 1959, ,.i,.NO NOVEMBER 18, mo~ lHE USEPA DOCU!J[HT "SIT[ M<ALYSIS -JAOCO-HUGH[S,
NORlH BELMONT, NORTH CAROUNA", OATID DECEMBER 19B5.
S TOIVGE UJIK~
1975
2. THE LOCA TIOllS Atm uwrs OF ALL FEATURES SHOWN ARE APPROXHAA TL
J l.{lCA Tl()tl Of" TAMKS AJ/0 (OUIPMEl/f DAS[D ON
511[ f.lAP (flQM GASTOU r.outnY OSH Fll[S (Ut/lJAIED).
GEOPtlYSICAL DA TA ANOMOUES fOOUO HEAR
·u1~10HJT1Fl(O' AREAS AllO MOOILE TAIIK l.OCAnON
-------···-·-------ni&rr~·. --·
LEGEND
PROPERTY UNE
UGHT STANDARD
COMPOSITE AREAS
~
CJ
r.= =
POSS!6L£ GROUNOSTAINS AND/OR
ST ANDING UOUIOS
ORUIJ ANO/OR OPEN STOOAG£ AREAS
DEBRIS STORAGE: AND/OR fill. AREAS
DRUM ANO/OR OPEN STQRAG( AREAS
NOVEMBER 16, 1975
APPflOXlMA TE LIMITS OF LANOflLL
APf'ROXIMA TE LIMITS OF FORMER sOUTI➔ O(CANT PIT
"PPROXlt.lAT( Ut.llT:', Of FORMER NOfHH DECANT PIT
HISTORICAL SITE FEATURES
JADCO-HUGHES SITE
Gaston County, NC
The Re.medial Investigation is t'8xtensive, in-depth
study of the air, soil, sediment, surface water, aoo
groundwater to determine what contaminants are in
the various media as well as the quantity, depth, and -
how fai each as spread.' The Feasibility Study
establishes criteria for cleaning up the various
contaminants; identifies preliminary treatment
methods/alternatives; supports the technical and cost
analyses of ttie alternatives, and how practical,
'.effective arid ' efficient ttie ::methods would be for
;freating the various contaminants of concern'.
. '.;,_ ~-.: i ·.:·_' .:':
S6me of the chemicals or chemical classes found at
the Site are: xylene, toluene, acetone, hexane,
methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl
ketone, heptane, alcohol ethers, petroleum ethers, oil,
hydrocarbon , fuels, lacquers, lacquer thinners,
hydraulic fluids, solvents, paint removers and thinners,
"cleaning solutions", water and oil mixtures, water
soluble coolants, paints, paint-by-products, paint wash,
greases, vegetable oils, ethyl acetate, chlorinated
solvents, benzene, phenol and derivatives, ethylene
glycol, soluble, and insoluble glue wastes, isobutyl
alcohol, varnishes, and various finishes. Records
indicate that 500 pounds of magnesium was also
stored on Site.
Once the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
were completed, the Agency prepared a Proposed
Plan in July 1990 informing the public of the findings
of these two activities. A public meeting was held on
July 26, 1990, to provide citizens with a more detailed
presentation of the data of what had been discovered
at the Site, what the Agency was proposing to do, aoo
to provide the public with an opportunity to ask
questions and state their concerns. After the 30-<lay
comment period ended on August 24, 1990, a review
was conducted of all comments received aoo
documents developed during the process concerning
treating contamination at the Site. A Record of
Decision was prepared and signed on September 27,
1990, selecting the preferred treatment remedies. The
selected remedies were: soil vapor extraction and soil
flushing for treating the contaminated soil; extraction of
groundwater and treatment by carbon adsorption aoo
once the contamination is removed from the
groundwater it would be discharged into a local
publically owned treatment works (POTW). There are
~o POTWs ~he area: Belmont aoo Mt. Holly.
However, the City of Belmont's POTW would require
upgrading before it could accept the additional treated
water from the Site because the facility is already
operating at full capacity. The Potentially Responsible
Parties are presently negoiiating with the City of Mt.
Holly for permission to discharge the treated
groundwater to their POTW. If the pretreated
groundwater cannot be released into a POTW, it would
be · ireated by Ultra Violet-Oxidation· and then
discharged into the tributary that flows into Fites
Creek. ·
Surface water presently draining across the Site will be
diverted to avoid continued contamination by surface
soil.
Since that time, all of the behind-the-scene activities
have been occurring. First, lengthy negotiations with
the Potentially Responsible Parties were conducted in
order to reach an agreement with. them for them to
design the selected alternative and assume
responsibility for costs. The period of negotiations
ended on May 30, 1991. Since no agreement was
reached, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
against the Potentially Responsible Parties in June
1991 ordering them-to conduct the Remedial Design
and Remedial Action stages of the process. Since
issuance of the Order, the Potentially Responsible
Parties have been working on the Remedial Design
stage aoo conducting additional field work. A
Treatability Study of the "soil vapor extraction" remedy
was conducted in May 1993, as well as bench scale
treatability work on the selected groundwater remedy.
EPA is awaiting the results of the treatability studies
before the full-scale treatment is implemented.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REHEDIES
For soil remediation a combination of soil vapor
extraction aoo soil flushing were s·elected. The soil
contamination at this Site has been found to be largely
organic in nature. Placing air vents into the ground at
strategic points and forcing air into the ground would
force a separation of organic compounds from the soil.
The contaminated air stream corning from the air vents
would then be filtered through activated carbon units
to purify the air before discharge into the atmosphere.
The carbon units function • like the carbon filter
used in aquariums. Soil flushing is similar. to vapor
extraction in that water is forced into the soil through
infiltration wells. This contact of water with soil
transfers contamination from soil to water. The
contaminated water is then collected for treatment.
This. technology would require concurrent operation
with a groundwater extraction system,
·-. ·,.
For groundwater, the selected remedy was to extract
and treat contamination in the groundwater by an
activated carbon adsorption process. Extraction wells
and a tile drain system will be placed at designated
locations either in or around the plume of
contamination, and the groundwater will be pumped
r.
out of the .nd. This water will then flow through
pipes into a treatment system containing carbon
adsorption units which will remove the contaminants.
The treated groundwater will either be discharged into
a local POTW or into the tributary adjacent to the
pr~rty.
· Monitoring of both treatment processes ai°lhe Site will
be conducted on a quarterly basis, as well as a·review
of the groundwater treatment system performed every
five years. A copy of the .Record of Decision signed
on September 27, 1990, and all oiher pertinent
documents are available in the information repository
located in the Gaston County Public Library.
l
Gaston County Public Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
Belmont, North Carolina 28012
Phone: [phone]
Hours: Monday -Friday: 9:00 AM • 6:00 PM
Saturday: 9:00 AM -1:00 PM )
Sundav: Closed r I
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
Please contact the following people for Information about Stte activities or to be added to the mailing list:
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager
or, Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Supertund Remedial Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
• •
If you are not already on our malling 11st or know of someone that would llke to receive more information
about the Jadco-Hughes Site, please complete the lonn below and return to Diane Barrett, Community
Relations Coordinator, at the address given on the preceedlng page. Thanks for your interest.
NAME-----------------------------
ADDRESS __________________________ _
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE ·-----------------------
AFFILIATION (If any) ________________________ _
• •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345-Courtland Street, N.E.
North Supertund Remedial Branch · '"' ,v··,·1-·• -' I' c I' • ~----··-..._ ! .. :.\::).'.._)i··r· l.,1,t\L \11,•. L
Diane Barrett, Convm11lty RelatlOI\S Coord;Y--A_ "".;-, ,--::·" 00 ,. r 1.-,--,·
Micha•' T ••-•••• Remedl I Pr ,.,.. Offl' , I , '.:'""' i IJ.o.. 0 I U, !' Region -4 Atianta, Georgia 30365
1fflclal Business
·enalty tor Private Use $300
.,, o .. ,.....,,.., a o,.,.,. cer )' .... . ,.
; ,\ii(; -?' 'J:; ;.;,·-.·:.-! ~ : · \ ;11~~ :~:-.:::,; :: n ;_:;-c, :: i~
S/F JACU0013
JACK ~UTLER, CHIEF
SPECIAL PROJECTS 8RANCH
NC OEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH &
NATURAL R~SOURCES
P. O. l>UX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
l':::l~.J
• •
@~f!J'~··,·
; ~~-~---·-·-~··-:···--:-:·~~ ·:,
, M~riday, October 5, 1992'
• •
~~-g) sr..,,.~6) SUPERFUND UPDATE
0 ft 0
~ _ ~ Fact ·sheet
\ ~ ' ~' JADCO-HUGHES SUPERFUND SITE .,l. PR~~ Gaston County, North Carolina
REGION IV June 1991
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 \vas published in the Record Of
Decision (ROD), September 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. ·
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 .A. .. ction 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
-ihliiii@&-41 ii&&► COMMUNITY RELATIONS i ewes+s&&\¥&13115 iiifli.t
•
1971 to 1975 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 CONTAMINANTS 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 197 5. 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
•
1.-·-·-·-·-~---'.-. ·-·-· 'Cl'affyVllle ..
:, • ,. -9lanlty
• . ~ ·--. 0
' . -t .
"'\ Dal~ . Mt. Hol~
· \ Beuema, JAOCO-!
\ •• Cltyo e . . HUGHes>' I
GASTON I Gastonia Be o t ;o
COUNTY l \ ___________ _
soil was consolidated and covered with clean
soils and revegetated in an on-site landfill lo-
cated in the southwest comer of the Site in
1978. Additionally, the remaining large
storage tanks, a mobile tanker, and eight
remaining drums were removed in 1983.
· 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 Superfund process is to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). EPA negotiated with the various
fmns 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 Rl/FS. The Remedial Investigation was
completed in the Summer of 1990. The RI
confmned 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.
2
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 RJ/FS are available to the public in the
Gaston County Public Library Repository. A
public meeting to present a summary of the
RJJFS 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-
_ --PFIQPCRl'f U"f
---PAOPOSCD POIM-.NOH f'EMCE
-* -

-
.. -~~ I[MP()A.-.Rl' Jl:t.CE
•
couraged to review the proposed remedies and
respond to EPA.
'EPA prepared aR~ord of Decision (ROD) .
taking into consideration comments from the ..
public and the results of the RJJFS: The ROD
(available to the public in the Gaston County
Public Library"Repository) specified the '
Remedial Action selected for the Jadco-
Hughes Site.
:loO 100rt
L---
I -•
I .. 0 . . '
L--•----•---~•----•----•-J
I
3.
•
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 (POTW), 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 Sdil 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 d_oes_ 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. Jf 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 to $50,000 to one incorporated, non-profit ..
citizen comments/concerns and established an group at a site to"hire technical advisors to
information repository at the Gaston County help them understand existing information .. _ .. ''"
Public Library. The repository contains all'· ·· and information developed during the Super-. • : •
relevant site documents prepared during this -' fund cleanup process. There are certain . . .
process which are available for public review.•· · criteria a group must meet in order to be
As part ofEPA's responsibility and commit-eligible to receive this grant. For more infer-•
ment under the Superfund process, com-mation about this grant, please contact Ms.
munity relations activities will continue for Denise Bland in the EPA Region IV Atlanta
the duration of the cleanup process through pe-. · office at [phone].
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 th~ir 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 1, we are in the final siages 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:
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 JV
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]
•
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]
Mailing List Addition
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
•
ing concern over areas where leaching agricul-
.. tural or industrial pollutants or substances
: • ·• ·.::c::;:· ·.:·:.::: : .. · ··::::c: .:· --·:: ·.-c·.:. ·cc·:·::··· · ··· :c·c:· , .. from leaking underground storage tanks are
Admm1strabve Or,der on Consent (AOC) -· .. · : contaminatin · undwa r .... · .. . . .. , . . . : .
A legal and enforceable agreement signed be,. , g gro te · · · ,
tween EPA.and .potentially responsible parties·:
(PRPs) whereby PRPs agree to perform or ·
pay the cost of site cleanup. The agreement . , ...
· Information Repository -A file containing
current information, technical reports, and ref-.
erence documents regarding a S uperfund site.
The information repository is usually located ... · _ 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-
.·· · in a public building that is convenient for; ..
local residents --such as a public sch~ol, city
hall, or library. 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 S uperfund 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
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 administnltive 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; arid 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. GE:lRGIA 30365
OFFIC:AL BUSINESS
PENAL TY FOR PRIVATE USE. 5300
Nort~ Remedial Superfund Br.
•
\.AV US.OFFICIAL ~-~/\IL• /"\ . .16' r-----'---..;; •
.,~ .,, 'ENALTV !' u S.PiJSfAGE 1. ·a;, t JUNl8'91 •nJVATE 1• '" "" :::: 0 2 9 :: ,. ~ • I ~ • ~ GP..-n.·.1nrRj :11
6091083 • -·•-----·---
.. • • ,.JUL1U1990
SlJPERFUND UPDATE---------
~~w sr,.,.<'.s, JADCO HUGHES SUPERFUND SITE
,· ~ ·i EP' A GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
~ ~1~-} fl.
~(PRQ,~e,,._-P RegionN ---------July 1990
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
Introduction
The Region IV Office of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared
this Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP)
fact sheet as part of its Superfund responsibili-
ties. This fact sheet describes the Remedial
Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
findings and the proposed plan for cleaning up
contamination at the Jadco-Hughes Superfund
Site. Gaston County, North Carolina. This fact
sheet identifies the three remedial measures
EPA considered as well as the preferred alter-
native and the rationale for its selection. In ad-
dition, the fact sheet provides a brief back-
ground and history of the site, and identifies
ways in which the public may become involved
in the corrective process at the Jadco-Hughes
SI!e.
Words highlighted in bold print are defined in
the glossary on page eight and nine of this fact
sheet. A list of acronyms appears on page
seven.
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
1971 to 1975 and later leased to Jadco, Inc.
until operations were suspended and conse-
quently ended in 1975. Aerial photography
indicates that the facility was active as early
as 1969. During its operation, the site re-
claimed used waste paint and ink-type sol-..
vt:nts. It also stored drummed materials con-
sisting of many waste chemicals and chemical
waste sludges.
The State of North Carolina ordered the site to
be closed in 197 5 after complaints by neigh-
boring residents and many spills between
1971 and 1975. In addition, the State ordered
PUBLIC MEETING ON RI FINDINGS
Public Meeting
for the
Jadco Hughes
Superfund Site
A public meeting will be held to present results of the Remedial
Investigation for the Jadco Hughes Supertund site. _The purpose
of the meeting is to p-ovide lhe community 'Mth an opportunity to
discuss the site status with representatives from EPA. Urx;oming site
activites wiii also be discussed.
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
ADDRESS:
· Thursday, July 26, 1990
7:30 p.m.
Catawba Heights Elementary School
101 School Drive, Belmont, NC
[phone]
.r. the facility to be cleJlip.and, along with
EPA, pursued proper management of the
cleanup under existing State and Federal laws.
Reponedly, the cleanup included the excava-
tion of two in-ground pits into which solvents
were placed. Also, on-site contaminated
surface soil was consolidated and covered in
an on-site landfill located 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
1983.
In 1983, the EPA initiated a Superfund site
investigation. This investigation analyzed
surface water, sediment, and ground-water
samples. The data collected were evaluated
using the Hawrd Ranking System (HRS).
The resulting HRS score was 42.00 and re-
flected the potential for ground-water and
surface water contamination. As directed by
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund), EPA placed the
Jadco-Hughes site on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in 1986.
EPA negotiated with the various firms that had
conducted business with Jadco, Inc. and C.A.
Hughes, Inc. to perform the RI/FS. In Septem-
ber 1986, an Administrative Order on Con-
sent was agreed upon by EPA and the poten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs). The ad-
ministrative order outlined the terms under
which EPA would allow the PRPs to conduct
the RI/FS.
Results of the Remedial Investigation
During the RI, EPA identified contamination
present in surface water, sediment, soil, and
groundwater using a variety of sampling tech-
niques and ground-water monitoring wells.
The principal site contaminants include vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs), extractable
organic compounds which are sometimes
referred to as BNAs; polychlorinated biphen-
yls (PCBs), and metals. Areas of soil contami-
nation include the landfill, former operations
area, the former nonh and south solvent pits,
and the southeast swale area of the site. The
presence of VOCs was detected in the soil of
the operations area as well as the pits. The
southeast swale area was found to be contami-
nated with PCBs in the top three to ten inches
of soil.
Page 2
Ground-watLples revealed that on-site
ground-water contamination was also present
and included VOCs, BNAs, and some metals.
In the area immediately surrounding the site,
ground-water monitoring wells showed con-
centrations of the principal contaminants.
Testing of residential wells 100 to 1,000 feet
downgradient of the site found contamination
but at levels below drinking water standards.
The ground water is believed to be migrating
in a nonherly direction from the site.
The RI also identified surface water contami-
nation by VOCs. This may be the result of
surface water runoff from the site and/or the
discharge of contaminated groundwater to the
on-site culven and to tributaries of Fites Creek.
The RI confirmed that the buried culven on-
site is damaged.
Risk Assessment uio
As a result of the RI of the J adco Hughes site,
EPA has concluded that the major risk to
public health and the environment would result
from ingestion of contaminated ground water.
The extension of the public water line was
installed to provide an alternate water supply
to potentially, affected residences. This water
line extension was provided by local officials.
For further information on the risks posed by
the contamination at the Jadco Hughes site can
be found in the Feasibility Study, Superfund
Risk Assessment and the Risk Assessment Fact
Sheet at the information repository listed on
page 7.
Remedy Selection
EPA evaluated the remedy for the Jadco-
Hughes site based upon the following primary
objectives:
• Overall protection of human health and
the environment
• Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility or
volume through treatment
• Shon-term effectiveness
• JADCO -HUGHES s'uPERFU, SITE
FORMER MOBILE
TANKER LOCATION
LANDFILL AREA
1--l!J w a: lii· z 0 (/)
<(
()
POSSIBLE BURIED
DRUMS-----1--JLJ
N
CONCRETE PAD
SPRING
FORMER BULK STORAGE
TANKS LOCATION
FORMER LOCATION OF
DISTILLATION EQUIPMENT
0 100 200 --L--I SCALE IN FEET
,-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·
\, ~herryvllle ~'>,. Stanley
• ~ 0
' -? ''\ Dallas
• 0
· \ Bessemer
• Cltyo '· GASTON I
COUNTY j
• Gastonia
ML Holly
0
JADCO-X I,'
HUGHES s
0 g
Be ont ;xi
l-·-·-·-·-·-·
Page 3
•
•
•
Implementabil~
Cost
State acceptance, and
• Community acceptance.
Interim Remedial Measures
Before the permanent remedial measures
begin, the PRP has proposed interim remedial
measures for removing PCB contaminated soil
that have been approved by. the EPA. Access
to the site will be limited by an 8-foot high
chain link fence and locked gates at the pe-
rimeter of the site. A temporary fence will be
constructed next to the property _to the east
until PCB re-ation has been completed.
PCB contaminated surface soil having concen-
trations greater than 10 mg/kg will be removed
from the southeast swa!e area of the site. The
contaminated soil may be transported off-site
for secure disposal or incineration.
Summary of the Remedial Alterna-
tives
The PRPs proposed eleven potentially practical
remedial alternatives for the Jadco-Hughes
Site. EPA and the responsible parties then
used a screening process to evaluate the poten-
tially practical remedial alternatives, which
were outlined in the Feasibility Study for the
Jadco-Hughes site. The evaluations examined
the effectiveness of such technologies as land
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL/ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
To understand the enforcement process, tt is
necessary to understand the Superfund reme-
dial process, which happens concurrently.
Under the remedial program, EPA takes long-
tenn cleanup actions to stop or substantially
reduce releases or threats of releases of
hazardous substances that are serious but not
immediately me-threatening. Removal actions -
-shcrt-tenn actions intended to stabilize or
clean up a hazardous incident or stte that poses
an immediate threat to human health or wettare
or the environment --may be taken at any point
in the remedial process.
The remedial process begins wtth a Preliminary
AssessmenUSite Inspection (PNSI). This
usually is conducted by the State, to determine
whether the stte poses a potential hazard sig-
ntticant enough to warrant further study and
investigation.
The stte is then ranked using the HRS, a nu-
merical ranking system used to identtty the
stte·s potential hazard to the environment and
public health. Sites assigned an HRS score of
Page 4
28.5 or above are added to the NPL.
Next, a RI is oonducted to assess the extent and
nature of the oontamination and the potential
risks. In conjunction wtth the RI, a FS is pre-
pared to examine and evaluate various remedial
attematives.
Following a public comment period on EPA's
preferred alternative and the draft FS report,
EPA chooses a specific cleanup plan and
outlines the chosen remedy in the Record of
Decision (ROD).
Once the Remedial Design (RD) (which includes
engineering plans and specttications) is com-
pleted, the actual stte cleanup, or Remedial
Action (RA) can begin. After RD/RA activities
have been completed, the stte is monttored to
·ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup. Certain
measures require ongoing operation or periodic
maintenance. This is called the operation and
maintenance phase.
disposal, soil treatme.ater treatment, and
physical containment. Of the eleven alterna-
tives, three remedial alternatives were identi-
fied as possible response actions for addressing
the contaminated sediment/soil and ground
water/surface water at the site. Each of the
three alternatives for remedial action at the site
is briefly summarized below, Further explana-
tion of the alternatives may be found in the FS,
a copy of which is located in the Administra-
tive Record at the information repository.
Alternative 1 -No Action
CERCLA requires that the no-action alterna-
tive be considered. This alternative is included
to provide the basis for comparing existing site
conditions with conditions that would result
after the implementation of the other proposed
alternatives. The no-action alternative assumes
that the site cleanup completed in 1983 and the
interim remedial actions proposed by the PRPs
are adequate responses to the conditions
existing at the site. Under the no-action alter-
native, no measures would be taken to address
the leaching of contaminants from the soil to
ground water. The contaminated ground water
would continue to migrate from the site as well
as potentially discharge into the tributaries of
Fites Creek.
Alternative 2 -Soil Vapor Extraction and Soil
Flu shin&, Groundwater Extraction, Treatment
and Dischar&e (Three Various Dischar&e
Options, Deed/Access Restriction, Culvert
Removal. Surface Water Diversion, and Moni-
.1.Qij_ng
This alternative would involve the construction
of a soil vapor extraction (SVE). and a soil
flushing system of the landfill and the former
operations area. This system operates by
installing vertical vents into the contaminated
soil above the water _table. Air is then forced
through one set of vents and vacuumed
through the soil. The extracted air would be
filtered through an activated carbon adsorp-
tion system. Uncontaminated water would be
flushed through the soil and collected by a
drainage system. The collected water would be
treated in a ground-water treatment system.
Ground-water extraction for the site would use
extraction wells located in areas of significant
ground-water contamination. The ground-
water treatment system would remove volatile
organics from the ground-water stream. After
VOC concentrations are reduced, the water
would be dis.ged. Three discharge options
are presented within this fact sheet.
Additional remedial components include deed
and access restrictions, culvert removal, sur-
face water diversion, and monitoring. Deed re-
strictions prevent or restrict the use of the
property and make prospective purchasers
aware of the property's history. Access restric-
tion to the site involves building a fence
around the property to prevent trespassing.
The removal of the culvert will eliminate
ground-water discharge to the tributary via the
culvert. The final remedial component in-
cludes monitoring programs for ground water
and surface water.
The Present Worth Cost of Alternative 9 is
$4,715,900.*
Alternative l I -On-Site Soil Incineration.
Groundwater Extraction. Treannent and Dis-
char&e, Deed/Access Resnictions, Culvert Re-
moval. Surface Water Diversion, and Monitor-
mg
This alternative combines the same ground-
water remedial measures, deed/access restric-
tions, culvert replacement, and monitoring as
identified in Alternative 9 with on-site incin-
eration and replacement of the soils from the
landfill and former operations area. The
difference between the two alternative reme-
dies is the method for decontaminating the soil
and sediments. To decontaminate the soil and
sediment under this alternative, a Circulating
Bed Combustor (CBC) or an equivalent tech-
nology would be used to perform on-site
incineration. The on-site incinerator woul.d
burn organic compounds at temperatures
greater than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit Before
using the decontaminated soil as backfill for
the site, the soil would be tested for metals
concentrations to determine whether it is
suitable for use as backfill. Monitoring of
surface and ground water will also be con-
ducted.
The Present Worth Cost of Alternative 11 is
"$8,305,900. *
Page 5
* Costs identified are rough estimates and are provided for a comparative basis
Discharge Optiontl
1.
2.
Local·POT\V
Adjacent Stream
3. On-site Infiltration
Preferred Alternative and Rationale
for Selection
EPA has selected Alternative 9 as the preferred
method to clean up site contamination. The
preferred alternative will be implemented
through the use of soil vapor extraction and
soil flushing, groundwater extraction and
treatment and discharge, deed/access restric-
tion, culvert removal, surface water monitor-
ing, and monitoring. The rationale for select-
ing Alternative 9 includes:
•
•
Page 6
Consistent with National Contingency
Plan a~ well as Section 121 of
CERCLA
Proven technology
Achieves applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, commonly
• • • known as ARARs, and
• Cost effective alternative .
Community Role in the Selection
Process ·
As required by CERCLA, EPA involves the
public in the Superfund process. Before select-
ing a remedial alternative, EPA will consider
written or oral comments on the proposed plan
from July 26, 1990 through August 24, 1990.
Written comments on the RI/FS and the pro-
posed plan can be submitted to:
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
All public comments &e recorded and
responded to in the Responsiveness Summary
section of the Record of Decision (ROD)· for
the Jacko Hughes site. The ROD is a legal
decision document, prepared by EPA, which
identifies the remedial action for the site. The
ROD also describes the alternatives considered
and the the rationale for selecting the chosen
remedy. The selection of remedy will be made
after full consideration of all public comments
on the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, and will
be documented in the ROD:
Community groups interested in interpreting
the technical information presented in the
RlJFS and other studies may be eligible for one
grant of up to $50,000 in Federal funds. The
purpose of the grant is to provide technical
assistance for community residents seeking to
understand site documents.
Copies of the RIJFS and other information
used in the the remedy seiection process are
part of the Administrative Record for the site.
The Administrative Record will be available to
the public no later than July 23, 1990 at the
information repository, which has been estab-
iished at the following location:
Gaston County Public Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
Belmont, NC 28012
Page 7
• •
. •·t<••c;LdsSARY r•••)•)•.•··••·• · ..
(ti•Bal\l!fllBfl ••••\·•tto•.11.•·pu91ic:•cofufu~Q!.~d%1, A•••• >··•·•·•··
lf■Blliil■fli \T(a•sui,ertuoo·s1ietU•·•tr>·•·
J1lZ~~I~~g~10~~~0t§~@lR1i: ~~~WJH~)¢&M~h~ii~~\I~H~ J/!Ji1iw ~~.,eg~2Eiit x
... Federal law assed iiii980arnJ modified ii'i1986 b • tlie su· iiunaAmeridments and /
• ft,~ti~2!~~~~i~t~:~~\~~~~~i1rlJ~f~t~f ~jf;~iiii!K~~~~~~) I •·• hazardous.'faste•·§.itesi•••·Ypder•.ti1~•.Progr1l.fll;••.E.PA..•.<:ary··13ither:.·•••1.J••pa'f.for.§i\9 .. pieanup•·'1.h~r··•••••••t>••·•••••• ···•········•·•pa1ies.respo·~·Sit/le .. fp(~·coniarj).inatio6 carfoo.t·b.eiiocai~Q[af13yniHti.~g•prunii\Jie.to.•peij§m1
·•.\•·••··· ~1!t~.tair6~c\tttf~~:rtf ~1yi~~,n1ti~i~~i}'~l}~ij~✓~1(Gfuination to•·c1ean•.·up .the
······•·••·•······boii~gr~dfe.ni:•\60Wni!fua~f~rr)•t~Ji1a{8•·•··••·•···•·•··•·•·•······ .... ·•.•········•··•·•·····•·•···············•·······•·· ............... i.
••·L··•··•··•fiow t~e·. same .way tt\~(i.tdoes •. iif ari~•rs .fki:.V !1!Jll}Tilltf'¾&liffi!flflil't
~~~~!~,~~:1!:;~1~111,J~l!i~~im!8~!~l!1~~,i~~~~IJl;iltii~i1ii }
/ i J rust Fund)Ttiefisfis based iforri~rHy .orittie scc:ire)a site received·on tlie Hazard Rank frig> ·•
i••·•••·.···.•sysiem··(H.Rs)/f<
ig1~~~;~1~~~,ij,ll~~~~l11~§;t~l ~ 1f~!\~!!~f~l1~~$~~;1 ~~~1~~1~1 ? ;
·•·····?··.transfo1TT1.er~;••IP~~ca.n.~;••arfl••~9~e~.'Y!!S(PC::B~.•arEl•·El~.tr~.1J1.e.ly •. pe(Sistept•.i.n.the .• enyiron.1Jien.1··.1,~cl .• )/i·•·····
•<·do hot bre~kdowffi9tl)tes{baif1u1 substanc.es, 5~.,<\bann~p ~elJse.91J9ssip197.9.~use
·I••···•· ·16ng·,1eirr1 expos\.1re••19pg·~·s.Sfil)<;11li~i .. 1iyEl(cillnlilgiancJo.tl1e(adverse .• ·hufuan.heaJth·••effEJcis)
J~~fa~Ig~;~~ g~~~~~ij~~l! ~~l~~~~i~:~~t~lfggJ!lil~f gg(~B~iiijit~~~i&~ !&
IiI· .. t~:~~~~~i1~[~~rtJ~tt~3M;~~!tlir~~~~J~~~rit~1!t~1~[i,~d~i~!~ggl,t! \I•
·······•·•··••·• placedon .. tlie•·t,Jatio@IP(i.qfitie5List.••·••>· . \12iA,;AD~b~l~it~)
Page 8
• •
•• cic•d,~~~*i<~~hii~ti~l i•r•·•·•••····· .· ... r 1~1st1~11111r1111111rtij11111
and legalactions··.fo clean up a.hazardous waste•site> i lt~J:17Giif!lflillfiil!iliilfl~II ).kn()IVn as lhe .. feasibilify Stu9y{f S)/eyalu.ates ditterent~lltl10ds ott~atingt'1l) se>ntainin.atillfl aryd.••···· /.·
recoinn)erl!Js a·mettj()d tl)aty .. ill efflle!i?eltpiotecf pu~iic; h~iiltl) ~rid $nviropriieh.U••·· .. . .
··•••••··•~~if x iiw ,~bi61··1;H8··;k~1••·~Jt•· ~••·•~·6/ttbi• ~;;;1,;tifJGA8,·•\· \ ··•.· ········ r~it,,i~ttri,1!1 :1,i:iii, ,,;11,ri
A ~----------------------------~--,
EPA MAILING LIST ADDTIONS
To be placed on the mailing list to receive information on t~e Jadco Hughes
Superfund Site, please fill out and mail this form to:
Name:
Address:
Suzanne Durham, Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Affiliation: ________________________ I
-1 Telephone: /41
L-------------------------------~ Page 9
.. __ ... • •
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ottical Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Jack Butlei:
NCDEHNR
401 Obei:lin Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27605
~
~ ~ Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
CONSENT ORDER FOF{ T
Jadco-Hughes Site
Belmont, North Carolina
This fact sheet provides information on a Consent Order con-
cerning the Jadco-Hughes Superfund hazardous waste site
which was recently signed by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) and twelve companies. It explains
what activities they will undertake to determine to what
extent the site may still be contaminated and what additional
actions may be needed.
Site Description and History
The Jadco-Hughes site covers approximately six acres out-
side Belmont, North Carolina in Gaston County. There are
two w,named tributaries on the site which flow into Fites
Creek, which is itself a tributary of the Catawba River.
Many of the residents living near the site currently rely on
private well water, although there are plans to extend
Catawba Heights Sanitary District water lines to many of
the homes near the site.
Originally owned and operated by C.A. Hughes, Inc., the
facility was used as a chemical recovery plant, reclaiming
ink and paint solvents, between 1971 and 1975. In addition,
!lie company stored waste chemical sludges from a variety of
businesses in the area along with sludge resulting from the
recovery process. These sludges were stored on the site in
both tanks and drums until 1977. In 1972, the facility was
leased to Jadco, Inc., at which time approximately 8,000 to
10,000 55-gallon drums containing various chemical com-
pounds were reponed to be at the site. Chemicals contained
in these drums included ink and paint wash, chlorinated sol-
vents, acetone, paint resins, waste oils and numerous other
volatile organic compounds including benzene, toluene and
xylene.
Reponed problems at the site date back to 1973 when the
chemical ally! ether spilled into one of the unnamed
tributaries to Files Creek. In the following two years
numerous other problems and violations of water quality
standards were detected by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), and civil penalties were
imposed. In mid-summer of 1975, approximately 50 barrels
containing hazardous materials were washed as much as one
mile downstream after heavy rains and flash flooding. After
this incident, a temporary restraining order was issued by the
General Coun of Justice, Superior Coun of Gaston County,
requiring Jadco, Inc. to discontinue operations. In Septem-
ber 1975, the Coun issued an additional order requiring
SEPA
REGION IV
March 1987
Hughes, Inc. and Jadco, Inc. to remove all chemicals and
drums from the site, and cease all reprocessing operations.
By 1977, the majority of drums were removed from the site.
On-site landfilling and revegetation were completed in 1978.
Officials from EPA and the North Carolina Depan.."1ent of
Health Services (OHS) pursued cleanup of the site under
State water quality and hazardous waste disposal laws exist-
ing prior to the passage of the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA--
commonly known as Superfund) in 1980. In 1982, OHS
recommended to EPA that the site be addressed under
CERCLA regulations. EPA Region IV officials conducted a
site inspection at the Jadco-Hughes site in 1983. This infor-
mation was used by EPA to determine the site's Hazard
Ranking Score (HRS-a numerical ranking system used to
identify the site's potential hazard to the environment and
public health). Subsequently, in October 1984, the Jadco-
Hughes site was added to EP A's National Priorities List
(NPL) of hazardous waste sites identified for cleanup under
the Superfund program.
The Superfund Enforcement Process
With the passage of CERCLA in 1980, Congress gave EPA
the authority to compel potentially ·responsible parties
(PRPs) to clean up hazardous waste sites that may endanger
public health or the environment through actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances. PRPs may be
any one of the following:'
• Generators of the waste (those who produced the
wastes);
• Any party who contracted for treatment, trarisport, or dis-
posal of the wastes;
Past or present owners or operators of the site.
Wherever possible, EPA attempts to have the PRPs conduct
the site studies and cleanup work. The· actions that EPA
takes to compel PRPs to study or clean up a site are
collectively called the enforcement process.
Hazardous waste sites with conditions serious enough to be
ranked for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL)
Page 1
.. , • are given priority by EPA for pursuing enforcement actions
and may also qualify for Federal funds for cleanup. EPA
calls upon the PRPs to conduct the site studies called the
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RJ/FS) and, if
needed. the actual cleanup of the site.
The Jadco-Hughes Coment Order
An Administrative Order on Consent (Consent Order) for the
Jadco-Hughes site became effective on September 30, 1986.
It was signed by EPA and twelve companies named as
WHAT IS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION?
A remedial investigaton (RI) is an intensive study of a
Superfwid site. It is carried out by a team ofbealth and envi-
ronmental specialists such as hydrogeologists, engineers,
and biologists to determine the exact na111re of the hazardous
waste contamination, the nalllre of any actual or potential
threat that may be posed to human bealth or the environ-
ment and the bowidaries or extent of any contamination that
is fOWld at a site (see Page 4 for a condensed description of
the Superfund cleanup and enforcement processes).
Typically, the RI report will desaibe the type and extent of
onsite and off site contamination, effects of contamination on
surface water and growid water, and the degree of contamina-
tion in the soil. To achieve these findings, contractors hired
by the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) will take sam-
ples of the soil and water at various locations at the site.
All work will receive EPA oversighL In addition to records
compiled from earlier sampling at the Jadco-Hughes site, the
RI will include results from systematic sampling of surface
and grolllld water and soil, and will further include data taken
from additional monitoring wells on the Jadco-Hughes pro-.
poty.
Samples will be sent to laboratories meeting EPA standards
to be analyzed for various contaminants. The site will also
be studied to determine whether or not the contaminants are
moving through the land or water, where they might go, and
what sensitive areas they might reach. Based on this infor-
mation, an estimate of the contaminants' potential impact
on human health and the environment will be developed in a
study known as a risk a•sessrnent ..•.. , ..
WHAT IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY?
Once the RI is completed, the information is used to develop
a feasibility study (FS). During the feasibility study, envi-
ronmental engineers and other teclmical staff consider, ·
descnbe, and evaluate options for cleaning up the site.
As required by the Superfund program, the feasibility study
team designs cleanup alternatives so that each of the
following criteria is met by at least one of the alternatives.
(In some cases an alternative may fit more than one crite-
rion.) A feasible alternative will:
Page 2
• potentially responsible parties (PRPs) because they alleg-
edly generated wastes that were shipped to the Jadco-Hughes
site. The Consent Order is the agreement that was reached
as a result of negotiations between EPA and the PRPs in
accordance with CERCLA. It identifies the joint
responsibilities of the twelve companies in conducting the
remedial investigation /feasibility study (RI/FS).
Under the terms of the Consent Order, the PRPs must sub-
mit to EPA a work plan for conducting the RI/FS. Titls
work plan must include: a sampling plan; a health and safety
• Meet applicable or relevant and appropriate State and
Federal public bealth or environmental standards;
• Exceed applicable and/or relevant Federal public heal th
or enviroomental standards;
• Reduce any present or potential threat from hazardous
substances or contaminants without meeting applicable
or relevant public bealth or environmental standards;
• Involve offsite treatment or disposal.
In some cases, the FS will recommend that no action is nec-
essary.
Each proposed alternative must be evaluated based on the
following criteria:
• Technical feasibility (reliability, ease of implementa-
tion, and quality of performance);
• Impact on the environment during and after
implementation;
•
•
•
•
•
Impact on public health;
Instirutional considerations (conformity with Federal,
State and local regulations and standards); and
Whether it significantly reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume of hazardous substances;
Whether it utilizes treatment as the principal element of
the remedy;
Whether it utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable;
• Cost-effectiveness.
The FS presents all the alternatives and how they rate
according to the above criteria. It may also recommend a sin-
gle or several alternatives as the best solution.
• SUPERFUNO PROCESS •
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site
Discovery
3
REMOVAL AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, more commonly known as "Superfw,d"). In
1986, Congress reauthorized the Superfw,d program w,der
the Superfw,d Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). This act authorizes EPA to respond to actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health or welfare, or the environmenL
Titis exhibit providesta simplified explanation of how a
long-term Superfw,d response works at sites like the Jadco-
Hughes site.
I. After a site is discovered, it is "investigated,• usually
by the State.
2. The State then ranks the site using a system that takes
into account
Possible threats to the hwnan population.
• 1 Potential hazards (e.g., from direct contact, inhalation,
fire, or explosion) of substances at the site.
• Potential for the substances at the site to contaminate
drinking water supplies.
Potential for the substances at the site to pollute or
otherwise harm the environmenL
If the problems at a site are deemed serious by the State
and EPA the site will be listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL), a roster of the nation's worst hazardous waste
sites. Every site on the NPL is eligible for Federal
Superfund money.
3. Next, a "remedial investigation" (RI) is done. The RI
assesses how serious the contamination is, what kind of
contaminants are present, and characterizes potential risks
to the community. As part of the RI. a risk assessment is
typically done that describes the problems at the site and
the potential health and environmental consequences if no
further action is taken at the site.
4. Following completion of the RI, EPA performs a
"feasibility study" (FS) which examines various cleanup
Page4
alternatives and evaluates them on the basis of technical fea-
sibility, public health effects, environmental impacts, insti-
tutional· concerns (including compliance with state and
local laws), impact on the commw,ity, and cost. The find-
ings are presented in a draft FS report.
5. Following completion of the draft FS report, EPA
holds a "public comment period" to receive citizen com-
ments concerning the recommended alternatives. Citizens
may provide comments either orally at public meetings or
through written correspondence to EPA.
6. After public comments have been received, EPA then
chooses a "specific cleanup plan."
7. Once the design is finished, the actual remedial
activities at the site can begin.
The time necessary to complete each of these steps varies
with every site. In general, a "remedial investigation/feasi-
bility study" takes from one to two years. Designing the
cleanup plan may take six months. Implementing the rem-
edy--the actual containment or removal of the waste--may
take from one to three years. If grow,d water is involved,
the fmal cleanup may take many more years.
If a site or any portion thereof poses an imminent threat to
public health or the environment at any time, EPA may
conduct an emergency response referred to as "removal
activities."
"Enforcement activities" refers to those actions taken by
EPA at Superfw,d sites to get those responsible for the
hazardous waste sites to conduct the site studies and
cleanup, and/or pay for them.
"Ongoing community relations activities" during a cleanup
include public meetings and other activities intended to
keep citizens and officials informed and to encourage public
participation. These activities are scheduled throughout the
course of the remedial cleanup process. Specific activities
vary from site to site depending on the level and nature of
concern. The range of commw,ity relations activities that
can occur is described in EP A's Community Relations Plan
for the site.
• plan; a community relations plan; a plan for satisfying any
permining requirements; a description of chain of custody
procedures (which ensure that samples are properly identified
and handled); and a description of quality control and assur-
ance procedures. They also must designate a project coordi-
nator who will be responsible for communications with
EPA; provide EPA with monthly progress repons, including
the results of any sampling and tests; and prepare prelimi-
nary and final reports for EPA according to the schedule out-
lined in the work plan.
Public Comment Period
Once the draft feasibility study (FS) is completed, it is
released to the public. A three week public comment period
will then be held to allow citizens to comment on the reme-
dial alternatives considered in the FS. A public meeting
may also be held.
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
EPA will establish an informa-
tion repository that will contain
the RI report and draft FS, as
well as other public documents
on the site. The repository
will be located at the:
Gaston Cowity Public Library
Belmont Branch
111 Central Avenue
Belmont. NC 280 I 2
Librarian: Helen Jones
[phone]
• Current Status of the Site
A work plan has been submitted to EPA's Region IV office
and is currently wider review. Once approved, the PRPs
will begin conducting the RI/FS.
Next Steps
If additional cleanup activities are needed at theJadco-Hughes
site, EPA may initiate negotiations for the cleanup with the
twelve parties to the Consent Order and any others who may
have been involved in the site. If an agreement is reached,
the method and terms of cleanup will be outlined in a con-
sent decree enforceable by a court. When the companies
conduct the cleanup, they must do so in accordance with the
consent decree and will be subject to EPA oversight. If an
. agreement with the PRPs cannot be reached, EPA may pur-
sue legal action in order to have these or other PRPs per-
form the work. EPA may also use Superfwid trust monies
to conduct the cleanup and then sue the PRPs to recover
EP A's costs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Timothy Dixon
Enforcement Project Officer
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland SL, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Michael Henderson
Community Relations
Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland SL, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
r-------------------------------------, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Name
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
To be placed on the mailing list to receive information on the Jadoo-Hughes site,
please fill out and mail this form to;
Michael Henderson, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA -Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365
Address---------------------------------
Affilialion -----------------------------------
I Phone----------------------------------
1 ~------------------------------------~ Page 3