NCD981021157_19900524_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RD_Draft Community Relations Plan-OCR

-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES FOR EPA REGION IV
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
DRAFT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
FOR THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 05-45L5Q
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 7740-005-CR-BBSC
May 24, 1990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared By:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
2100 RiverEdge Parkway
Suite 400
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
**COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL**
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-W9-0056. The material contained herein is not to be
disclosed to. discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for
any reason without the prior expressed approval of a responsible official of
the,U.S. Environmental Protect10n Agency.
COM ARCS IV
Atlanta. Georgia
700/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES FOR EPA REGION IV
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
DRAFT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
FOR THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 05-451..5Q
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 7740-005-CR-BBSC
Date:
Date:
700/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
CDM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, & management consultants
May 24, 1990
Mr. Steven M. Sandler
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Project: EPA Contract No.: 68-W9-0056
Work Assignment No. 05-45L5Q
Document Control No.: 7740-005-CR-BBSC
Subject: Draft Community Relations Plan for the
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Site
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Sandler:
2100 AlverEdge Parkway, Suite 400
Atlanta, Georgia 3032B
404 952-8643
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is pleased to submit this Draft Community
Relations Plan (CRP) for the subject site. The CRP identifies issues of
community interest and concern regarding remedial investigation and feasibility
study activities at the site. and describes a suggested program of community
relations activities to be conducted by EPA to address these issues.
The plan also contains suggested locations for an information repository and
pubhc meetings. as well as a list of community. government, and media
contacts. Also included is a proposed mailing list of area residents, local
officials, and other citizens who wish to be kept informed of site activities.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this document, please call.
Sincerely,
CAMP DRES~ER McKEE INC.
• (tov)
slie
Man.ager
Enclosure
cc: Keith Mills, EPA Region IV Contracting Specialist
Document Control File
700/9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
' '
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. ________________ _
I. I
1.2
Site Background. ________________ _
I. I. I Site Description --------------1. I. 2 Site History _______________ _
Community Infonnation _____________ _
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Community Profile -,-~-~---------History of Community Involvement. ______ _
1.2.2.1
1.2.2.2
Knowledge of Bum Pit --,---,-------Knowledge of Superfund and
Site Activities ·-----------
Community Relations Activities to Date ------
COMMUNITY CONCERNS _____________ _
2. I Extent and Nature of the Contamination --------2. 2 Drinking Water Quality _____________ _
2.3 Health and Safety _______________ _
2.4 Quality of Life _________________ _
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS -----
3.1 Objectives;-,--,,-...,....,.----------------
3.2 Suggested Activities 3.3 Schedule of Activitie_s ______________ _
APPENDIX A -
APPENDIX B -
APPENDIX C -
Suggested Locations for Infonnation
Repository and Public Meetings
List of Contacts
Superfund Glossary and Acronyms
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-7
I-7
1-8
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-4
700/3
I
I LIST OF FIGURES
I Figure Page
I 1-1 Site Location Map 1-3
I 1-2 Site Features Map 1-4
3-1 Schedule of Activities 3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ii
I 700/3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Community Relations Plan identifies issues of community interest and
concern regarding remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) activities
at the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site (the New Hanover
Site) in New Hanover County, North Carolina, and describes a suggested program
of community relations activities to be conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these issues. The purpose of the community
relations program for the New Hanover Site is to educate residents about the
Superfund remedial process, keep nearby residents informed about the remedial
activities at the site, and respond to any future changes in community interest
and concern.
EPA Region IV will supervise all community relations activities at the site.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM), under contract to EPA, has been assigned to
conduct the Rl/FS, which includes community relations, for the New Hanover
Site. This Draft Community Relations Plan was prepared as required by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,
commonly referred to as "Superfund"), as amended by the 1986 Superflind
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
This plan outlines the community relations activities conducted to date, as
well as suggested activities to be conducted at the site before, during, and
after the Rl/FS and consists of three main sections. Section I contains an
introduction to the site and community, and the community relations activities
to date. Section 2 describes current community attitudes toward the site based
on interviews conducted with area residents, New Hanover County officials, and
civic leaders on May 15 and 16, 1990, and Section 3 contains suggested
community relations activities for the upcoming RI/FS.
Also included are three appendices. Appendix A provides suggested locations
for an information repository and for public meetings. A contact list of key
officials and media representatives is included as Appendix B. Appendix C
contains a glossary of common Superfund terms and a list of related acronyms.
1-1
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I. I SITE BACKGROUND
I.I.I SITE DESCRIPTION
The New Hanover Site is located on Gardner Road west of the New Hanover County
Airport in New Hanover County, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Wilmington,
North Carolina, at 34° 16'29" latitude and 77°54'55" longitude. The 1,500
square foot pit is located near the center of an open 4-acre plot. Land use in
the site vicinity is commercial and residential. There are rental car
maintenance facilities, a closed sawmill/lumberyard, and a trucking company to
the east of the site. The closest residential areas to the site are estimated
to be approximately 0.22 miles west of the site, separated from the site by a
road, railroad tracks, and heavy forestation. A site location map is shown in
Figure 1-1.
The bum pit is of earthen construction, 30 feet by 50 feet in dimension,
surrounded by a 2-foot berm. It does not extend below land surface, and is
estimated to currently hold 22,500 gallons of liquid, most of which Is water.
There is a valve at the bottom of the pit on the north site used to drain the
water, although some water was allowed to flow onto the land surface. The pit,
soil immediately surrounding the pit, and soil up to 30 feet west of the pit
are black with characteristics similar to tar. Vegetation is sparse in an
approximate 3-foot radius from the pit berm.
West of the pit is an old building structure and several old automobiles that
were used for simulating structural fires during the firefighter training
exercises. Approximately 120 yards east of the bum pit is an old concrete
block smoke house used to simulate smoky situations during the firefighter
training exercises. Site features are shown in Figure 1-2.
1.1.2 SITE HISTORY
The airport was built in the 1920s as a civil air facility owned by New Hanover
County. In 1942, the Department of Defense requisitioned the airport for the
U.S. Army Air Corps. In 1947 and 1948, the Army deeded the airport back to the
County. It was called Bluthenthal Airport until around 1970 when it was
1-2
700/4
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"' ..,, '"' A,ppro,ulTICJta SCAL.E~Of:R:n:::=~-----------
_ICK
£ t;; ~
"~if s E I rT~ R·stirih :J
ICRES
l,IIIG;tl)N HE I G
•Oh :J,u, OR , o• IGHTS'ORrsr
ro,.,4 ---l<c---
N.
AV.
~·IJ21
)l-J ~I
NEW HANOVER SITE
ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
NEW HANOVER AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
N.C.
FIGURE NO.
1-1
I
I
I ~~c::J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c::::::::::::J
ARCS IV
SITE FEATURES MAP
NEW HANOVER AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
renamed the New H over County Airport. The bum pit was constructed in 1968
and used until 1979 y the Air Force, the Cape Fear Technical Institute, and
local industries for fi efighter training purposes. Jet fuel, gasoline,
petroleum storage ta k bottoms, fuel oil, kerosene, and sorbent materials from
oil spill cleanups wer burned in the pit. Water was the primary fire
extinguishing agent; owever, carbon dioxide and dry chemicals were also used.
While most of the pelroleum products burned in the pit were trucked to the
site, an aboveground rtorage tank and underground piping network also provided
fuel for burning on the site (Figure 1-2). No fuel or other ignitables were
burned in the smoke ouse, which contained only wet, smoldering hay.
In 1985, sampling by the New Hanover County Engineering Department showed heavy
metals and volatile or anic hydrocarbons (VOCs) in the pit waste. A county
report dated February 6, 1987, states that the 1985 groundwater sampling
conducted at a well n ar the bum pit detected no groundwater contamination.
ln"l 986, the North C rolina Division of Health Services sampled the bottom
sludge layer of the pi and soil outside the pit and detected heavy metals,
polynuclear aromatic ydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs. The County applied for a
permit to close out thf bum pit by land application of the pit contents, but
this request was denie?. The most recent site investigation took place in
April 1990, when EP sampled soils surrounding the pit and waste sludges in the
pit.
The New Hanover Sit was proposed for inclusion to the National Priorities List
(NPL) on March 31, 1989. In February 1990, COM was assigned to conduct the
RI/FS at the site.
1.2 COMMU !TY INFORMATION
1.2.1 COMMUJITY PROFILE
Land use near the Ne Hanover Site is both commercial and residential.
Commercial establish ents include the airport (imme_diately east of the site),
rental car maintenance facilities (also to the east), a closed lumberyard and
sawmill (to the north), a trucking company (southwest), and a small industrial
1-5
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plant presumed to manufacture relay switches (north). The closest residential
community, referredlto by homeowners as the "Sedgefield Area," is located
approximately .251iles to the west, separated by a dense forest which
surrounds the site o~ two sides, railroad tracks, and Blue Clay Road (Figure
1-2). The Sedgefiel~ Area consists of four primary residential streets:
Fairfield Drive, Benrtuda Drive, Jamaica Drive, and Spring Road, which run
perpendicular to Blu Clay Road; Nassau Road, a smaller street, is parallel to
Blue Clay Road, int secting several of the neighborhood's main streets.
The Sedgefield Area contains approximately 70 single-family homes, most of
which were construct d in the 1960s as part of one development effort. The
area also contains seJeral older and newer homes, including one built in the
early 1900s and sevejal constructed as recently as the late 1970s. Most
residents interviewed have lived in the neighborhood for approximately 20
years, a few having ltved in the area all their lives as local farmers.
The majority of the nieighborhood's mostly modest homes have well-manicured
lawns and appear ge erally well maintained. According to residents, there is
no neighborhood ass ciation or homeowners group in the area. The neighborhood
itself and surroundin acreage, some of which is dense forest, the remainder
open fields planted s oradically with wheat, soybeans, and other crops and
vegetables, does not ,ppear to be targeted for any immediate development. The
Sedgefield Area generially appears both quiet and stable with more long-term
residents than newcomers or transients.
The New Hanover Sit vicinity is under the jurisdiction of the New Hanover
County Government, opulation 120,000, led by five county commissioners who
serve elected 4-year t rms. The County Environmental Health Department is the
first contact point for itizens contained about environmental or health
matters. Specific Co nty contacts are listed in Appendix B.
1.2.2 HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
There has been no co munity involvement in site issues to date because citizens
were generally not aw re of its existence or inclusion on the NPL. The
following describes th current level of knowledge about the site.
1-6
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2.2.1 Knowled e of the Bum Pit
Interviews with resid nts of 13 households in the Sedgefield Area conducted by
representatives of C Mand EPA on May 15 and 16, 1990, revealed little current
awareness of the Ne Hanover Site. Roughly half those interviewed knew of or
personally remember d firefighter training activities conducted at the site in
various levels of det I, but some did not know the practice had been
discontinued. Some remembered seeing black smoke emanating from the site
during training activilies, but noted that the wind generally carried it away
from their neighborh~od. No resident interviewed expressed any concern about
possible odor or ash ~esidue from the burning. One citizen. who commented that
he had worked for Ate Petroleum, a Wilmington firm which occasionally supplied
petroleum products 11 the Cape Fear Technical Institute for burning at the
site, seemed to have ~he most knowledge of site activities. On the opposite
extreme, one 85-year resident was not even aware of the bum pit's existence,
noting· that the area u ed to be known as "The Meadow." filled with venus fly
traps and other nativlwildflowers.
1.2.2.2 Knowled of Su erfund and Site Activities
Although several of t e residents interviewed had heard of the Superfund
Program, most did n t know what the remedial process entailed. Following an
explanation of the Su erfund remedial process by the EPA representative, most
residents were conce ed that a site so close to their homes has been included
on the NPL, but expr ssed gratitude that the EPA was involved and that the site
would be remediated d associated risks alleviated. All those interviewed
were provided with a rief description of the Superfund remedial process and
explanation of upcom ng activities at the New Hanover Site.
In spite of the recent I ppearance of several Wilmington Star-News articles
about the site, resident were not aware it had been targeted for any
investigation or clean p activities. Several environmental groups are active
in the Wilmington are , but none cited the bum pit as a top priority.
Representatives of the Cape Fear (local) Sierra Club chapter. for instance,
were somewhat famili with the site, but more concerned about other area
1-7
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
environmental issues such as dioxin releases from local pulp and paper
facilities and preserv tion of coastal hahitats. One Sierra Cluh
representative noted hat since the EPA was already involved in studying the
New Hanover Site, t e club would probably continue to focus on other priorities
that have not yet rec ived a corrective action commitment from government or
other organizations.
1.2.3 COMMU !TY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES TO DATE
The Community Relaf ions Program for this site was initiated in May 1990, in
conjunction with the f:1/FS Work Plan development. Community officials, civic
leaders, and residents in the immediate vicinity of the site were interviewed
to determine the curr nt level of site awareness, gauge potential concerns, and
provide a basis for deleloping and implementing a comprehensive community
relations plan for the ite. During the interviews, residents were informed of
the imminent removal action the County plans to conduct at the bum pit, as
well as EPA's plans t carry out an RI/FS. The difference between the removal
activities and upcomi1g investigation was explicitly stated, and an attempt was
made to provide residf"ts with an estimated timetable for site activities.
Resident's questions, rimarily related to groundwater quality and well water
safety, were answered in light of current available data, with the assurance
that future site inform tion and fact sheets would be more complete.
1-8
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 COMMUNITY CONCERNS
To date, there has be n no recorded community concern regarding site
contamination, as detbrmined through interviews with local citizens, officials,
and media representatives. However, upon being informed of the current and
upcoming remedial adtivities at the site during community interviews, most
residents expressed sdme concern about their personal health and safety, and
several asked about t~e quality of water in their private wells.
Overall. though, the ilvel of concern about the site was perceived as low
throughout the commbnity. Interviews revealed that residents and other
community citizens febl positive about EPA's involvement and plans for the
site, although they w e somewhat surprised that the bum pit has commanded
federal attention. Thi fact alone was cause for slight alarm among some
residents, who noneth less are grateful the potential problem is being studied
and that residents will be informed of site progress.
Specific concerns men ioned by area residents and local officials during
interviews conducted i May 1990 are discussed below.
2.1 EXTENT ND NATURE OF THE CONTAMINATION
Until being informed uring the community interviews of the upcoming removal
and investigation activ ties at the site, none of the residents interviewed had
any knowledge of the xtent or nature of the contamination. Residents were
aware of the firefighte training activities and knew that various petroleum
related substances had been burned at the site, but did not know that
contamination could b present. In addition, none of the residents interviewed
had seen either of the !rticles printed in the Star-News about the site.
The two newspaper aJcles, both written by local reporters, appeared in
December 1989 and Mtch 1990, and provided general information about the site.
Both were fairly accurJte, addressing the site's inclusion on the NPL and
ensuing negotiations with the PRPs, as well as the nature of site contamination
and EPA's current plan! for investigation. Although it is not known how many
2-1
700/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
people saw the articl s, an interview with one of the article's authors
revealed that the ne,spaper did not receive any letters, phone calls, or
i~quiries about the s·1te following publication of the articles or anytime
smce.
2.2 DRINKiiG WATER QUALITY
All of the homes in jed,gefield rely on private water wells for their potable
water, as is the case or all Wilmington residences and businesses located
north of Smith Cree . (The area south of the creek, which includes the City of
Wilmington itself, usbs City water.) While most residents expressed concern
over the potential fotj groundwater contamination near the site, all those
interviewed were satiffied with the current water quality, one noting the well
water was "clean an , good tasting." All wished to be kept appraised of
groundwater test res Its, showing recognition of the potential for site-related
contamination.
2.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Because of its relativ ly secluded location and surrounding features, the New
Hanover Site does not appear to attract passersby, children, or workers. At
present, however, th~ site is fairly accessible, being located near the
intersection of two roads adjacent to the airport, and secured only by a set of
unmonitored. unlock d gates. There are currently no signs posted to restrict
access or forbid tresp ssing. The pit, site buildings, tanks, and abandoned
car are both visible d easily accessed from the road. Because the forest
surrounding the rest f the site is dense and undisturbed, however, it is
unlikely that individu Is would accidentally stumble upon the site. To this
end, residents did not report any knowledge of onsite trespassers, nor mention
the possibility of chi) ren walking through the site. Some vandalism has
occurred, however, p imarily to the site's few structures, but does not appear
to be recent based up n the height and density of surrounding vegetation.
The County has arran ed to have the area immediately around the bum pit fenced
in conjunction with thb upcoming removal action. Since most of the possible
health and safety risk to trespassers stem from the unprotected open pit
2-2
700/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
itself, installation of he fence and subsequent removal action should reduce
any possible dangers posed to individuals walking near or through the site.
2.4 UALI OF LIFE
None of the residents interviewed believe they have been personally affected by
the New Hanover Sit , even when the bum pit was actively used. As mentioned
in Section I, several long-term residents recalled seeing black smoke above the
site, but observed tha the wind generally carried it in the opposite
direction, toward the irport. No one complained about residue from the
burning activities. R sidents, overall, do not appear too concerned about the
site affecting their qu lity of life, reducing property values, or otherwise
negatively impacting 'heir lives. One resident who has lived in the immediate
site vicinity for over 80 years remarked that she and her relatives have all
enjoyed long, healthy lives and consequently believes, "It's a pretty healthy
place. It's a nice pla e; I don"t think it's polluted." Her sentiments seem
to echo the attitude o most area residents interviewed.
2-3
700/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 OMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
3.1 OBJECT VES
The primary goal of he community relations program at the New Hanover Site is
to provide an opport~nity for the community to learn about and participate in
the Superfund prograhi and cleanup process and issues specific to the site. To
be effective, the prog~am should ensure that area residents continue to be
encouraged by EPA' presence and performance at the site. EPA can maintain
this relationship by e couraging community interest and involvement in the
following ways:
'· o Educate area residents about the Superfund program procedures, policies,
and require ents and about specific site issues. Information on the
Superfund pr gram should be readily available to the public. EPA should
also coordina e closely with the news media to ensure that future news
reports furthill the public education process and contain accurate
information. EPA community relations staff should identify other
special situati ns or concerns where more specialized information may be
required, or here a certain type of information is desired by an
individual or )roup. Educational forums then should be tailored to the
needs and knTwledge levels of the intended audience.
o Inform area lesidents, local ofti~ials, and the news media of all
proposed site activities. Concise. and easily understood information
should be ava lable on the schedule of remedial activities, their
purpose, and !heir outcomes. Sharing this type of information as soon
as it becomes available is crucial in developinjl mutual trust between
EPA and intelested parties. Information on site activities can be
disseminated n a variety of ways and should be targeted to meet the
needs of the ~otential audience. In particular, community residents
should be im ediately informed of site activities or findings that
relate to drin ·ng water quality and health and safety concerns. Also,
it is importan that local officials be informed of new developments and
planned activi ies to ensure they are able to answer constituent
inquiries accu ately and in a timely manner. Finally, EPA should
continue to b ild a relationship with local environmental news
reporters, wh se names and affiliations are included in Appendix B.
Giving inform lion about the site to the news media before planned
activities take place will help to establish EPA's credibility as a
source of infotnation.
o Provide oppo~-~nities for public participation. To ensure citizen
concerns are a dressed regarding the upcoming remedial investigation and
groundwater a alytical results and implications. EPA should conduct a
public meetin prior to initiating any RI field work, and again
following rece pt of testing results. Also, by maintaining direct
3-1
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2
contact with area residents and by communicating regularly with local
officials, EP will establish an informal mechanism for receiving public
input throu , out the Superfund process. A third public meeting to
discuss the results of the FS should also be scheduled.
o Anticipate rhture information needs and l?otential shifts in levels of
concern. !flight of the public attention given environmental issues in
the greater ilmington area, it is possible that concerns regarding the
New Hanov r Site will increase. As various environmental issues rise
and fall fro the spotlight depending on media reports, environmental
activist groups, and other factors, interest in the site can be expected
to vary over the course of the remedial process. As a result, it will
be importan for EPA to recognize promptly any shifts in the level of
interest so t at community relations activities cali be modified
accordingly. Since current concerns are minimal, exrressions of
interest by r sidents outside the immediate vicinity o the New Hanover
Site will ne ssitate a change in EPA's community relations program to
accommoda .e new information needs and to involve a greater number of
concerned citizens. Tailored activities to meet new needs and concerns
can ensure t at potential problem areas are addressed immediately.
SUGGE TED ACTIVITIES
This section describes suggested activities for the New Hanover Site community
relations program d ring the RJ/FS.
I. Establish and m intain the information repository.
2.
Purpose: To e sure that accurate, understandable information is available
to interested cit zens.
Technique: Fajt sheets, technical summaries, site reports (including the
community reta1ions plan), and information on the Superfund Program should
be placed in th~ information repository. An information repository has
been tentatively located at the New Hanover County Public Library in
downtown Wit ington. The head librarian is already familiar with the
federal public v ewing/comment policy, and has set up a convenient shelf
specifically for his purpose. She requested that EPA notify her prior to ·
sending documf'nts so space can be made available. The facility is open
seven days per eek, is accessible to residents, and has copying equipment.
More informati n is provided Appendix A.
Establish and m intain an information contact.
Purpose: To eslablish and maintain a single point of contact who can
provide accurate and timely responses to questions from citizens, local
officials, and tht press, and to provide a mechanism for monitoring changes
in the level of c mmunity interest and concern.
Technique: A t chnical or community relations staff person should be
designated to r I pond directly to public inquiries regarding site
3-2
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
u
3.
4.
5.
activities. The irformation contact will be in a unique position to listen
to concerns and .fomments and detect changes in the level of community
concern and to 'letermine what types of information the public is most
interested in rec~iving. The information contact should stay in close
contact with are~ officials and may wish to subscribe to local newspapers
to stay up-to-date on the types of information the public is receiving.
Hold Public Me \tings.
Puwose: To fa ·1itate citizen input prior to and during the following the
RI S.
Technique: Pub ic meetin~s should be held to answer citizen questions and
receive comment~ on EPA s activities and the recommended remedial
alternative. An • pportunity for a public meeting should be provided
following release of the EPA approved Rl/FS Work Plan and prior to
initiating RI acti ities. The first public meeting should address the
proposed investi~'ation process. including media to be sampled, parameter to
be analyzed, an a general timetable. EPA may need to consider holding
additional public meetings at significant RI/FS milestones if the level of
concern or the n mber of interested citizens increases. Suggested
locations for mee ings are included in Appendix A. I Public meetings s11ould be advertised in advance via the community mailing
list, newspapers. radio, and local television stations. To maximize
attendance, they ~hould l?robably be held on weekday evenings, which most
residents interv1eted indicated to be the most convenient time. Meetings
should be coordif"\ated with County officials and a court reporter secured to
record the proceetlings.
Conduct meetingJ and/or telephone updates with local officials.
PU1yose: To info~ responsible officials of the schedule of remedial
act1v1t1es and ens!-lre that EPA is responsive to the concerns of local
officials. Since tlje County is, in this case, a PRP, other officials, such
as the District 13 Representative and city council members, should be
contacted. l
Technique: Meet ngs or telephone updates with local officials should be
held upon comple ion of the RI and again following the FS. Appendix B
includes the name and telephone numbers of local officials.
Prepare fact sheet .
Puitlose: To info the community about procedures of the Superfund program
an RIIFS activiti s.
Technique: Fact s eets should be prepared and distributed in conjunction
with the public m , tings. One fact sheet explaining the Superfund l?rocess
and outlining the I activities should be prepared and distributed J?rlOr to
beginning the RI. Another fact sheet describing the RI results (pnor to
the FS) should be repared. A third fact sheet describing the FS process
and selected altern tive(s) should be distributed. Additional fact sheets
3-3
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
might be issued as needed to respond to shifts in community concern or
interest.
6. Provide news re eases to local newspapers.
Purpose: To en ure that area residents receive accurate information
throughout the /FS.
Technique: Nels releases should be prepared prior to initiating the RI
act1v1ttes, then f !lowing RI findings, and before and after the FS.
Addresses and p one numbers of local newspapers and environmental
reporters, where applicable, are included in Appendix B.
7. Prepare a res po siveness summary.
Purpose: To ad ress any comments received following the public comment
penod and ensu
1
e public concerns are addressed during development of the
Record of Decisirn (ROD).
Technique: A s~mmary of oral and/or written public comments received by
EPA on key docyments and EPA's answers to these comments should be compiled
for use in developing the ROD.
I 3.3 SCHEDU E OF ACTIVITIES
Though the actual da es for implementing various community relations tasks will
· depend on the RI/FS ~ask schedules, a suggested sequence of community relations
events is presented in Figure 3-1. As indicated, many of the tasks are
ongoing, to continue hroughout the RI/FS and should be tailored to any shift
in community conce or Rl/FS progress.
3-4
700/6
--------------------.. z ~ RI/FS During Completlon of During the Completlon of Record of Initiation of m Work Plan Ramedlal Remedial Feealblllty Draft FS Decision Ramedlal ~ ue Completlon Investigation Investigation Study (FS) Report Completlon Action :I: 1. Establish EPA )> Information Contact --------------• UpdateasNeed9d---------------~ z CJ) I I 0 -0 :I: 2 • Establish Information -----•-UpdateasNBBdsd•_;.-~-----. . ---. --------~ < m -------------------m 0 Repository ~ :0 C 3. Maintain Contacts a ► r-z -m,. with Local Leaders . :0 0~ z "tJ 4. Prepare Fact Sheets or io ,, en @ © e -i :0 )> < Technical Summaries :i: -t §2_ CD 0 5. Prepare News :::! Releases Provide as Needed :u C < I 0 :0 -iz :::! 6. Public Notice © © Prrwld8asNe9d9d . ► :!:! m CJ) I I -t 7. Conduct Public 0 0 PrrNld9asNeed9d 2? Meetings -t 8. Hold a Public m Comment Period ' 9.Prepare a Responsiveness 0 Summary ' "Tl 10. Revise the CRP © iS w C I :u ~ m z 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. '
APPENDIX A
SUGGESTED LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION REPOSITORY
AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
700/7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
SUGGESTED LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION
REPOSITORY AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
Information Repository
New Hanover County Public Library
210 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
[phone]
Hours of Operations
Monday-Sunday 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.
Contact: Ms. Beverly Tetterton•
Public Meeting Location
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
60 I South College Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
[phone]
Kenan Auditorium Cameron Auditorium
Capacity:
Contact:
Cost:
982
Mr. Doug Swink
[phone]
$250.00 for
4-hour period
Roland-Grise Junior High School
4412 Lake Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Capacity:
Contact:
725
Ms. Diane Avery
Capacity:
Contact:
Cost:
Cost:
[phone], extension 222
Free
A-I
300
Ms. Linda Nelms
(9 I 9) 395-3777
$100.00 for
4-hour period
\
700/ 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF CONTACTS
A. Federal Elected Officials
U.S. Senator Jesse A. Helms
Washington Office:
403 DirkSen Senate Office Building
Washington. D.C. 20510-3301
District Office:
Century Post Office Building, Room 314
P. 0. Box 2888
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
U.S. Senator Terry Sanford
Washington Office:
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3304
District Office:
Federal Bu1ldmg
310 New Bern Avenue
P. 0. Box 25009
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
U.S. Representative Charlie G. Rose
Washington Office:
2230 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3307
B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Officials
Steven Sandler
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Suzanne Durham
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Sally Mozley
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
B-1
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
(919) 856-440 I
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
700/ 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Chuck Pietrosewicz
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
C. State Officials
State Elected Officials
Governor James G. Martin
State Capital Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Lt. Governor James C. Gardner
Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
State Senator Franklin Block
Mailing Address: 518 Legislative Office Building
North Carolina State Senate
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Representative Alexander M. Hall
Representative Harry E. Payne, Jr.
Representative David Redwme
Mailing Address: Legislative Office Building
North Carolina General Assembly
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
State Agency Contact
Charlotte Varlashker
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
D. New Hanover County Officials
Board of County Commissioners
Fred Retchin, Chairman
Nolan O'Neal
Albert Corbett, Jr.
E. L. "Matt" Matthews, Jr.
Jonathan "Joe" Barfield
Mailing Address: 320 Chestnut Street
Wilmington. North Carolina 28401
[phone]
B-2
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
(9 I 9) 733-5191
[phone]
(919) 733-280 I
700/11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
County Offices
Allan O'Neal
New Hanover County Manager
Robert Parker, Director
New Hanover County Health Department
Dianne Harvell, Director
Environmental Health Department
New Hanover County Health Department
Raymond Church. Environmental Specialist
New Hanover County Engineering Department
Robert Pope, County Attorney
New Hanover County
Joseph McQueen, Sheriff
20 North 4th Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
E. City of Wilmington Officials
City Council
Luther Jordan, Jr.
Anthony "Tony" Pate
Robert Shipp
Charles Lilley
Richard Snyder
Gloria Berger
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
City Offices
Don Betz
City of Wilmington Mayor
Darryl Bruestle
City of Wilmington Police Chief
William Farris
City of Wilmington Manager
Tom Pollard
City of Wilmington Attorney
B-3
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
(919) 341-7 8 I 0
[phone]
700/11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F. Newspapers
The Challenger Newspaper
5 14 Pnncess Street
Distribution:
Circulation:
Advertising Director:
Encore
P.O. Box 2153
255 North Front Street
Distribution:
Circulation:
Thursdays
5.000
Jim Campers
Thursdays
5.000
Advertising Director: Nancy McBride
The Island Gazette
104 North Lake Park Boulevard
Distribution:
Circulation:
Advertising Director:
Wednesdays
4,000
Shelia Davis
Star-News Newspapers, Inc.
1003 South 17th Street
Distribution: Daily
Circulation: 40,000
Advertising Director: David Schuette
Environmental News Reporters: Kevin Hart, Janet Olson
Wilmington Journal Company
4 I 2 South 7th Street -
Distribution:
Circulation:
Advertising Director:
Thursdays
8,600
Katherine Tate
G. Radio
WAAV AM Newstalk
211 North 2nd Street
Advertising: Donn Ansell
WMFD Radio
1890 Dawson Street
Advertising: Mary Brooks
B-4
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
(9 I 9) 251-9228
[phone]
700/11
I \
I WMYT Radio [phone]
I 72 I Market Street
Advertising: Cheryl Sparks
I WSFM (919) 251-000 I
20 I North Front Street
Advertising: Dennis Deason I WWIL [phone]
812-C Castle Street
I Advertising: Henry Jacobs
I
WWQQ Radio 101 FM [phone]
721 Market Street
Advertising: Sandy Franklin
I WVBS BI00 FM
20 I North Front Street
[phone]
I Advertising: Diane Jones
WHQR-FM Public Radio (9 I 9)343-1640
I I 026 Greenfield Street
Announcements: Jim Polson
I WKOO/KOOL 98. 7
321 North Front Street
[phone]
I Advertising: Barbara Simmons
WGNI Radio [phone]
21 I North 2nd Street
I Advertising: Monica Johnson
I H. Television
WWAY (ABC) (919) 762-858 I
615 North Front Street
I Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Advertising: Joe Schlagel
I Environmental News Reporter: Dan Hester
WECT (NBC) [phone]
322 Shipyard Boulevard
I Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Advertising: Harvey Hutchinson
I
I B-5
700/ I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WRAL (CBS)
P. 0. Box 1200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Advertising: David Harbert
WJKA
1926 Oleander Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Advertising: Bob Watson
[phone]
[phone]
B-6
700/1 I
I
• '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
SUPERFUND
' ' GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
700/7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
•
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
This glossary defines tenns often used by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) staff when describing activities under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA. commonly
called Superfund), as amended in 1986. The definitions apply specifically to
the Superfund program and may have other meanings when used in different
circumstances. Underlined words included in various definitions are defined
separately in the glossary.
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC): A legal agreement between EPA and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) whereby PRPs agree to perfonn or pay the
cost of a site cleanup. The agreement describes actions to be taken at a site
and may be subject to a public comment period. Unlike a consent decree, an
administrative order on consent does not have to be approved by a judge.
Administrative Record: A file which is maintained and contains all infonnation
used by the lead agency to make its decision on the selection of a response
action under CERCLA. This file is to be available for public review and a copy
is· to be established at or near the site, usually at one of the infonnation
repositories. Also, a duplicate file is held in a central location, such as a
Regional EPA or State office.
Air Stripping: A treatment system that removes, or "strips," volatile organic
compounds from contaminated groundwater or surface water by forcing an
airstream through the water and causing the compounds to evaporate.
Aquifer: An underground rock fonnation composed of materials such as sand,
soil, or gravel that can store and supply groundwater to wells and springs.
Most aquifers used in the United States are within a thousand feet of the
earth's surface.
Carcinogen: A substance that causes cancer.
C-1
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system where contaminants are removed from
groundwater or surface water when the water is forced through tanks containing
activated carbon, a specially treated material that attracts the contaminants.
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances that could affect public health and/or the environment.
The term "cleanup" is often used broadly to describe various response actions
such as the remedial design/remedial action.
Comment Period: A time period during which the public can review and comment
on various documents and EPA actions. For example, a comment period is
provided when EPA proposes to add sites to the National Priorities List. Also,
a comment period is held to allow community members to review and comment on a
draft RI/FS and proposed plan of action for cleanup.
Community Relations (CR): EPA's program to inform and involve the public in
the Superfund process and respond to community concerns.
Community Relations Plan (CRP): Formal Plan for EPA community relations
activities at a Superfund site.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Re!luthorization Act. The Acts created a special tax that goes into a Trust
Fund, commonly known as Superfund, to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program, EPA can either:
o Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination
cannot be located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work; or
o Take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to
clean up the site or pay back the Federal government for the cost of the
cleanup.
Consent Decree (CD): A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, that
formalizes an agreement reached between EPA and potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) where PRPs will perform all or part of a Superfund site cleanup. The
C-2
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
consent decree des·cribes actions that PRPs are required to perform and is
subject to public comment period.
Contract Lab Program: Laboratories under contract to EPA which analyze soil,
water, and waste samples taken from areas at or near Superfund sites.
Cost-Effective Alternative: The cleanup alternative selected for a site on the
National Priorities List based on technical feasibility, permanence,
reliability, and cost. The selected alternatives does not require EPA to
choose the least expensive alternative. It requires that if there are several
cleanup alternatives available that deal effectively with the problems at a
site, EPA must choose the remedy on the basis of permanence, reliability, and
cost.
Cost Recovery: A legal process where potentially responsible parties can be
required to pay back the Federal government for money it spends on any cleanup
actions.
Emergency: Those releases or threats of releases requiring initiation of
onsite activity within hours of the lead agency's determination that a removal
action is appropriate.
Enforcement: EPA's efforts, through legal action if necessary, to force
potentially responsible parties to perform or pay for a Superfund site cleanup.
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA): An analysis of removal
alternatives for a site, similar to a remedial program feasibility study. The
EE/CA must be made available for a 30 calendar day public comment period prior
to the signing off of the Action Memorandum.
Environmental Response Team (ERT): EPA hazardous waste experts who provide
24-hour technical assistance to EPA Regional Offices and States during all
types of emergencies involving releases at hazardous waste sites and spills of
hazardous substances.
C-3
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Explanation of Differences: After adoption of a final remedial action plan, if
any remedial action is taken. or any enforcement action is taken. or if any
settlement or consent decree is entered into, and if such action, settlement,
or decree differs in any significant respects from the final plan, the lead
agency is required to publish an explanation of the significant differences and
the reasons the changes were made. See Guidance on Preparing Superfund
Decision Documents: the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for further
information.
Feasibility Study (FS): See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between
materials such as sand, soil, or gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in
sufficient quantities that it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and
other purposes.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): A scoring system used to evaluate potential
relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances. EPA and States use the HRS to calculate a
site score, from Oto 100, based on the actual or potential release of
hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water. or groundwater to
affect people. This score is the primary factor used to decide if a hazardous
waste site should be placed on the National Priorities List.
Hazardous Substance: Any material that poses a threat to public health and/or
the environment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that are toxic,
corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive.
Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, movement, and effects of
water on the earth's surface, in the soil and rocks below, and in the
atmosphere.
Incineration: Burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or gaseous materials
under controlled conditions to destroy hazardous waste.
C-4
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
Information Repository: A file containing current information, technical
reports, and reference documents regarding a Superfund site. The information
repository is usually located in a public building that is convenient for local
residents --such as a public school, city hall, or library.
Leachate: A contaminated liquid resulting when water percolates, or trickles,
through waste materials and collects components of those wastes. Leachate may
occur at landfills and may result in hazardous substances entering soil,
surface water, or groundwater.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at specific locations on or off a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and
studied to determine such things as the direction in which groundwater flows
and the types and amounts of contaminants present.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): The
Federal regulation that guides the Superfund program.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
response using money from the Trust Fund. The list is based primarily on the
score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to
update the NPL at least once a year.
National Response Center (NRC): The center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard
that receives and evaluates reports of oil and hazardous substance releases
into the environment and notifies the appropriate agency(ies). The NRC can be
contacted 24 hours a day, toll-free at [phone].
National Response Team (NRT): Representatives of twelve Federal agencies that
coordinate Federal responses to nationally significant pollution incidents and
provide advice and technical assistance to the responding agency(ies).
Non-Time-Critical Removals: Those releases or threats of releases not
requiring initiation of onsite activity within 6 months after the lead agency's
C-5
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
determination, based on the site evaluation, that a removal action is
appropriate.
On-Scene Coordinator: The Federal official who coordinates and directs
Superfund removal actions.
Operable Unit: An action taken as one part of an overall site cleanup. For
example, a carbon absorption system could be installed to halt rapidly
spreading groundwater contaminants while a more comprehensive and long-term
remedial investigation/feasibility study is underway. A number of operable
units can be used in the course of a site cleanup.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Activities conducted at a site after a
response action occurs, to ensure that the cleanup or containment system is
functioning properly.
Parts Per Billion (ppb)/Parts Per Million (ppm): Units commonly used to
,express low concentrations of contaminants. For example, I ounce of
trichloroethylene (TCE) in I million ounces of water is I ppm; I ounce of TCE
in I billion ounces of water is I ppb. If one drop of TCE is mixed in a
competition-size swimming pool, the water will contain about I ppb of TCE.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): An individual(s) or Company(ies) (such as
owners, operators, transporters, or generators) potentially responsible for, or
contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. Whenever
possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to clean
up hazardous waste sites they have contaminated.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of collecting and reviewing available
information about a known or suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA or
States use this information to determine if the site requires further study.
If further study is needed. a site inspection is undertaken.
Proposed Plan: _ A public participation requirement of Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) in which EPA summarizes for the public the preferred
cleanup strategy, the rationale for the preference, reviews the alternatives
C-6
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
presented in the detailed analysis of the remedial investigation/feasibility
study, and presents any waivers to cleanup standards of§ 121 (d)(4) of SARA
which may be proposed. This may be prepared either as a fact sheet or as a
separate document. In either case, it must actively solicit public review and
comment on all alternatives under Agency consideration.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC): A system of procedures, checks,
audits, and corrective actions used to ensure that field work and laboratory
analysis during the investigation and cleanup of Superfund sites meet
established standards.
Record of Communication: A register of all verbal communications between EPA
and citizens regarding site concerns.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used at National Priorities List sites. The record of
decision is based on information and technical analysis generated during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study and consideration of public comments
and community concerns.
Regional Response Team (RRT): Representatives of Federal, State, and local
agencies who may assist in coordination of activities at the request of the
On-Scene Coordinator or Remedial Project Manager before and during response
actions.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construction or implementation phase that
follows the remedial design of the selected cleanup alternative at a site on
the National Priorities List.
Remedial Design (RD): An engineering phase that follows the record of decision
when technical drawings and specifications are developed for the subsequent
remedial action at a site on the National Priorities List.
C-7
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: Investigative and analytical studies
usually performed at the same time in an interactive. iterative process; and
together referred to as the "Rl/FS." They are intended to:
o Gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent of
contamination at a Superfund site;
o Establish criteria for cleaning up the site;
o Identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial action; and
o Analyze in detail the technology and costs of the alternatives.
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The EPA or State official responsible for
overseeing remedial response activities.
Remedial Response: · A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a
release or threatened release of hazardous substances that is serious, but does
not pose an immediate threat to public health and/or the environment.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken over the short-term to address a
release or threatened release of hazardous substances.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): A Federal law that established
a regulatory system to track hazardous substances from the time of generation
to disposal. The law requires safe and secure procedures to be used in
treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA
is designed to prevent new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Response Action: A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund site involving
either a short-term removal action or a long-term remedial response that may
include, but is not limited to, the following activities:
o Removing hazardous materials from a site to an EPA-approved. licensed
hazardous waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruction.
o Containing the waste safely onsite to eliminate further problems.
C-8
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
o Destroyini or treating the waste onsite using incineration or other
technologies.
o Identifying and removing the source of groundwater contamination and
halting further movement of the contammanls.
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and/or written public comments
received by EPA during a comment period on key EPA documents, and EPA's
responses to those comments. The responsiveness summary is a key part of the
ROD, highlighting community concerns for EPA decision-makers.
Site Inspection (SI): A technical phase that follows a preliminary assessment
designed to collect more extensive information on a hazardous waste site. The
information is used to score the site with the Hazard Ranking System to
determine whether response action is needed.
Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, also referred to as the Trust Fund.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA): Modifications to CERCLA
enacted on October 17. 1986.
Surface Water: Bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes,
and streams.
Time Critical Removals: Including emergencies lasting longer than 30 calendar
days, those releases requiring initiation of onsite activity within 6 months of
the lead agency's determination, based on the site evaluation that a removal
action is appropriate.
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSO Facility): Any building,
structure. or installation where a hazardous substance has been treated.
stored, or disposed. TSO facilities are regulated by EPA and States under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
C-9
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ''
Trust Fund: A Fund set up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act to help pay for cleanup of hazardous waste
sites and to take legal action to force those responsible for the sites to
clean them up.
Volatile Organic Compound: An organic (carbon-containing) compound that
evaporates (volatizes) readily at room temperature.
Water Purveyor: A public utility, mutual water company, county water district
or municipality that delivers drinking water to customers.
C-10
700/8
I • . ' '
I •
I AOC
I ARARs
ATSDR
I CD
CERCLA
I COE
I CR
CRP
I DOC
DOD
I DOE
I DOI
ERA
I ERT
FEMA
I FS
HHS
I HRS
IAGs
I NCP
I NOAA
NPL
I NRC
NRT
I osc
I
i
11
SUPERFUND ACRONYMS
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
Consent Decree
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
Community Relations
Community Relations Plan
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
Expedited Removal Actions
Environmental Response Team
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Feasibility Study
Department of Health and Human Services
Hazard Ranking System
I nteragency Agreements
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
National Response Center
National Response Team
On-Scene Coordinator
C-11
700/8
I • < C 0 •
I •
O&M
I ppm/ppb
PRP
I PA
I QA/QC
ROD
I RRT
RA
I RD
RI
I RPM
RCRA
I SI
I SARA
SMOAs
I TSO
USCG
I voe
I
I
.1
I
.I
••
I
Operation and Maintenance
parts per million/parts per billion
Potentially Responsible Party
Preliminary Assessment
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Record of Decision
Regional Response Team
Remedial Action
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Project Manager
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Site Inspection
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
State Memorandum of Agreements
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
United States Coast Guard
Volatile Organic Compound
C-12
700/8