NCD981021157_19900619_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RD_Revised Draft Community Relations Plan-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
-Kt.CtJVED
JUN 2 G 1990
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS
st1¥£RfUND SECTION
CORPORATION
· 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._ 05-4L5Q
Document Control No.: 7740-005-CR-BBTH
Subject: Revised Draft Community Relations Plan for the
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site ·
· Wilmington. North Carolina · .
Dear Mr .. Sandler:
CDM F~eral Programs Corporation (FPC) is pleased to submit this Revised bni.fi
Community·Relations Plan (CRP) for the subject site. Comments and additional·
. information have been incorporated .. Also included is an updated proposed
mailing Jjst for your review. · ·
~~ rit 4~~~~ iii questions or comments concerning this. document, please c~B
. Sincerely,
COM Federal Programs-Corporation
v)(_~~
Mary Leslie U . .
Project Manager . . · · . · _ . · _
ML/ra
Enclosure
cc: .Keith Mills, EPA Region iv Contracting ·specialist
Document Control File · , .·
· 1900 The Exchange, N.W., Suite 415 Atianta, GA 30339 404 952-7393 .
·700/9.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES FOR EPA REGION IV
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
REVISED 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-BBTH
June 19, I 990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared By:
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
1900 The Exchange, Suite 415
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
**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 Protectwn Agency.
FPC ARCS IV
Atlanta, Georgia
700/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
:1
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
REVISED 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-BBTH
Hda A.owes
Date:
Community Relations Coordinator
~ ~\
ary~ Project Mger Date:~/&',. /990
Date: ,~f', /? J'O
f ' I
700/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0
I. I
1.2
-------------------
Site Background -----------,-------
I. I. 1
1.1.2
Site Description _____________ _
Site History ----------------
Community Jnfonnation --------------
1. 2. I Community Profile -------------1. 2 .2 History of Community Involvement -------
1.2.2. I
1.2.2.2
Knowledge of the Bum Pit ------Knowledge of Superfund and
Site Activities -----------
1.2.3 Community Relations Activities to Date ------
COMMUNITY CONCERNS ---------------
2. l Extent and Nature of the Contamination --------2. 2 Drinking Water Quality --------------2. 3 Health and Safety _______________ _
2.4 Quality of Life ________________ _
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-7
1-8
1-8
. 1-9
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
3.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS 3-1 ------
3.1 Objectives_~~----------------
3.2 Suggested Activities ----------------3.3 Schedule of Activities ---------------
APPENDIX A -Suggested Locations for Infonnation
Repository and Public Meetings
APPENDIX B -List of Contacts
APPENDIX C -Superfund Glossary and Acronyms
APPENDIX D -Superfund Process
APPENDIX E -Technical Assistance Grants (Tag) Program
i
3-1
3-2
3-4
700/3
I
I LIST OF FIGURES
I Figure Page
I 1-1 Site Location Map 1-3
1-2 Site Features Map 1-4 I 3-1 Sche.dule of Activities 3-5
m
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ii
I 700/3
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I
This Community Relations Plan identifies issues of community interest and
concern regarding remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/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, respond to any future changes in community interest and
concern, and answer the public's questions.
EPA Region IV will supervise all community relations activities at the site.
COM Federal Programs Corporation (FPC), under contract to EPA, has been
assigned io conduct the RI/FS, which includes con:imunity 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 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
This plan outlines the community relations activities conducted to date, as
well as suggested acti~ties to be conducted at the site before,. during, and
after the RI/FS, and consists of three main sections. Section 1 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 five 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.
Appendix D contains an explanation of how the Superfund Process works.
Appendix E explains the Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) Program.
1-1
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. I SITE BACKGROUND .
I. I. I SITE DESCRIPTION
The New Hanover Site is located on Gardner Road 500 feet west of the New
Hanover ¢ounty Airport in ·New Hanover County, approximately 1.5 miles north of
Wilmington; North Carolina, at 34° 16'29" latitude and 77°54'55" longitude. The
pit is approximately 1,500 square feet and is located near the center of an
open four-acre plot. Land use in the site vicinity is commercial and resi-
dential. 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 t~e site by a road, railroad tracks, and a heavily
forested area. 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 three-foot berm, and does not extend below land surface. The
pit has a capacity of holding 22,500 gallons of liquid, most of which is
currently water. There is a valve at the bottom of the pit on the north side
used to drain the water, although some water overflowed onto the land surface.
On March I 9, 1990, the county conducted repair'activities which raised the
berm and provided a foot of freeboard. The soil immediately surrounding the
pit, and soil up to 30 feet west of the pit are black with characteristics
similar to that of tar. Vegetation within a three-foot radius from the pit
berm is sparse.
Various areas around the bum pit were used for different firefighter training
exercises. 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. North
of the pit is the site of an aircraft mock-up. which was fabricated from
55-gallon metal drums. The mock-up is no longer on the site. Site features
are shown in Figure 1-2.
1-2
700/4
I
I
I •
n
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
,,.. -
A,ppfo,11mcN ICAI.I Of Fifi
_IC~
,~Jit
SE IITER"~ " ACRES
L,lij~ HEIG
'Ohr,... 0..
1" °' IGHTS 10•tsr ,,. --s'---1~--
N.C.
...
AV.
371JEr
NEW HANOVER SITE 'Alli
.,; ', /' ' jl.:, y ,_
/
ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
NEW HANOVER AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE ..
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
1-3
FIGURE NO.
1-1
--
:E
E
z
G)
--i 0 _z
z -0 .l. :D --i :c
(") > :D
0 C z >
-
z m :E
:I:
)> z
0 < m :c
0
0
C z
-I -<·
)>
:c
"'C
0 :c
-I
CJ
C :c z
3!
-I
SQ
-I m
....
I
I\)
,
SQ
-I. m
"Tl m ~
C :c m en
3:
)>
"'C
-
> :D
(")
en
<
,,
15
C :D m
z
0
--
ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
UST fAR~
-
I ,,
I/
I I I I
It I I
I I
It I I ,,
I I ,,
" "
--

-
! ·•· i
0 100 200 300
SCALE IN FEET
/
TO 111LMINGTON
UST
FA.Riot
D
-l!!!!!!!I liiiiiiii iiiil
,_.,;(RCll'-L cO
APPROXIMATE
SITE BOUNDARY
LEGEND -PIPELINE
====== BERM/ROAD
-
0 UST
-

-
0
UST
""'"
UST
FARM
D
-
I
I
I
I·
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two Corps of Engineers (COE) underground storage tank (UST) farms are located
in the vicinity of the site. One tank farm lies approximately 2,000 feet
southwest of the site and dates back to World War I I. This tank farm
reportedly contains ten (10) undergr?und storage tanks with a combined
capacity of 256,800 gallons. The largest tank has a capacity of 35,000
gallons.
The second UST farm is slightly further southwest of the site, approximately
4,000 feet away and adjacent to the end of one of the runways. This tank farm
was installed by the Air Force ·and consists of four (4) tanks: Two (2) 220,000
gallon tanks; one (I) 10,000 gallon tank; and one (I) 1,000 gallon tank. A
pipeline connects the two tank farms. The Wilmington COE is currently planning
to remove the tanks and remediate the sites.
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 Anny deeded the airport back to the
County. It was called Bluthent~al Airport until around 1970 when it was
~enamed the New Hanover County Airport. The bum pit was constructed in 1968
and used until 1979 by the Air Force, the Cape Fear Technical Institute, and
local industries for firefighter training purposes. · Prior to this period, the
site had been used as a military hospital. The Wilmington Fire Department also
used the bum pit for firefighter training purposes from 1968 to 1976. Jet
fuel, gasoline, petroleum storage tank bottoms, fuel oil, kerosene, and sorbent
materials from oil spill cleanups were burned in the pit. Water was the
primary fire extinguishing agent; however, carbon dioxide and dry chemicals
were also used.
While most of the petroleum products burned in the pit were trucked to the
site, an above ground storage 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 house, which contained only wet, smoldering hay.
1-5
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In 1985, sampling by the New Hanover County Engineering Department showed heavy
metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the pit sludge. In 1986, the
North Carolina Division of Health Services sampled the bottom sludge layer of
the pit and soil outside the pit, and detected heavy metals, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs. The county applied for a permit to
close out the bum pit by land application of the pit contents, but this
request was denied by the state. The most recent site investigation took place
in April 1990, when EPA sampled soils surrounding the pit and waste sludges in
the pit.
The New Hanover Site was proposed for inclusion to the' National Priorities List
(NPL) on June 24, 1988 and finalized on March 30, 1989. In February 1990, FPC
was assigned to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) at the site.
1.2 COMMUNITY INFORMATION
1.2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Land use near the New Hanover Site is both commercial and residential.
Commercial establishments include the airport (immediately 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
plant presumed to manufacture relay switches (north). The closest residential
community, referred to by homeowners as the "Sedgefield Area," is located
approximately .25 miles to the west, separated by a dense forest which
surrounds the site on two sides, railroad tracks, and Blue Clay Road
(Figure 1-1 ). The Sedgefield Area consists of four primary residential
streets: Fairfield Drive, Bermuda Drive, Jamaica Drive, and Spring Road.
These streets run perpendicular to Blue Clay Road; Nassau Road, a smaller
street, is parallel to Blue Clay Road, intersecting several of the neighbor-
hood's main streets.
1-6
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
The Sedgefield Area contains approximately 70 single-family homes, counis of
which were made from an aerial map of the area. Most of the homes were
constructed in the 1960s as part of one development effort. The area also
contains several older and newer homes, including one built in the early 1900s
and several constructed as recently as the late 1970s. Most residents inter-
viewed have lived in the neighborhood for approximately 20 years, a few having
lived in the area all their lives as local farmers.
The majority of the neighborhood is composed of modest homes that have
well-manicured lawns and appear generally well maintained. According to
' ' residents: there is no neighborhood association or homeowners group in the
area. This was confirmed by an environmental news reporter for the Wilmington
Star-News, who stated that he received no written or telephone responses of
concern from any neighborhood associations in the area of the site, when
articles regarding the site were published. The neighborhood itself and
surrounding acreage, some of'which is dense forest, the remainder open fields
planted sporadically with wheat, soybeans, and other crops and vegetables, does
not appear to be targeted for any immediate development. The Sedgefield Area
generally appears both quiet and stable with more long-term residents tha_n
newcomers or transients.
The New Hanover Site vicinity is under the jurisdiction of the New Hanover
County Government, population 120,000, led by five county commissioners who
serve elected 4-year terms. The County Environmental Health Department is the
first contact point for citizens contained about environmental or health
matters. Specific County contacts are listed in Appendix B.
1.2.2 HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
There has been no community involvement in site 'issues to date because citizens
were generally not aware of its existence or inclusion on the NPL. The
following describes the current level of knowledge about the site.
1-7
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2.2.1 Knowledge of the Bum Pit
Interviews with residents of 13 households in the Sedgefield Area conducted by
representatives of CDM and EPA on May 15 and 16, 1990, revealed little current
awareness of the New Hanover Site. Roughly half those interviewed knew of or
personally remembered firefighter training activities conducted at the site in
various levels of detail, but some did not know the practice had been discon-
tinued. Some remembered seeing black smoke emanating from the site during
training activities, but noted that the wind generally carried it away from
their neighborhood. No resident interviewed expressed any concern about
possible odor or ash residue from the burning. One citizen, who commented that
he had worked for A TC Petroleu_m, a Wilmington firrn which occasionally supplied
petroleum products to the Cape Fear Technical Institute for burning at the
site, seemed to have the most knowledge of site activities. On the opposite
· extreme, one resident who is 85 and has lived in the area all of her life, was
not even aware of the bum pit's existence, noting that the area used to be
known as "The Meadow," filled with venus fly traps and other native
wildflowers.
l.2.2.2 Knowledge of Superfund and Site Activities
Although several of the residents interviewed had heard of the Superfund
Program, most did not know what the remedial process entailed. Following an
explanation of the Superfund remedial process by the EPA representative, most
residents were concerned that a site so close to their homes has been included
on the NPL, but expressed gratitude that the EPA was involved and that the site
would be remediated and associated risks alleviated. All those interviewed
were provided with a brief description of the Superfund remedial process and
explanation of upcoming activities at the New Hanover Site.
In spite of the recent appearance of several Wilmington Star-News articles
about the site, residents were not aware it had been targeted for any
investigation or cleanup activities. Several environmental g~oups are active
in the Wilmington area, but none cited the bum pit as a top priority.
1-8
700/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Representatives of the Cape Fear (local) Sierra Club chapter, for instance,
were somewhat familiar with the site, but more concerned about other area
environmental issues, such as dioxin releases from local pulp and paper
facilities and preservation of coastal habitats. One Sierra Club repre-
sentative noted that since the EPA was already involved in studying the New
Hanover Site, the club would probably continue to focus on other priorities
that have not yet received a corrective action commitment from government or
other organizations.
1.2.3. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES TO DATE
The Community Relations Program for this site was initiated in May 1990, in
conjunction with the RI/FS Work Plan development. Community officials, civic
leaders, and residents in the immediate vicinity of the site were interviewed
to determine the current level of site awareness, gauge potential concerns, and
provide a basis for developing and implementing a comprehensive community
relations plan for the site. 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 to carry out an RI/FS. Information and questions
concerning removal may be directed to Mr. Jim Kopotic, EPA Emergency Response
Branch (404) 34 7-3931. The difference between the removal activities and
upcoming investigation was explicitly stated. EPA may conduct an emergency
response referred to as an immediate removal or an initial remedial measure, if
a site or any portion thereof poses an imminent threat to public health or the
environment at any time. A RI is conducted to assess how serious the contami-
nation is, what kind of contaminants are present, and characterizes potential
risks to the community. Following the completion of the RI, EPA performs a FS,
which examines the feasibility of various cleanup alternatives. An attempt was
also made to provide residents with an estimated timetable for site activities.
Resident's questions, primarily related to groundwater quality and well water
safety, were answered in light of current available data, with the assurance
that future site information and fact sheets would be more complete.
1-9
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 been no recorded community concern regarding site
contamination, as determined through interviews with local citizens, officials,
and media representatives. However, upon being informed of the current and
upcoming remedial activities at the site during community interviews, most
residents expressed some concern about their personal health and safety, and
several asked about the quality of water in their private wells.
Overall, though, the level of concern about the site was perceived as low
throughout the community. Interviews revealed that residents and other
community citizens feel positive about EPA ·s involvement and plans for the
site, although they were somewhat surprised that the bum pit has commanded
federal attention. This fact alone was cause for slight alarm among some
residents, who nonetheless are grateful the potential problem is being studied
and that residents will be informed of site progress.
Specific concerns mentioned by area residents and local officials during
interviews conducted in May I 990 are discussed below.
2.1 EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE CONTAMINATION
Until being informed during the community interviews of the upcoming removal
and investigation activities at the site, none of the residents interviewed had
any knowledge of the extent or nature of the contamination. Residents were
aware of the firefighter training activities and knew that various petroleum
related substances had been burned at the site, but did not know that
contamination could be present. In addition, none of the residents interviewed
had seen either of the articles printed in the Star-News about the site.
The two newspaper articles, both written by local reporters, appeared in
December 1989 and March 1990, and provided general information about the site.
Both were fairly accurate, 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 plans for investigation. AJthough 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 articles, an interview with one of the article's authors
revealed that the newspaper did not receive any letters, phone calls, or
inquiries about the site following publication of the articles or anytime
since.
2.2 DRINKING WATER QUALITY
All of the homes in Sedgefield rely on private water wells for their potable
water, as is the case for all Wilmington residences and businesses located
north of Smith Creek. (The area south of the creek, which includes the City of
Wilmington itself, uses City water.) While most residents expressed concern
over the potential for groundwater contamination near the site, all those
interviewed were satisfied with the current water quality, one noting the well
water was "clean and good tasting." All wished to be kept'apprised of
groundwater test results, showing recognition of the potential for site-related
contamination.
2.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Because of its relatively secluded location and surrounding features, the New
Hanover Site does not appear to attract passersby, children, or workers. At
present, however, the site is fairly accessible, being located near the inter-
section of two roads adjacent to the airport, and secured only by a set of
unmonitored, unlocked gates. There are currently no signs posted to restrict
access or forbid trespassing. The pit, site buildings, tanks, and abandoned
car are both visible and easily accessed from the road. Because the forest
surrounding the rest of the site is dense and undisturbed, however, it is
unlikely that individuals would accidentally stumble upon the site. To this
end, residents did not report any knowledge of onsite trespassers, nor mention
the possibility of children walking through the site. Some vandalism has
occurred,' primarily to the site's few structures, but does not appear to be
recent based upon the height and density of surrounding vegetation.
2-2
700/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The County has arranged to have the area immediately around the bum pit fenced
in conjunction with the upcoming removal action. Since .most of the possible
heaith and safety risks to trespassers stem from the unprotected open pit
itself, in~tallation of the fence and subsequent removal action should reduce
any possible dangers posed to individuals walking near or through the site.
2.4 QUALITY OF LIFE
None of the residents interviewed believe they have been personally affected by
the New Hanover Site, even when the burn pit was actively used.· As mentioned
in Section 1, several long-term residents recalled seeing black smoke above the
site, but observed that the wind generally carried it in the opposite direction,
toward the airport. No one complained about residue from the burning activities.
Residents, overall, do not appear too concerned about the site affecting their
quality of life, reducing property values, or otherwise negatively impacting their
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 place; I don't
think it's polluted." Her sentiments seem to echo the attitude of most area
residents interviewed.
2-3
700/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
3.1 OBJECTIVES
The primary goal of the community relations program at the New Hanover Site is
to provide an opportunity for _the community to learn about and participate in
the Superfund program and cleanup process and issues specific to the site. To
be effective, the program should ensure that area residents continue to be
encouraged by EPA's presence and performance at the site. EPA can maintain
this relationship by encouraging community interest and involvement in the
following ways: .
o Educate area residents about the Superfund program procedures, policies,
and requirements and about specific site issues. Information on the
Superfund program should be readily available to the public. EPA should ·
also coordinate closely with the news media to ensure that future news
reports further the public education process and contain accurate
information. EPA community relations staff should identify other
special situations or concerns where more specialized information may be
required, or where a certain type of information is desired by an
individual or group. Educational forums then should be tailored to the
needs and knowledge levels of the intended audience.
o Inform area residents, local officials, and the news media of all
proposed site activities. Concise, and easily understood information
should be available on the schedule of remedial activities, their
purpose, and their outcomes. Sharing this type of information as soon
as it becomes available is crucial in developin~ mutual trust between
EPA and interested parties. Information on site activities can be
disseminated in a variety of ways and should be targeted to meet the
needs of the potential audience. In !?articular, community residents
should be immediately informed of site activities or findings that
relate to drinking water quality, and health and safety concerns. Also,
it is important that local officials be informed of new developments and
planned activities to ensure they are able to answer constituent
inquiries accurately and in a timely manner. Finally, EPA should
continue to build a relationship with local environmental news
reporters, whose names and affiliations are included in Appen"dix B.
Giving information about the site to the news media before planned
activities take place will help to· establish EPA's credibility as a
source of information.
o Provide opportunities for public participation. To ensure citizen
concerns are addressed regarding the upcoming remedial investigation and
subsequent to groundwater analytical results and implications, EPA
3-1
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
representatives will conduct two public meetings .. The first "kick-off" meeting will take place as the work plan is being finalized and a second meeting following the completion of the FS. Additional meetings may be held if the data or other unforeseen situations occur. In order to enhance public participation. understandable information will be available to interested parties. Press releases, fact sheets and a regular updating of materials will be 9.laced in an information repository for public review. 'EPA will conduct availability sessions as the public need arises. EPA will also establish an informal mechanism for receiving public input throughout _the Superfund process.
o Anticipate future information needs and ~otential shifts in levels of concern. In light of the public attention given environmental issues in the greater Wilmington area, it is possible that concerns regarding the New Hanover Site will increase. As various environmental issues rise and fall from 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 important for EPA to recognize promptly any shifts in the level of interest so that community relations activities can be modified accordingly. Since current concerns are minimal, expressions of interest by residents outside the immediate vicinity of the New Hanover Site will necessitate a chan~e in EPA' s community relations program to accommodate new informauon needs and to involve a greater number of concerned citizens. Activities tailored to meet new needs and concerns can ensure that potential problem areas are addressed immediately.
3.2 SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES
This section describes suggested activities for the New Hanover Site community
relations program during the RI/FS.
I. Establish and maintain the information repository.
Purpose: To ensure that accurate, understandable information is available to mterested citizens.
Techn~ue: Fact sheets and site reports (i.e., Community Relations Plan,J/FS reports), the Administrative Record which is a compilation of key site documents used for choosing the response action(s), other pertinent site information, and general information on the Superfund program will be made available for public review in the New Hanover County Public Library in downtown Wilminf;ton. The head librarian is already familiar with the federal public viewmg/comment policy, and has set up a convenient shelf specifically for this purpose. She requested that EPA notify her prior to sending documents so space can be made available. The facility is open seven days per week, is accessible to residents, and has copying equipment. More information is provided in Appendix A.
3-2
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Establish and maintain an information contact.
Purpose: To establish and maintain a single point of contact who can
provide accurate and timely responses to questions from citizens, local
officials, and the press, and to provide a mechanism for monitoring changes
in the level of community interest and concern.
Technique: A technical or community relations staff person should be
des1gpated to respond directly to public inquiries regarding site
activities. The information contact will be in a unique position to listen
to concerns and comments and detect changes in the level of community
concern and to determine what types of information the public is most
interested in receiving. The information contact should stay in close
contact with area officials and may wish to subscribe to local newspapers
to stay up-to-date on the types of information the public is receiving.
3. Hold Public Meetings.
Pu(c;ose: To facilitate citizen input prior to, during, and after the
fol owmg the Rl/FS.
Technique: Public meetin~s should be held to answer citizen questions and
receive comments on EPA s activities and the recommended remedial
alternative. An opportunity for a public meeting should be provided
following release of the EPA approved RJ/FS Work Plan and prior to ·
initiating RJ activities. The first public meeting should address the
proposed investigation process, including media to be sampled, parameter to
be analyzed, and a general timetable. The second public meeting will be
held following completion of the draft feasibility study report. EPA may
need to consider holding additional public meetings at significant Rl/FS
milestones if the level of concern or the number of interested citizens .
increases. Suggested locations for meetings are included in Appendix A.
Public meetings should be advertised in advance via the community mailing
list, newspapers, radio, and local television stations. To maximize
attendance, they should rrobably be held on weekday evenings, which most
residents interviewed indicated to be the most convenient time. Meetings
should be coordinated with County officials and a court reporter secured to
record the proceedings.
4. Conduct meetings and/or telephone updates with local officials.
Purpose: To inform responsible officials of the schedule of remedial
activ1hes and ensure that EPA is responsive to the concerns of local
officials. Since the County is, in this case, a PRP, other officials, such
as the District 13 Representative and city council members, should be
contacted.
Technique: Meetings or telephone updates with local officials should be
held upon completion of the RI and again following the FS. Appendix B
includes the names and telephone numbers of local officials.
3-3
700/6
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Prepare fact sheets.
Purpose: To inform the community about procedures of the Superfund program
and RI/FS activities.
Technique: Fact sheets should be prepared and distributed in conjunction
with the public meetings. One fact sheet explaining the Superfund process
and outlining the RI activities should be prepared and distributed pnor to
beginning the RI. Another fact sheet describing the RI results (pnor to
the FS) should be prepared. A third fact sheet describing the FS process
and selected alternative(s) should be distributed. Additional fact sheets
might be issued as needed to respond to shifts in community concern or
interest. ·
6. Provide news releases to local newspapers.
Purpose: To ensure that area residents receive accurate information
throughout the RI/FS.
Technique': News releases should be prepared prior to initiating the RI
act1V11tes, then following RI findings, and before and after the fS.
Addresses and phone numbers of local newspapers and environmental
reporters, where applicable, are included in Appendix B.
7. Prepare a responsiveness summary.
Pur ose: To address any comments on the draft feasibility study report
receive following the public comment period and ensure public concerns are
addressed during development of the Record of Decision (ROD).
. Technique: A summary of oral and/or written public comments received by .
EPA on key documents and EPA's answers to these ·comments should be compiled
for use in developing the ROD.
3.3 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
Though the actual dates for implementing various community relations tasks will
depend on the RI/FS task schedules, a suggested sequence of community relations
events is presented in Figure 3-1. As indicated, many of the tasks are
ongoing, to continue throughout the RI/FS and should be tailored to any shift
in community concern or RI/FS progress.
3-4
700/6
. -· - --- - - - - - - - --- - - - -
z ~ m RI/FS Durtng Completion of Durtng the Completion of Record of Initiation of :E Work Plan Remedial Remedial Feaslblllty Draft FS Decision Remedial
Completion Investigation Investigation Study (FS) Report Completion Action ::t 8
)> 1. Establish EPA z ---~-----;...-----Update as Needed---------------0 Information Contact I I < U)
:: m 0 2 • Establish Information ---------;...----• Update as Needed ____________ ---E :D ::t Repository
0 m
z 0 0 3. Maintain Contacts Gl C cl C ,--with Local Leaders
~ z m > -I 0~ 4. Prepare Fact Sheets or z -< 0 ·o 0 0 ,, (/) Technical Summaries
:IJ )> < -l -)> 5. Prepare News ::i: :D 0 Provide as Needed ~ ""O :j Releases
I I :IJ 0 < 0 :D -6. Public Notice C -I :j Provide as Needed z > CD m
C U) 7. Conduct Public 0 0
:D Meetings z
J! 8. Hold a Public
-I Comment Period .
~ 9. Prepare a
-I Responsiveness 0 m Summary
10. Revise the CRP 0
"Tl
Gi w C
:IJ I m . .... z
0
I
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
SUGGESTED LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION
REPOSITORY AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
Information Repository
New Hanover County Public Library
210 Chestnut Street
Wilmington. North Carolina 2840 I
[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 28401
(9 I 9) 323-5088
Kenan Auditorium Cameron Auditorium
Capacity:
Contact:
Cost:
982
Mr. Doug Swink
(9 I 9) 395-3218
$250.00 for
4-hour period
Roland-Grise Junior High School.
4412 Lake Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Capacity:
Contact:
725
Capacity:
Contact:
Cost:
Cost:
Ms. Diane Avery
[phone], extension 222
Free
A-I
300
Ms. Linda Nelms
[phone]
$100.00 for
4-hour period
700/10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B I LIST OF CONTACTS
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
700/7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
:I
;I
' ll
' i
!I
I
11 i
i II
' !
ii '
\1
j
ii
I
LIST OF CONTACfS
A. Federal Elected Officials
U.S. Senator Jesse A. Helms'•
Washin~on Office:
403 Dir sen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3301
District Office:
Century Post Office Building, Room 3 I 4
P. 0. Box 2888
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
U.S. Senator Terry Sanford
Washington Office: .
716 Hart Senate Otfice 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
Ramiro Llado
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/ I I
I
I
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 Buildin~
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 I
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 Redwine
Mailing Address: Legislative Office Building
North Carolina General Assembly
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
State Agency Contact
Charlotte Verlashkin
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
[phone]
B-2
28401
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
(9 I 9) 733-5995
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
700/ I 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 28401
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]
(9 l 9) 34 I -78 I 0
[phone]
700/11
I
I F. Newspapers
I The Challenger Newsrarer 5 I 4 Princess Street
[phone]
I Distribution: Thursdays
Circulation: 5,000
Advertising Director: Jim Campers
I Encore [phone]
P.O. Box 2153
255 North Front Street
I Distribution: Thursdays
Circulation: 5,000 -. Advertising Director: Nancy McBride
The Island Gazette (9 I 9) 458-8156 104 North Lake Park Boulevard
I Distribution: Wednesdays
Circulation: 4,000
Advertising Director: Shelia Davis I Star-News Newsparers, Inc. (9 I 9) 343-2000 !003 South I 7tnStreet
I Distribution: Daily
Circulation: 40,000
I Advertising Director: David Schuette
Environmental News Reporters: Kevin Hart, Janet Olson
Wilmington Journal Comran;r (9 I 9) 762-5502
I 412 South 7th Street
Distribution: Thursdays
Circulation: 8,600
I Advertising Director: Katherine Tate
G. Radio -I W AA V AM Newstalk [phone] 211 North 2nd Street
I Advertising: Donn Ansell
WMFD Radio [phone]
I 1890 Dawson Street
Advertising: Mary Brooks
I
I
I B-4
700/11
I
I WMYT Radio [phone] 721 Market Street I Advertising: Cheryl Sparks
I WSFM (919) 251-000 I 20 I North Front Street
Advertising: Dennis Deason I WWIL (9 I 9) 763-3364 812-C Castle Street
I Advertising: Henry Jacobs
WWQQ Radio IO I FM [phone] I 721 Market Street
Advertising: Sandy Franklin
I WVBS BI00.FM (919) 763-66 I I 20 I North Front Street
I Advertising: Diane Jones
WHQR-FM Public Radio [phone] I I 026 Greenfield Street
Announcements: Jim Polson
I WKOO/KOOL 98.7 [phone] 32 I North Front Street
I Advertising: Barbara Simmons
WGNI Radio [phone] 21 I North 2nd Street
I Advertising: Monica Johnson
I H. Television
WWAY (ABC) [phone] 615 North Front Street I Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
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
700/11 '
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 2840 I
Advertising: Bob Watson
(919) 1!21-5555
[phone]
B-6
700/ I l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C I SUPERFUND
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
I
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
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
This glossary defines terms 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 perform or pay tht!
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 information
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 information
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 formation composed of materials such as sand,
soil, or gravel that can store !ind 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 RJ/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 Reauthorization 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 partie:;
(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 describes 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 partie., 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 prio1r
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
Explanadon 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 O to 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,
corros.ive, 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 determination,
based on the site evaluation, that a removal action is appropriate.
C-5
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 watter will . .
contain about I ppb of TCE.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): 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 site:,
they have contaminated.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of collecting and revi!!wing 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
presented in the detailed analysis of the remedial investigation/feasibility study,
C-6
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and presents any waivers to cleanup standards of §121(d)(4) of SARA which may be
proposed. This may he 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 investiga
lion and cleanup of Superfund sites meet
established standards.
Record of Communication: A register of all verbal co'mmunications between EPA
and citizens regarding site concerns.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
altemative(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 perfonned 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 detennine 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-tenn 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-tenn 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-tenn removal action or a long-tenn remedial response that may
include, but is not limited to, the following activities:
o Removing hazardous materials from a site to an EPA-approved. licen~ed
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
1:
I
I
I
•
o Destroyin~ 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 contnmmants.
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.
Treabnent, Storage, and Disposal Faclllty (TSO Facility): Any building,
structure, or installation where a hazardous substance has been treated,
stored, or disposed. TSD 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
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AOC
ARARs
ATSDR
CD
CERCLA
COE
CR
CRP
DOC
DOD
DOE
DOI
ERA
ERT
FEMA
FS
HHS
HRS
IAGs
NCP
NOAA
NPL
NRC
NRT
osc
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. Army Corps of Engineers
Communi~y 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
lnteragency 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
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
I
I
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 Memoran?um of Agreements
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
United States Coast Guard
Volatile Organic Compound
C-12
700/8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I SUPERFUND PROCESS
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUPERFUNDPROCESS
._ ____ Community Relation._ ______________ Community Ral■tlon■-----'
This exhibit provides a simplified explanation of how a long-term Superfund response works.
I. After a site is discovered, it is investigated, usually by the State.
2. The site will then be ranked using a system that takes into account:
o Possible health risks to the human population
o Potential hazards, (e.g., from direct contact, inhalation, fire, or explosion) of
substances at the site
o · Potential for the substances et the site to contaminate drinking water supplies o Potential for the substances at the site to pollute or otherwise harm the environment.
If the problems at a site are deemed serious by the State and the EPA, the site will be listed on the National Priorities (NPL), a roster of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. Every site on the NPL is eligible for Federal Superfund money.
3. 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 an immediate removal or an initial remedial measure.
4. Next, EPA usually conducts a remedial investigation (RI). The RI assesses how serious the contamination is, whet kind of cpntaminants ere present, and characterizes
potential risks to the community.
5. Following completion of the RI: EPA performs a Feasibility Study (FS) which examines the feasibility of various cleanup alternatives.
6. EPA holds a minimum three-week public comment period to receive c/tizen input concerning the recommended alternatives. Citizens may provide comments either orally et public meetings or through written correspondence to EPA.
7. After public comments have been received, EPA then chooses a specific cleanup plan.
8. Once the design is finished, the actual remedial ·activities of the site can begin.
· The time necessary to complete each of these steps varies with every site. In general, a Rl/FS takes from one to two years. Designing the cleanup plan may take six months. Implementing the Remedy -the actual containment or removal of the waste, may take from one to three years. If groundwater is involved, the final cleanup may take many more years.
Ongoing community relations activities during a cleanup include public meetings and other activities intended to keep citizens and officials informed and to encourage public input. ·These activities ere 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 community relation activities that can occur is described in EPA 's Community Relations Plan for the site. ·
0-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX E
I TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS (TAG)
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, .. -... ·• ..... -. ~ .. -...
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS (TAG) PROGRAM
Recognizin~ the importance of community involvement, and the need for citizens living near N PL sites to be well informed, Congress included provisions in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) to establish a Technical Assistance Grant (fAG) Pro~ram, intended to foster informed public involvement in decisions relating to site-specific clean-up strategies under Superfund. ·
PROVISIONS
0 TAG program provides up to $50,000 to community groups for the purpose of hiring technical advisors to help citizens understand and intepret site-related technical information for themselves.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
0
0
0
Recipient group must provide 35 percent of the total costs of the project to be supported by TAG funds. .
Recipient group must budget the expenditure of grant funds to cover the entire clean-up period (which averages six years).
There may be only one TAG award per NPL site at any one time.
WHO MAY Af PLY
o Those whose memebership may be affected by a release or threatened release of toxic wastes at any facility that is listed on the NPL, or proposed for listing, and at which preliminary site work has begun.
o Groups that are incorporated under applicable state laws for the purposes covered by the grant.
WHO MAY NOT APPLY
o Potentially responsible parties: any individuals or companies (such as facility owners or operators, transporters or generators of hazardous waste), potentially responsible for or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site.
o Academic institutions.
o Corporations that are not incorporated for the specific purpose of representing affected individuals (in relation to the Superfund site.)
o Groups established and/or sustained by governmental entities (including emergency planning committees and some citizen advisory groups).
E-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
USES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hiring technical advisors to increase citizen understanding of information that
already exists about the site.
Reviewing site-related documents, whether produced by EPA or others.
Meeting with the recipient group to explain technical i~formation. .
Providing assistance to the grant recipient in communicating the group's
site-related concerns.
Disseminating interpretations of technical information to the community.
Participatinjl in site visits, when possible to gain a better understanding of
cleanup activities.
Traveling to meetings and hearings directly related to the situation at the site.
CHOOSING A TECHNICAL ADVISOR
0
0
0
Consider the kind of technical advice the group needs most and whether a
prospective advisor has the variety of skills necessary to provide all of the
advice needed.
A technical advisor must have knowledge of hazardous or toxic waste issues,
academic training in relevant fields (chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology.
hydrology, hydrogeologr, soil science, limnology. meteorology, engineering), and
ability to translate technical information into terms understandable to lay
persons.
A group may choose more than one technical advisor to obtain the combination of
skills required at a particular site or choose a consulting firm that has
experience in all the needed areas.
HOW TO APPLY FOR A GRANT
0
0
0
0
Provide information to EPA (or to the state, if the state is involved in
administering the TAG program) to determine if the group meets specific
administrative and management requirements.
Application must include a description of the group's history, goals, and plans
for using the technical assistance funds. ·
A group must demonstrate that it is aware of the time commitment, resources and
dedication needed to manage successfully a TAG.
Applications submitted on behalf of more than one group will be evaluated more
favorably than will other applications.
E-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
WHERE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
o EPA regional office: Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street,
N.E., Atlanta. Georgia 30365. A free application package is available and
includes a copy of The Citizen's Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance
Grant Program, which contains sample forms with detailed instructions for proper
preparhon of a T~G application. .
E-3
I .. , ,:;-
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I,
n·
·I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I 700-40
I
COMMUNITY RELATIONS MAILING LIST
NEW HANOVER SITE
Wilmington, North Carolina
Area Residents
Mr. and Mrs. Raikes Clark
230 Fairfield Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mr. and Mrs. Collins
118 Spring Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mr. Henry Conner
205 Fairfield Drive
Wilmington, North Carolia 28401
Mr. and Mrs. D.K. Jones
226 Fairfield Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Mi-. Jimmy Price
217 Bennuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mr. Edward Reeves
222 Bennuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I .
Mrs. Kathleen Smith and
Mrs. Myrtle Murray
221 Bennuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mr. and Mrs. Stout
218 Fairfield Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mr. Stewart Taylor
209 Bennuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Mrs. Madeleine Trask
IO I Spring Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I 700-40
I
Mr. James Ward
209 Bermuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Mr. & Mrs. Ernest Wilson
20 I Bermuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ms. Janice Wilson
204 Bermuda Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
Government Officials
Mr. John Baden
Wilmington Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890 ·
'Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
(9 I 9) 251-4 754
The Honorable Don Betz
Mayor of Wilmington
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone] .
The Honorable Franklin Block
Senator for New Hanover County
520 Princess Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
[phone] -local
Mr. Raymond Church, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
New Hanover County Engineering Dept.
414 Chestnut Street, Room IO I
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
[phone]
Mr. Rick Duarte
Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District
601 E. 12th Street -Room 864
Kansas City, Missouri 64 I 06
(8 I 6) 426-6694
Mr. William Farris
City Manager
P.O. Box f8JO
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
2
I .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
D·
I
m
I 700-40
I
The Honorable Alexander Hall
District 13 Representative
718 Market Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
[phone]
Mr. Mike Mayer
Director of Public Safety
New Hanover County Airport
190 I Hall Drive, Smte 20 I
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone]
Mr. Allan O'Neal
County Manager
320 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
[phone] -
Mr. John Nolan
Acting Manager
-New Hanover County Airport
190 I Hall Drive, Suite 201
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone]
The Honorable Harry Payne, Jr.
District 13 Representative
20 I Princess Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
[phone]
The Honorable Tom Pollard
· City of Wilmington Attorney
P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
The Honorable David Redwine
District 13 Representative
P.O. Box 1238
Shallotte, North Carolina 28459
[phone]
Mr. Joe Rhine
Public Safety Officer
New Hanover County Airport
190 I Hall Drive, Smte 201
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone]
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I 700-40
I
The Honorable Charlie Rose
United States Congress
2230 Rayburn Huse Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20525-3307
[phone] -local
The Honorable Lonnie Williams
County Attorney
14 South Fifth Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
[phone]
Interested Citizens
Mr. Kelvin Hart
Wilmington Star-News
P.O. Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
Dr. Jim Lanier
President
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 330
Wilmington,' North Carolina 28402
[phone]
Ms. Janet Olson
Wilmington Star-News
P.O. Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
(9 J 9) 343-2000
Mr. Charles Nixon
Airport Maintenance (retired)
Route 6, Box 92
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
(9 I 9) 762-4553
Mr. George Potter
President
George Potter Septic Tank Service
5933 Carolina Beach Road
Wilmington, North carolima 28403
[phone]
Dr. E. Thomas Satterfield, Jr.
President
Cape Fear Community College
411 N. Front Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 2840 I
[phone] ·
4
I • .;.,. "V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
n
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
'I 700-40
I
Mr. Andy Simmons
President, High Rise Services Company
Route I, Box 2000, Royster Road
Leland North Carolina 28451
[phone]
Mr. Robert Slaughter, Vice Chairman
Cape Fear Sierra Club
105-1/2 Borden Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
(9 I 9) 343-8575
Ms. Beverly Tetterton .
New Hanover County Public Library
20 I Chestnut Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 3840 I
(919) 34 J-4394
5