NCD981475932_20030926_FCX Inc. (Washington Plant)_FRBCERCLA RD_Fact Sheets and Press Clippings 1989 - 1996-OCR

fl SUP.ERFUNp:,FA~HEET UPDATE
. -~-
KOPPERS, INC.
Morrisville, Wake County, North Ca_r,olina
May 1996
•• I •
This fact sheet is not to be considered as a technical document. It has bean prepared in an effort to present information to the public
in an easily understood 'filallnei. ·
SOILS
The December 1995 fact sheet notified the public that the
dechlorination process BCD (Base Catalyzed
Dehalogenation) treatment for soil would not be a
feasible treatment alternative at this Site. The thermal
treatment units currently in operation in other parts of the
Country failed to adequately remove dioxins during the
treatment process. The primary alternative selected in
the 9/92 Record of Decision was off-site incineration for
the removal of dioxin and pentachlorophenol
contamination in soils.
Representatives of the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) Beazer accompanied members of the Clean
Water and Environment Project for Shiloh -CWEPS (EPA
Technical Assistance Grant recipients) and individuals
from the NC Department of Environment, Health & Natural
R0s".)urces an a !our of H~0 LW.D !1cinerator facility in
Calvert City, Kentucky during the week of April 15. This
facility was selected to receive soils from the Koppers
Site. The tour was arranged to provide the CWEPS
citizens and NC regulatory people with a first-hard view of
the facility to allay their concerns of how the soil will be
handled, incinerated, disposed of after treatment, and of
the surrounding community. The tentative completion
date for soil excavation and off-site incineration activities
is May 27, 1996.
., Mobilization of equipment to the Site began on May 8 and
should be completed by May 16. Actual excavation of
the soils will begin after mobilization has been completed.
Rust Environment and Infrastructure of Raleigh was
selected to perform the soil excavation and loading of
soils for transporting to the LWD incinerator in Calvert
City. EPA's oversight contractor (Black & Veatch) will be
on sight to oversee soil excavation activities which we
anticipate being completed by May 27, 1996.
(For pasr Sire history, please review Che documents which are
locared in Che reference section of rhe Cary Public Library.)
SURFACE WATER
The 1992 Record of Decision selected draining of both
the Medlin Pond and fire lagoon and treatment of the
drained water. Surface water treatment required the
draining and treatment of the surface water in both the
Fire Poind and the Medlin Pond. Sediment samples were
required to be taken in both ponds after drainage to
ensure that no sediments exceeded soil cleanup
standards. Another component of the surface water
remediation included restoration of wetlands. By law,
whenever a water body is drained another one has to be
built to replace it. EAP Industries, Inc. have completed
the mitigation of these two water bodies on the
Seagondollar property not far from the Kopper's Site.
As of this date, both the former Medlin and Fire Poinds
have been drained arid backfilled with clean soil by Waste
Abatement Technology of Marietta, Georgia. Both areas
have been graded. The former Medlin Pond after grading
has been planted with transitional wetland vegetation.
The fire pond will be revegetated. A prefinal inspection
of these two areas was conducted on April 30th, and the
final inspection is scheduled for May 24th.
GROUNDWATER
The 1992 Record of Decision also selected treatment of
contaminated groundwater by extracting the water and
treating it through a carbon absorption process.
Additional groundwater sampling and well installation was
required to fully characterize the extent of contamination,
All monitoring wells were resampled. Private well
sampling was also conducted. In some cases, some
residents/ owners were taken off bottled water because
their well water was below the standards which EPA and
the State use as their safe drinking water levels.
Rust Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. will implement
the groundwater treatment system. This system consists
of utilizing the exiting extraction well, running pipes from
the well heads to the treatment building, and discharging
the treated water to an on-site drainage ditch.
FUTURE
It looks like we are on the home stretch in getting the
Kopper's Site cleaned up. With soil and surface water
remediation completed and only the groundwater
treatment to continue, the Site will have a totally restored
appearance before too long once the vegetation starts to
grow.
ft
It has taken the cooperative acrl of the, PRPs, the
State of North Carolina, contrac ,s, the TAG gro::::-,.
working with EPA to get the work done; and we have
finally reached our goal of cleaning up the Site and
protecting human health. Our appreciation is extended to
all participants.
INFORMATION
For more information on the activities that have occurred
at the Site, documentation has been made available to the
public at the:
Wake County Public Library
Cary Branch
310 South Academy Street
Cary, NC 27511
CONTACTS •
Please feel free to contact EPA if you have any questions
at 1-800-435-9233:
Ms. Beverly Hudson, Ext. 2080
!'le medial Project Manager
Ms. Cinqy Gurley, Ext. 2031
Asst:Project Manager
Ms. Diane Barrett, Ext. 2073
Community Involvement Coordinator
......-~a-;~.
~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
(~' -✓:9
North Superfund Remedial Branch · / fit,:· 15'% )
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord. ,
Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Ma~ager •. ,/ ··,.,,..:,.), !:: ... -/
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
S/F HENU0195
PUGLlC lNFURMATlUN UFF!CER
N,C, SUPERFUNU SECTION
N,C, DEPT, UF ENVI~ONMENT, h~ALTH
& NATU~AL RESOURCES
i', U, tiUX 27687
kALUGH NC Z7bl 1-7687
111l1l~111 I ,II ,111 ,II ,1 ,Ill fl 1l Ill 11l 11 Id, 11 I I 1, l1 l1I1!/l,11l
4I: SUPERFUND FjJ SHEET UPDATE
' ,_
KOPPER$, INC.
Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
December 1995
This tact sheet is not to be cansKlered as a technical document. It has been prepared in an effort to present intormation to the public in an easily understood
manner.
The Record of Decision signed in September of 1992
selected Incineration as the preferred alternative to be used
to treat the pentachlorophenol and dioxin contaminated soil
at the Koppers Site. However, it also stated the Agency
would conduct a "treatability study" on an innovative
treatment technology Base Catalyzed Decomposition
(BCD) which was strongly preferred by the community.
The BCD process is a chemical and physical process that
decomposes chlorinated organic compounds by removing
the chlorine atoms from the atomic structure in each such
compound. The BCD process demonstrated consisted of a
modified soil thermal desorption treatment unit which heated
the soil converting the contaminants from the soil into a
vapor. The vapor then flowed into a tank containing hot oil.
and the oil absorbed the contaminated vapor. The hot oil
underwent treatment·in a vapor recovery-system-to remove
the dioxin.
The treatability study was conducted in September 1993.
The initial results indicated that the process could work but
would need specific adjustments to the treatment process in
order to achieve the air emission standards required by the
State of North Carolina for dioxin. Since that time, the
Potentially Responsible Party with EPA's overview has been
working with the manufacturer to design the treatment
system to be used.
During the past several years the BCD treatment was
implemented at a Supertund site in California. The
circumstances at the California site and the Koppers Site
are very similar. In 1995, first-run test results from the
process operating in California indicated that the air
treatment process on the thermal desorption system did nm
work properly and was generating dioxins into the air
instead of removing them. One purpose of the treatment
was to remove dioxin: however, it was not meeting Record
of Decision requirements nor California State standards
The EPA, the State of North Carolina, and representatives
of the PRPs met with citizens living in the area as well as
representatives of the Clean Water Environment Project for
Shiloh in October 1995 to advise them of the lastest results
of the BCD process. Atter much discussion and delibiration,
the communityrrAG group voted to implement the originally
selected alternative of off-sne incineration. The amount of
remaining soil to be excavated is approximately 500 cubic
yards.
It has been determined that the soil can be excavated in_
approximately 6 months and the Site "cleaned up", with the
exception of treating the contaminated groundwater. The
PRPs are in the process of completing a Remedial Design
detailing how the soil excavation will be conducted, where
the soil will be taken, how n will be taken there, all safety
and health requirements, etc. A fact sheet will be prepared
intorming the public of what actions will be taken.
Dewatering of the two ponds is underway and should be
finished in approximately two months, barring weather
stoppages. According to regulations, whenever a lake
serving as a natural habnat has to be emptied, another one
has to be constructed. This work has been completed and
is located on the Seagondollar property near the Koppers
Site.
MORE INFORMATION?
For more information about this Site, please contact the
following:
Ms. Beverly Hudson, Project Manager
Ms. Diane Barrett, Community Relations
U.S.E.PA, Region 4
North Supertund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
If you are interested in contacting th~zen's group, The
Clean Water and Environmental P!Wf for Shiloh, that
received the Technical Assistance Grant, please write:
Documents devel• during the Superfund process are
housed in the infoM!\on reposfory located at: ·
Wake County Public Library -. , . ·,.,
Mrs. Peggy Medlin, Project Director
5711 Koppers Road
Morrisville, N.C. 27560
· Cary Branch
310 South Academy Street
Cary, N. C. 27511
~/1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~ 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
'Atlanta; Georgla·J0365
. /, ",.," North Supertund Remedial Branch / • .. · · ,· )
Diane Barrett, Community Relatlons Coard. ·, . ·;
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager\ GEC-o'J'j .
l ... _ ,_,_ "'1 J_-:<_ r~.'Vir:~~~1_,._: ...
! ;•:;,'!Iii.!'; ·•/(
Region 4
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
~R:~Al1C D n ~:; J. ,·i 1.1:;:.:~.;1,.v., ,._ •'
\ "'1 48~;;: ;:; ,1 l--·-··-----------···. .. ...
nrc:r,vE:r
0F.C 12199.'
S / F . HEN DO 1 9 •~Ui-'f:f1FUNI) PUBLIC INFURMATION OFFICER SE'C
N.C. SUPERFUNO SECTION
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
& NATUKAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 27667
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
• •,n:; ·. --------------------------------------------, . , . \, '. ': ~~ . . ' . •:, . -

.

-
•. . . -. . . • . • r ·,. ··• ..
This update is.being prepared in an effort-to provide the public with ,i.~forma_tiori concernir'ig'o·n:going and ~a'nn,ed,
activities at the Koppers, Inc. Site located between Koppers Road, Church Street, and Highway 54 in Morrisville, North
Carolina. ·•· ··
SURFACE WATER
The Potentially Responsible Parties have scheduled their
, contractors to begin mobilizing at the Site the week of
October 16, 1995. Their contractor Waste Abatement
Technology of Marietta, Georgia has been selected to
perform the surface water remediation which consists of
dewatering the two ponds, running the water through
mobile, truck-mounted carbon adsorption units to filter and
clean the water, then backfilling the pond area with clean
soil. The treated water meeting NPDES permitting
requirements will be discharged to an on-site drainage
ditch. The proposed schedule is as follows:
Establish temporary utilities (electricity, water, phone
line)
Set up temporary operating facilities (office trailer,
treatment system) (October 25)
Construct diversion ditches to reroute storm water in the
event of rain (October 31)
Begin dewatering ponds (November 13)
Complete backfilling pond areas (January 8)
Complete seeding pond areas (January 22)
Remove temporary operating facilities (January 29)
Demobilize (February 5)
Of course, all schedules are dependent upon weather
conditions in order to meet targeted deadlines.
GROUNDWATER
RUST Environmental & Infrastructure of Raleigh, North
Carolina is the contracting firm that will be implementing the
groundwater treatment system. This system consists of
utilizing the existing extraction well, running pipes from the
well heads to the treatment building, and discharging the
treated water to an on-site drainage ditch.
The proposed schedule is as follows:
Obtain necessary access agreements
Mobilize to Site (week of October 16th)
Submit Health·& Safety ·Plan, Construction Operations" ~-. .
Plan, and Contractor Quality Control Plan (November 2)
Obtain necessary water company service contract
(November 13)
EPA approval of plans submitted on Novem.tj~r 2
(November 20)
Begin well and pipeline installation (December 4)
Complete well and pipeline installation (January 5)
Begin groundwater treatment system installation
(January 8)
Complete groundwater treatment system installation
(January 29)
Complete testing and training (February 12)
Region 4
Following these steps the gro.wate; treatment p;~ces.s · can begin which will consist of the extracted groundwater tlowin_g)n(? a ~?.CJ~e!!ZJJ\j0,~J.Wn~rt ,fu_tration pro~·ess_, a carbon•adsorpt1on networl<, with fmal,d1scharge 10 a ditch on-site., ·
CONTACTS ~ ,.;,-.. '
,(.-··~· ·,-[, .· _. , ~ .... , ..;;,'._•· .. !L',_ . .... . .. •-. . .. -.. . -~ . . .:· •: ..... t':,}!!'·"? :~ _' lf'y6u would; like;,to: obtain more information· or}aik· io'; someone about 1hese activities, please either c°ali us"a~{ ; 800-435-9233 •ext.,.2080 or 2073, or write us"ar tlie '. following ·address:" -
,; l'' '~·. (' .. ,. -} ,••. ,; ' . .. . , .. -~ .. ,' ',/.:Ms. Beveriy Hudson, Remedial Project Manager Citizens-are encouraged to. visit the.Wake .. County,P.ublic. Library in Cary, North Carolina, to reviell'. the reports and docum·ents that have been developed'duiiiigthe Superfund ·' .,, ··
.. . •. Ms ... Diane.Barrett,. Community. Rela_tioQ s. Spec.-•--~~ North Supertund Remedial Branch · U.S.' Environmental Protection Agency-·· ··1 2i;:·,
process for this Site. · .: w,·· ·: '3 '· ·· ~ :· ~; /~: · .... 345 Courtland Street, NE ... , Atlan1a, GA 30365
. ! ' . ; ' -: J
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency North Supertynd Remedial Branch 345 Courtland Street, N.E. Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coard. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Beverly Hudson, Remedial Proje·ct Manager
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
• • REMEDIAL DESIGN FACT SHEET
,. \.' ' ·: --·~·~:.;:;,\.~!~}\:~. , ~ ;, ·.\,; ·t:.; ·;
:\, :i,. April '1995
This fact sheet is not to be considered a technical document but has been prepared in order lo provide the public with a better understanding of the process
and activities that will be undertaken at the Site in the near future. Information provkled in this fact sheet was taken from the_ Final Design Report.
INTRODUCTION
A Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) for remedial
design and remedial action (RD/RA) was issued to the
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) -Beazer East,
Inc. by EPA on April 21, 1993. The Final Design
Report describes the remedial activities that will occur
for the contaminated soil, groundwater, and surface
water areas.
The Record of Decision selected excavation and off-
site incineration of the affected .soil at the site.
However, a contingency remedy was\also selected. It
stipulated that EPA would conduct a treatability study
to evaluate the use of an innovative technology known
as base catalyzed dechlorination (BCD). Based upon
the data obtained from the treatability study, EPA
concluded that BCD is viable as the soil remediation
technology to be used. Therefore, the Remedial
Design for soil remediation has been prepared utilizing
the BCD technology for the Kopper's Morrisville Site.
Treatment of groundwater and surface water remained
unchanged.
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The plant produced glue-laminated wood products
beginning in 1962. Wood treating operations using the
Cellon process at the 52 acre Site operated until 1975.
The Cellon wood treatment process using pentachloro-
phenol was discontinued and dismantled in 1975, after
which treated wood was received 1rom other sources.
The Site is located on Koppers Road southwest of
Highway 54, and bounded on the southwest by Church
Street and the Southern Railway on the' east. In 1986
Beazer acquired 10 acres of the original 52 acres;
1993 they acquired 6.6 acres of the original tract (Unit
Structures) and 4.6 acres of the Medlin property. [See
Site map on the following'page.] For more Site history
please check the Site's repository located in the Wake
County Public Library, Cary Branch, 31 O South
Academy Street, Cary, North Carolina.
On April 21, 1993, Beazer was issued a Consent
Order requiring them to implement the Record of
Decision alternatives. In October and November 1993
a predesign sampling program· was conducted to
better determine the volume of soil, surface water,
sediment and groundwater that needed to be treated.
The remedy selected for soil remediation consists of
excavation of contaminated soils and treatment via
base catalyzed decomposition (BCD) on Site.
Nevertheless, incineration will still be considered an
option if the operating conditions are significantly
different than those employed during the technology
demonstration or if the volume of impacted soil turns
out to be substantially greater than what is expected.
Cleanup goals established in the Record of Decision
for surface and subsurface soil consists of excavating
soils containing concentrations of pentachlorophenol
greater than 95 milligrams/kilograms (parts per million},
and soils containing concentrations of dioxin/furans
. greater. than 7 micrograms/kilogram (parts per billion).
However)eazer has opted to irilpose a stricter penta-
chlorophenol standard on the remedial contractor of
9.5 ppm instead of 95 ppm. This will ensure that the
90 percent reduction is obtained.
' \
0
0 0
0
,······----------------___ .,
=
D
• PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Soil Remediation • The initial contract for soil
remediation will .be for excavation an_d staging of ·
impacted soils, : . Th§!:s§! __ soils . will . be excavated,
screened, and segregated. Post-excavation sal)lpling
will be performed to verify attainment of the cleanijp
goals. Once· these levels have been verified, the
excavated areas will be backfilled ·with clean off-site
soil. Upon completion of this phase of the soil
remedy, treatment of the soils will begin. This initial
phase of remediation is estimated to take six weeks.
Because of the small volume of soil to be remediated,
vendor estimates on unit prices for the BCD treatment
of soil are actually several times higher than reported
in the "Preliminary Data Summary Report." · The
design st•-tegy is to excavate, field screen, segregate,
charact~rrze and stage soils. Upon completing this
work, post-excavation sampling will verify that remedial
action goals have been met and the impacted soils
have been properly staged on site for treatment.
Bid packages will b.e prepared, bids solicited, and
evaluated for a single contractor,, to excavate,
temporarily stage, treat, and backfill thlimpacted soils.
By using a single contractor for this portion of the work
soil staging periods will be minimized.
It is expected that the on-site BCD process will last
-approximately 12 weeks (depending on final volume)
from the start of mobilization. Much of this time is
associated with mobilization, setup and dismantling of
the soil treatment unit. Mobilization and setup of the
soil treatment unit will begin prior to the completion of
soil excavation. It is estimated that soil would be
treated at a rate of five tons per hour for eight hours
per day. At this feed rate the soil treatment may last
three to four weeks and is anticipated to be completed.
A remedial contractor may elect to operate the soil
treatment unit on a different schedule, i.e., 24 hours a
day. Increased impacted soil volumes and inclement
weather could lengthen the'schedule.
The excavation plan will remove soils in the former
Cellon process and lagoon areas. Procedures are:
3
• excavate an initial soil volume based upon the soil
excavation plan; . · ., , ... ,: ... ?
~~gregate and stJge soil iRk'i:)b~~ed upon existing
· : ,9ata,. is not impacted; : ,:< /'' ''. .
,: ·= .. <::>. ·. >~. ; ·., ··\\=tt~·~(:·:,..: .
conduct post-e~cavation fi~).d,}~jee_ning;
• ·-~. • ·:·: ;; :-➔ • :.,.; :-;
. . ', ' : .; ... ''.j '
backfill with clean fill excavated areas which meet
the required clean up levels;
Soil remediation activities will be taking place in close
proximity to the Unit Structures, Inc. property, and care
will be taken not to obstruct their business operations.
Also, it is planned that approximately 6 citizen's
gardens in the immediate area will be sampled for soil
contamination. The issue that some gardens might
contain contaminaied soil due to past landfarming
practices by the previous Site owners and rain runoff
from areas of concern was of concern to citizens.
Surface Water Remediation .
Surface water from the Fire Pcin8 a~ci' Medlin Pond will
be treated b{mobile, truck-rii~unted carbon adsorption'
units. In order to dewater (drain) each pond, diversion
channels and berms will be constructed to reroute
storm water runon around the ponds to minimize the
amount of rainfall draining to the ponds during
dewatering. A temporary mobile pumping unit will be
used to pump the surface water to temporary storage
tanks. The dewatering process will be staged to allow
for the concurrent backfilling of the pond. After
dewatering/backfilling are completed, grading of pond
areas will be conducted to control surface drainage.
Finally, the disturbed land will be seeded and mulched
to provide long-term sediment and erosion control.
The combined estimated total of water to be removed
from the ponds and treated is 3.84 million gallons. It
is estimated that it will take approximately one month
to treat the pond water in the Fire Pond and 4 days for
the water iri the Medlin Pond, give or take a few days.
Based upon average rainfall amounts during this time
of the year, it is estimated that an additional 257,500
gallons of water might require treatment.
After the ponds are dewfld, the sediment will be
sampled, then the area backfilled, graded and seeded.
A geotextile material will be placed over the sediment
prior to backfilling:, This geotextile will add stability for.
construction equipment and provide ayisible indic:a\d.r
in the event erosion occurs. Ari underdrain· wil(tie,: ·
installed in the backfill area of tiie Fire Pond in '
response to concerns regarding shallow groundwater •
levels. The underdrain will help prevent groundwater
from rising above the· new ground surface elevation,
ponding, and/or creating wetlands.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
implemented as required by the State of North
Carolina and the Wake County soil and Water
Conservation District Standards.
Groundw_ater Remediation
Construction for the groundwater remediation includes
a treatment building with associated piping, electrical,
and 'mechanical. facilities, the well vault, and a six inch
curb to provide containment of liquid,should .there be.
a spill. It is anticipated that one week is required for
mobilization, site preparation, and ord,ering equipment.
Ten weeks would be needed for co~struction of the
building, treatment system, and electrical system. An
additional two weeks are anticipated for pre start-up,
hydraulic, and performance testing. Overall,
approximately 13 weeks ar'e estimated for
construction. Groundwater remediation will start after
both ponds have been dewatered, backfilled, graded
and seeded. ·
The treatment of the groundwater wil_l consist of flow
equalization, filtration for removal of suspended solids,
and carbon adsorption of dissolved organics. The
impacted groundwater will be extracted via extraction
Well PW-1 and piped to the on-site treatment network.
This well is located adjacent to the former lagoon area.
The initial groundwater flow rate for treatment is
approximately ten gallons per minute or less.
Discharge of treated water will be to an existing on-site
surface water drainage ditch.
Groundwater samples will be collected once before the
groundwater extraction and treatment system is
4
started to,ain baseline groundwater data with which
to conipare subsequent data · collected during
remediation. · After initiation of the groundwater ·
treatinenf .§ystem, well$, with. pentachlorophenol . ,: r··· ... , • • ,-: .. -..:r ,:., ,,. , ... _.,•, · ,•~;:;,,. ·
concentratiors.above 1 part per billion, will.be sampled· •·:-:';~·;-.;.•:• i •• •,:~r· ... •:,1'.: . .,,.,,· .. , •-~·; .-,_. ,: ..
aft~r, .~,.mo11Jh~ ,._ang ?ga,[r: .after, 1 year; ~ells·_ with •.•.•.• ~., .. ,, .. 1 ... •···'--··-•··. ,.,._,, .. ,. ,., ,•,, ••·~~-1;v•·· ,
co_~9~~!(9)i~~f q~lgf_1p~r,t ~~l .biUi9.~ ~il/,~~,s.~rnpled ··'
after 1 year from start up· of tfeatnient operation·s: ·
· •' , '• •. I ;:~· r' , . .: ,. , '.'•. · .. ; . ·' • ',• .. ·'·· .-. ' '
The 'gr6undwater treatment system process includes
the following components:
'
Equalization/storage T-1 O -
The equalization/storage tank will hold up to 1,500
gallons; hold water for approximately 2 hours to
allow any particles to settle to the bottom of tank;
the tank is an open-top, vertical cylindrical, carbon
steal-co,ltAd, six-foot diameter by eight-foot
straigh', .i,ad: :c•1itches will control level and flow
a~tj_ provide an alarm if anything should
malfunction.
. . .
Flow metering FM-1 O -
The process flow will be metered using a
magnetic flow meter; the meter will.be capable of
transmitting output signals to the main electric
control panel io measure and indicate total and
instantaneous flow rates.
Process Pumps P-1 O and P-11 -
These pumps will be horizontal centrifugal pumps
that will pump water from Tank T-10 through filters
and through carbon adsorption units; each pump
will be designed to pump an average flow rate of
5 gallons per minute; both pumps can operate
simultaneously depending upon the water levels;
pump operation will be controlled by the float
switches located in Tank T-10.
Filtration Systems F-20 and F-30 -
Bag Filters F-20 and F-10 will be used to remove
residual suspended solids that may be present in
the ,pumped groundwater; filters will act as a
pretreatment device . to . reduce the level of
suspended solids material that may be present in
the process water to prevent fouling/binding of the ..
carbon adsorption units; filter bags will be
• removed and either cleaned or replaced at
predetermined points.
'. . . . --i,··· ., .... ,,. . . . : . . . '·, . ' . • · · Carbo_n'Adsorption Network CA :40 and CA050
. Th~ iiquia l' phas{ car66R _adsorption· rietwork
inclGdes ; ! iwo · ,9uplicate' 'disposaoiec:. carbon.
.·· adsorption'unii's.'' Each unitwiij'hoi8 1 ;ooo pounds .
of grariuia'r' acMafed cafoon:·: : The units are
designed _to routinely operate in series; however,
each unit alone will be capable of providing
treatment for up to 1 u gallons per minute should
the other be out of operation. The units
connected in series will operate in a downflow
mode; this is, the effluent from the first unit
becomes the influent for the second unit. Each
unit is approximately 44 inches in diameter by 67
inches high. The carbon usage rate has been
estimated to· be relatively low; therefore, under
nor:,1aI ;:ierating conditions the initial carbon
capacity (2,000 lbs.) should last approximately 6
months before being exhausted. Spent carbon
units will be disposed of in accordance with state
and federal guidelines.
These major equipment pieces will be0 ~ouse8 in a pre 0
engineered building located on the ~ite. Following
treatment, the groundwater will be discharged to the
surface water ditch east of the Fire Pond. It is·
anticipated that the treatment system will operate
unattended. However, an operator will perform routine
inspections of the groundwater treatment system.
Alarms will be in place to notify the operator of flow or
pressure conditions that need attention. Pumps in the
system and the tank water levels will be instru,-:--~.1ted
and connected so that the controls automatically shut
down the well pumps if pressure or water level outside
the normal operating range occurs.
The Operations & Maintenance Plan will specify all
operation and maintenance procedures that must be
followed.
The tencfng s~'rro'uiiding the area wi_ll be inspected and
repaired:or replaced where nec'essary,
Waterways will be inspected once a month and after
significant storm events. Drainage ditches and
5
• associated structures will be inspected for signs of
erosion ·or debris that may prevent prope'r° drainage. ·
Appropri<jtB _correc,tive measures l'.'.ill be ta_ken to repair .
any damage tD'ihe'walerways/ culver(iihip'riip.'Any ,:; .
, ..... , --····,•··· •l·••.•·•,--·-···•· .... ·_•••·n,•,1•"•·.-,·1v•,.•,··•· debri~. blocking' the aitch' will also· be removed, and ·::
prOpe·r1{ diSR~:~i~~~;~~ :~/:. _ ,:~ii::: .. ~: __ ~!;.~.~ .. :(:;\ .. !i;~~N:~7:~~~-;,~ ~~'.
.. . . -, '(_, .. ,:,,.. ,.., ... , ..... : .·. :,. ' ... --.. ' .... -' .. ,,. , ..... Tne regraded si.irface \viii be 'mowed_ a::i'rieedect every'''' i
ye'iri during ·the months of May through: Octobei.' :
Mowing will occur. when the soil is dry and when
conditions allow mowing vehicles to operate without
adverse impacts to the Site. The regraded surface will
be inspected for bare areas where· grass· has not
grown and be reseeded as necessary.
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED?
If you have que2tions or want more information, please
contact either 3everly Hudson or Diane Barrett.in the
EPA Regional Office, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, GA 30365, or phone [phone].
Also, the public is encouraged to visit the :nformation ..
repository located i.n the Wake County Public ~ibrary,
Cary 0Branc~'.'Cary, ·N:C. •to review, the Final;Design · ·
Report'an_ci19ther documents for more d~)ails,
' • • ''
Presented below is a time table for the various planned activities that wiUoccur during the Remedial Action phase.
., ACTNITIES ' ·u·••. WEEKS
I 2 .J ·' 5 6
/s01L REAIEOtAnoN I 7 8 .. 10 II 12 IJ 14 15 16 17 18 ,. 20 21 22 2J 24
S:QII Q;Q&'.ADQt'l lS~QltJl"
INSTALL EROSION ANO ~EDIMENT CO~./TROLS ,__
CLEARING -· ,__ "
_EXCAVATE/STACE SOILS '' ' CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING I
BACKFlLL SOILS I ,__
SEED AND VEGETATE >-'-
ISO/L TRE.A.rMENT I
M081UZE SOIL TREATMENT UNIT
TREAT SOILS
DEMOBILIZE SOtl TREArMENT UNIT
[GROUNDWATER R£U£DIATTON I
MOBILIZE ANO SITE PREPAAATION ,__
ORDER EQUIPMENT ,__
BUILDING FOUNDATION
BUILDING ERECTION
' SET EQUIPMENT
PIPIN-J
ELECTRICAL
SYSJEM TESTING
jsuRFACE WATER REMEDl,WONj ' ' MOBILIZE ,__
CONSTRUCT DIVERSION DITCH ,__
REMOVE ANq DEMOLISH EX!STING FACILITIES -" '
CLEARING -
RELOCATE FENCE -MOBILIZE MOBILE TREATMENT SYSTEM -DEWATER FIRE POND \ TREAT AND DISCHARGE FlRE POND WATER
INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS >--
BACKFllL AND GRADE FIRE POND AREA
SEED AND VEGETATE FIRE PONO AREA >--
DEWATER MEDLIN PONO -IBEAT ANO DISCHARGE MEDLIN POND WATER >--1 DEMOBILIZE MOBILE IBEATMENT SYSTEM r BACKFILL ANO GRADE MEDLIN PONO AREA.
SEED AND VEGETATE "4EOUN PONO AREA. -
I OV[R.ALL SCHWUL[ I
SOIL EX:CAYATION/STAGING
SOIL TREATMENT
S\}RFACE WATER REMEDIATION
GROurmWATER REMEDIATION
I
tiQIE.; PREUMl/lARY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE THIS IS A PREUMltM.RY SCHEDULE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
PREREQUISlfES TO CONSTRUCTION. REMEDIAL DESIGN
Y.OPPERS COMPANY, INC. SUPERFUND SITE THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WILL BE PRESENTI:D 1rl MORRISVILLE NORTH CAROLINA. THE REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLA.N PREPARED FOR
BEAZER EAST, INC.
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
W_UMMINGS DRAWING NUMBER = fr~~TANTS. l~'C. 93146A32 -T•<:'°.,. "' ,o,,.,,., ..
6
• • SUPERFUND FACT SHEET UPDATE
BCD DECOMPOSITION TREATMENT FOR
THE KOPPERS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
June 1994
INTRODUCTION
The Record of Decision signed on December 23, 1992, for the Koppers Site in Morrisville, North Carolina, selected ott-site
incineration as the preferred alternative for treating dioxin and pentachlorophenol. The Record of Decision also stated that
a "treatability study" of the Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) innovative technology would be conducted to determine
its' ef'.~ctiveness on the contaminants of concern. Based upon the results of the treatability study a determination would be
made between utilizing incineration or the BCD technology at this Site. The treatability study was conducted from August 23 -
September 1 D, 1993, by EPA's SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation) Program. On August 31, 1993, the public
was invited to an open-house and viewing of the BCD technology in operation. Approximately 1 OD people attended the
morning meeting and afternoon Site visit.
The results from the treatability study have been finalized and based upon those results, the Agency has selected the BCD
treatment technology to be utilized at the Kopper's Site to treat contaminated on-site soil. The following is a brief synopsis
of those results. Since we are describing a very technical process, it presents a challenge to write this information in an easily
understood manner. This fact sheet is not to be considered a technical document.. It is prepared for the public to provide a
better understanding of the procedure.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) process
was developed ·10 detoxify {convert, remove, destroy]
chlorinated organics in soils, sediments, and sludges.
The BCD process is a chemical and physical process
that decomposes and detoxifies chlorinated organic
compounds by removing the chlorine atoms from the
atomic structure in each such compound. The BCD
process was developed by EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL), which has patented
the process. Under a license agreement with RREL,
ETG Environmental, Inc. and Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS) developed the SARE.x® THERM-
0-DETOx® system to commercialize the BCD process.
The SAREx® THERM-0-DETOx® system consists of
four major processing steps: (1) preconditioning
(screening and mixing) the contaminated soils/sludges
with an additive which enhances the process: (2)
heating the mixture in the Medium Temperature
Thermal Desorber to begin breakdown of the toxic
contaminants: (3) separating them from the soil as a
vapor, recovering all the vapors from the desorber in
a vapor recovery system which collects and
condenses them back into liquid form, and (4)
condensate treatment which completes the chemical
decomposition (or conversion) of the liquids into non-
toxic compounds. [See Figure 1 of schematic and
picture of system constructed on Site during the
treatability study.]
THE PROCESS
The process begins by mixing sodium bicarbonate
reagent into the soil that is to be processed. {A
reagent is a substance used in a chemical reaction to
detect, examine, measure, or produce other
substances.} This mixture of soil and reagent then
travels on a conveyor belt into the medium
temperature thermal desorber, where it is heated for
approximately one hour at 650 to 800 degrees
-,-~.-0-N_T_A_M_IN_A_T_E_D _____ _ • MATERIALS
OR SCREENED SOILS ,-------,cVA°"Pc,cOR RECOVERY SYSTE"-'M"-----~
VAPOR DISCHARGES
SCREW CONVEYOR
MEDUIM TEMP. THERMAL
TO
ATMOSPHERE
CARBON
POLISHER
DESORPTION UNIT WATER SPRAY AQUEOUS
CONDENSATE
STORAGE (MTTD)
COOLING WAT!:R
COOLING SCREW
CONVEYOR CARBON
AOSORPTIO
OECONTAMINATED SOLIDS
CONTAINER
Figure I: BCD Technology and SAREX' TilERlv!--0-DETOX"' Sy;tem
Figure 1
OL WATER
SCRU88ERS SCRUBBERS
CONDENSOR
UNIT
--'--"OIL ADDITIVE
OltY
CONDENSATE!----~
STORAGE
TREATED
WATER
LIQUID
TANK
REACTOR
(LTR)
DECHLORINATION
REAGENTS
OIUHC
• Fahrenheit in an atmosphere of inert gas. {Inert gas
in this process is a vapor substance that has no
chemical activity and only acts as a carrier.) The
desorbed organic compounds, including decomposition
products, are carried out of the desorber in an inert
gas stream to the vapor recovery system. In the vapor
recovery system the gas stream enters a series of
scrubbers that use oil and water sprayed directly into
the vapor stream to capture or trap and condense the
desorbed organic compounds, products of
decomposition, water vapor, and any fine substances
still in the gas stream (i.e., dust). A specially designed
oil scrubber uses a high boiling point oil to capture and
condense the organic compounds, water vapor, and
fine substances. Water scrubbers and demisters
{functions to remove moisture) are employed to further
reduce the contaminants remaining in the gas stream
before a final carbon adsorption step. The oil scrubber
condensate is. recycled through the system and is
eventually transferred to the liquid tank reactor for final
treatment. {Condensate is the water or liquid removed
from the vapor during this step.) The cooling water is
recycled through the system and reused. Upon
demobilization, the cooling water is further treated
through granular activated carbon canisters and the
water is then discharged to an on-site wastewater
. treatment plant or publicly owned treatment works.
{Granular activated carbon filters out any remaining
contaminants. It functions much like the charcoal
filters in an aquarium.)
In the liquid tank reactor, the oily condensate is mixed
with a high-boiling-point hydrocarbon, sodium
hydroxide, and a proprietary catalyst {an ingredient
that enhances and increases the rate of chemical
reaction) for the final step of the process. The liquid
tank reactor is an indirectly heated tank processor,
with a paddle-type mixer, that is designed for high
efficiency electric heat transfer. The liquid tank reactor
is designed to operate at approximately 650°F for 4 to
6 hours; however, this temperature and residence time
will vary based on contaminant and matrix
characteristics.
RESIDUALS FROM TREATMENT PROCESS
The advantage of this technology is that it offers long-
term protection of the environment by eliminating soil
• contamination. This treatment process generates five
primary waste streams: treated soils, wastewater,
scrubber oil, medium temperature thermal desorber
off-gas, and spent granular activated carbon.
Treated soils can be deposited on Site after thermal
processing and verification of effective treatment.
Reactor off-gas from the desorber is treated in the
vapor recovery system prior to discharging to the
atmosphere. Emission control requirements for the
thermal desorbers must comply with federal, state and
local regulations. Scrubber oil from the vapor
recovery system is treated in the liquid tank reactor to
complete the dechlorination of contaminants removed
from the soil. The treated scrubber oil will require
shipment off-site to a facility permitted to receive waste
oil for recycling. Wastewater from the various stages
of the treatment process y;ill be treated to remove
contaminants prior to discharge.
Other solid wastes generated during the treatment
process include disposable equipment that comes in
contact with contaminated media, i.e., thick plastic or
rubber liner of the containment pad, personal
protection-equipment, hoses, and other materials.
SITE REQUIREMENTS
The SAREx® THERMO-O-DETOx® system consists of
a medium temperature thermal desorption unit with
vapor recovery system, liquid tank reactor, water
storage tanks, a heat exchanger, and a water chilling
unit. The entire treatment system is transported on
three flatbed trailers. The system can be operational
within two or three days if all necessary facilities,
equipment, utilities, and supplies are available. After
the treatment is completed, the system can be
demobilized and moved off-site within three to four
days. Access roads are needed for equipment
transport and a level area is needed to accommodate
the treatment unit. Also, a containment pad with curb
sidings or an impermeable liner to control contaminant
migration from the treatment area.
Site preparation requirements for contaminated soil
excavation include construciion of siltation fencing, and
dust control. Screening and blending of soils can be
periormed in a roll-off container. Soil particles larger
.. • than 0.5 inches are separated from the finer soils
through a screening process.
Utility requirements for the system include water and
electricity. The water requirement for the equipment
is approximately 30 gallons per minute. The system
requires one 650-ampere, 480 volt, three-phase
electrical circuit. Additional electrical service may be
needed for support trailers.
Area requirements include an operating area of 6,000
square feet which includes a containment pad for the
process equipment, storage area for contaminated
soils and treated soils, and a work area around the
containment pad. Additional area requirements are
dependent upon the quantity of material to be treated
during the remedial action and includes space for work
trailers, work vehicles, and soil excavation and
screening equipment.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Approximately 15 tons of soil were treated during the
treatability study conducted during AugusVSeptember
1993. A total of seven medium temperature thermal
desorption test runs were conducted; four were for the
purpose of setting process parameters; three were for
verification of the technology process. The retention
time during soil treatment was approximately 1 hour at
an operating temperature of 800°F.
Two liquid tank reactor test runs were conducted at an
operating temperature of 650°F for 6 hours. The PCP
(pentachlorophenol) in the untreated contaminated soil
ranged from 1,600,000 to 8,100,000 parts per billion;
the cleanup standard is 95,000 parts per billion; the
treated soil ranged from 130 to 870 parts per billion -
well below the cleanup standard.
The cleanup standard for PCDD (polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxin) and PCDF (polychlorinated
dibenzofuran) as specified in the Record of Decision is
7 parts per billion. All PCDD and PCDF concen-
trations were below their sample-specific detection
limits, therefore, this cleanup standard was reached.
During the test runs data indicated that all semi-volatile
organic compound concentrations were below
• detection limits using the TCLP (toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure). Results indicate that the potential
for any PCP and semi-volatile organic compounds to
leach from the soil into groundwater after treatment is
minimal, if at all, since none of these chemicals were
detected above the detection limits following treatment.
The results from the off-gas samples produced during
the medium temperature thermal desorption process
show a variation in the reduction of contaminants
during the carbon polishing step of vapor treatment.
These variations indicate the need to replace the
granular activated carbon units.
The PCP concentrations in the untreated oil samples
entering the liquid tank reactor range from 140,000 to
2,100,000 parts per billion. PCP was not detected in
treated oil samples; however, due to high sample
detection limits, . laboratory techniques are being
developed to achieve a lower detection limit. Overall,
concentrations of PCDD and PCDF were significantly
reduced to non-detect levels after treatment in the
liquid tank reactor.
GENERAL SUMMATION
Based upon the Preliminary Data Summary Report of
the Base Catalyzed Decomposition· process, the
treatment process was successful and will be
implemented at the Koppers Site in Morrisville.
We thank the citizens of the community surrounding
the Site for their active participation in assisting the
Agency in selecting a treatment remedy for treating the
contaminated soil and groundwater at the Koppers
Site. Their input and participation made the difference.
WHArSNEXT
The Potentially Respnsible Party is developing the
Remedial Design for the selected treatment process.
The Agency anticipates having the final, approved
design completed by the Spring of 1995 with
construction of the remedy on Site beginning in the
Summer of 1995. Once the Agency has received the
final design, we will prepare a fact sheet and also
conduct a public meeting to explain the process.
• •
MORE INFORMATION
Copies of all documents developed during the
Superfund process to-date are available for public
review in the local area repository:
Wake County Public Library, Cary Branch
310 South Academy Street
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
To receive technical information or copies of some of
the available literature, please contact:
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Specialist
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S. E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
' Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
To be added to the Kopper's mailing list, please complete the following information and return to Diane Barrett.
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
PHONE (Optional)
Bids sought for Koppers site
Bids have gone out for con.ion of a disposal cell to hold 15,()(X) cubic yard oxin-contami-natcd soil at the Koppers CO. Inc. NPL site in Oroville, Calif. Beazer East Inc. will also need someone to excav.lle the soil.
EPA announced Aug. 19 that it is prepared to approve a plan to build the disposal cell, which would contain a double liner and would be capped with clay and geosynthetics. The cell would be built in the northern portion of the Koppers property.
EPA wants construction of the cell to begin in early September and excavation of the soil to start in October. Having the entire operation complete
before the winter rains begin is EPA 's goal.
Environmental Solutions lnc. of Walnut Creek, Calif., designed the disposal cell.
Bioremediation is still an integral part of soil cleanup (Supe,jund Week, 5121/93), However, EPA found elevated levels of dioxin in the soil during a recent pilot study and concluded that bioremediation wouldn't reduce dioxin concentrations of 25 to 158 parts per billion at that portion of the site.
The Koppers site was a lumber mill in the 1920s. Ongoing activities at the site include wood treating and storage, wocxl treatment testing and hazardous waste treatment.
Contact: Michael Tischuk, Beazer East project manager, 412-227-2194; Fred Schauffler, EPA project manager, 415-744-2359; James Severns, Environmental Solutions project manager, 510-935-3294.
Fort Lauderdale wells study begins
A remedial investigation to find the source of contaminated groundwater is slated to begin Aug. 29 at the Peele-Dixie Well Field site in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Bids have gone out for laboratory analytical
support of groundwater monitoring samples to be taken at 11 proposed locations there. Bechtel International of Oak Ridge, Tenn., is the prime contractor.
Construction of a water main and air strif)ping tower to contain the plum! is in the final stages as an interim measure began in April (Superfund Week, 3/11).
To start the study, eight monitoring wells will be ins~alled. If the source of contamination isn't found, more wells will be installed closer to an industrial area.
EPA hopes to propose a cleanup remedy by early 1996.
The plume extends under 200 acres and about 120 feet below ground. The plume is migrating from 'the south wellfield towards the north wellfield.
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organics, including 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, trichloroethene and vinyl chloride. Contact: Brad Jackson, EPA project manager,
404-347-2643, ext. 6236; Robert Spurling, Bechtel project manager, 615-220-2483. ·
and OHM Corp.
The building demo··, is the first of three phases of the $18 million cleanup. The es d $1 million demolition and off-site removal of the factory and 30 vats tainted with PCBs and volatiles will start next May and be completed by March 1996. Debris will be moved either by truck or by railroad, if siding is installed. The latter option would require Conrail's approval.
EP_A hasn't decided whether to conduct a soil treatabilily study of !henna! treatment or whether the agency will require an afterburner or vaporization (such as via carbon adsorption).
Though the cleanup levels, including cleanup of PCBs to I part per million, have been set in u,e September 1992 ROD, the levels arc slill being discussed between EPA and the slate, which would prefer even more stringent cleanup standards since the site is in a residential area. For the third phase, EPA is developing a plan for further invesliga-lion of groundwater, but no study launch date has been set. The 9.5-acre site off Mount Pleasant Avenue in Bergen County, about 15 miles west of New York City, produced chemical adhesives and rubber compounds until 1983. At the request of Wallington Mayor Walter Wargacki, EPA officials met Aug. 15 lo assure that plans for the long-awaited cleanup are on schedule.
EPA bas not been able to identify any viable PRPs. Though EPA hasn't budgeted money for the cleanup, remediation of the site is considered a priority for the next fiscal year.
"The funding is there. Whenever you talk about having a PCBs site in a residential neighborhood there is not much of a problem getting money for i~" EPA project manager Romona Pezzella said. Contact: Dan Hearnen, corps project engineer, Kansas City, 816-426-5332, ext. 3021; Romona Pezze/la, EPA, 212-264-8216; Clzryl Fines, principle engineer Joi-CDM, 908-757-9500.
EPA starts RI/FS at;GE/Shepherd site ,\ EPA is preparing to launch an RI/FS at the GE/Shepherd Farm site, which has been proposed for the NPL, but hasn' l made the final !isl. The agency decided to have its own employees from the Environ-mental Services Division in Athens, Ga., study the site after failing to reach an agreement with General Electric Co. to conduct the study. The site includes GE's 50-acre General Electric Co. Lighting Systems Dept. al 30IO Spartanburg Highway in East flat Rock, N.C., about 3.5 miles southeast of Hendersonville, N.C., and the Shepherd Fann property about a half-mile southweslof"llie plaiif.-The farm was· used for disposal of GE wastes. Since then, the Spring Haven Trailer Park has been built on the farm -part of it on the waste disposal area.
GE's plant produced electrical transformers filled with oil con~1in-ing PCBs. PCBs were delivered lo the site in railroad cars until 1979 when PCBs were banned from transformer production. High levels of PCBs were found in both po·nds and a sludge impoundment (see illustration on next page).
The company has since made lighting systems at Uie plant which employs 1,100 people. The facility has two aluminum smeilers. Plant wastewater containing metals and solvents was sent to a 5-acre pond and a I-acre pond. Sludge from a wastewa1er treatment facility was spread over 26 acres around the facility buildings in the late 1970s.
Construction debris was also dumped in a ravine on the Seldon Clark property near the plant.
On-site and off-site monitoring wells have letrachlorocthane,
Pasha Publications, 1616 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Va. 22209 Superfurul Week-Augu.rr 26, /99./ J
..
4
Woolfolk cleanup to continue
EPA plans to have CanaAGeorgia Corp. continue its soil cleanup of--30 residences to remedy arsenic contamination to 30 parts per million in Fort Valley, Ga.
Canadyne-Georgia has been struggling to come
up with a commercial redevelopment plan accept-able to the Fort Valley city council, and may still reach an agreement on about eight residences. These
could be fenced off for commercial development
rather than cleaned up to residential standards.
But the town turned down a broader redevelop-ment plan that would have lessened the company's
cleanup burden because cleanup standards for commercial property (100 ppm) aren't nearly as stringent. (Supe,fund Week 7129).
EPA plans to soon revise its cleanup order to
have the company continue soil removal on the rest of the properties.
Rust International Inc. of Birmingham, Ala., has been doing soil removal •under direction of Clean
Sites Inc. for Canadyne-Georgia.
Most of the dirt from the previous cleanup has
been taken to Waste Management's Live Oak, Ga.,
landfill as non-hazardous waste because contamina-
tion levels aren't high enough to pose a pr6biem.
Less than 5% has been shipped to the hazardous
landfill in Emelle, Ala.
Contact: Don Rigger, EPA on-scene coordinator,
912-825-4137; Alec Van Ryan, Canadyne-Georgia
spokesman, 912-825-5215; Tim Woo/heater, EPA
project manager, 404-347-2643, ext. 6248.
GE/Shepard Farm Site -GE Plant
O Seldon<Wk
Property
i::::iWastewa!er
l::::::::it1eatmen1 ponds J:;3 Former /andfil!s
□ landspreadir,g plots
Tabor Rd.
Ballfield
& Recreation
area
trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, cobalt, chromium, lead, copper, zinc and other heavy metals.
GE's contractor has installed numerous groundwater monitoring wells and has taken many soil and sediment samples on it.s property. The company has paid for city water lines to be extended to more than 80 homes after about 20 wells showed contamination. EPA makes non-NPL sites report The site was proposed for the NPL in March 1992. EPA has published a first-ever report on_ EPA is preparing to begin sampling Sept. 12 following a public hazardous waste cleanups at sites not on the meeting the agency held this week in East Flat Rock to announce the RI National Priorities List. plans. The report covers 12 years between I 980 and Contact: Gieze//e Bennett, EPA project manager, 404-347-7791, 1992 and includes descriptions of completed and ext. 4105; Michael Bush, GE remediation program manager and Tom ongoing construction and removal actions at more Hoss, GE community relations manager, both at plant site, 704.-693-than 20,000 sites. Included in the report are 2215; Diane Barrett, EPA comrnunitV relations coordinator, 800-435-remedies implemented and costs of cleanups. 9233 or 404-347-7791. -EPAsaysdatainthereportindicatesthatthe, .. ,._ .. -. ·-... ........ •····· •··-.......... _, .... .,. ---~-............ ,_ paCC 0fnon-NPL cleanups has increased since
passage of SARA in 1986.
The agency published the report in cooperation
with the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials and states.and
territories which submitted data.
The report will be available in September.
Contact: Tim Mott at 202-260-2447 or Jim Maas at 202-260-8927.
Raritan ballfield fix awarded
Solar Universal Tech. Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio,
has been awarded a $1.5 million contract by the
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Dist., to clean up the MCCC baseball field at the former
Raritan Arsenal in Edison, N.J.
Contact: Eva Scalese, 617-647-8427. DACA33-
94-C-0059.
Superfund Week-Augu.rt 26, 1994
Woodlands, N.J., design to be done this year
The sL1te expects engineers for PRPs at the Woodlands NPL sites in southern New Jersey to complete final design of two pump-and-treat projects with air-stripping by December and start construction next year.
The engineers under coordination of de rn11.xirnis inc. 's Clinton, N.J., office recently completed further characterization of two ground-water plumes of volatile and semi-volatile organics at the R_oute 532 and Route 72 sites.
EPA has delegated the lead to the New Jersey Dept. of Environ-mental Protection for supervision of the cleanup. An EPA project manager expressed doubt that design would be completed this year since no design submittals have been presented to the agency. But the sL1te project manager said the PRPs have been working on the site for years, so the design will be concluded by Dec. 31. While the sL1te hasn't received any design plans yet either, the PRPs are said to be well
Pasha Publicatioru, /616 N. Fon Myer Drive. Suire 1000, Arlington, Va. 22209
• SUPERFUN.CT SHEET UPDATE
KOPPERS,' INC.-.
Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
•' ..
Region 4
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) In accordance
with the Record of Decision signed on December 23, 1992, for
the Koppers Site in Morrisville conducted a treatability study
utilizing the Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) dechlorination
technology from August 23 • September 10. 1993. The EPA's
Supertund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
located in Cincinnati, Ohio was responsible for conducting the
study of the BCD technology developed by EPA using the
SAREX" THERM0-0-DETOX'" system developed by ETG
Environmental, Inc. and Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
(SRS). The purpose of the treatability study is to determine ff the
BCD technology will effectively remove pentachlorophenol (PCP)
and dioxins from the soil. The Record of Decision had selected
off-site incineration as the preferred remedy for treating these
contaminants because incineration is a proven method which
destroys pentachlorophenol and dioxin. However, the citizens
that live around the Site strongly preferred that the Agency try
dechlorination instead of hauling the contaminated soil off to
some else's backyard to be incinerated. Based upon public
preference, the Agency conducted a treatability study of the BCD
innovative technology. If the technology proves to be effective in
destroying the contaminants of concern, the BCD treatment
method will be used at the Koppers Site.
September 1993
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The Site was used as a wood processing facHity from 1959 until
1986. Pentachlorophenol was used in the CELLON wood treating
process between 1968 until 1975. Pentachlorophenol was used
in this process. In 1980 the State of Nor1h Carolina conducted an
inspection of the Site where high levels of pentachloropl'M!nol
were found In the soils of the lagoon and CELLON treatment
areas. Koppers, Inc. Installed monitoring wens In 1980 around
the plant area to test the groundwater. They also conducted two
removal actions in 1980 and 1986 to remove soil from the former
lagoon areas. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities
List In June of 1988 and was finalized In March of 1989. A
Remedial Investigation was then conducted which identified
pentachlorophenol; polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxlns; poly-
chlorinated dibenzo furans; and isopropyt ether as the major
contaminants of concern. The Feasibility Study studied methods
for effectively treating these various contaminants. Based upon
Information provided by the Study, It was determined that
incineration was the only proven method of the day that was
... capable of destroying ~se contaminants .. The.dechlorination.
process was also considered but because It was not a proven
method of treatment and there was no avallable field data to
indicate the method was efficient, it was not selected as the
preferred remedy. [Site map, Figure 1.)
O,fSIT[ ...
C>
-~\_//
....... _
Ct:lllTUI
~ I? //
© . I -~ /
•
BASE-CATAL VZED DECOMPOSITION (BCD}
On August 31, 1993, EPA's SITE program held.a demonstration
ct the BCD technology tor the public providing those attending
with a personal observation ct the process, what tt looked like
and the opportunity to ask questions. The day started oft with a
meeting held in the auditorium at the EPA laboratory facility in
Research Triangle Park (ATP). Approximately 100 people
attended the morning meeting. After the morning session
participants were transported via bus tram ATP to the Kopper's
Site to view the operation in process. For those ct you that were
unable to attend the event the picture above shows what the
operation looked like. The process in a nutshell is as tallows:
( 1) excavated soil mixed with a reagent is placed into the bin
where it is screened to remove large particles;
(2) the soil travels up the conveyor belt and goes into the teed
hopper;
(3) the soil then moves through a medium-heat thennal
desorption unit which causes the volatile organics to separate
tram the heated soil and which also causes decomposition of
some of the chlorinated contaminants;
(4) treated soil next moves through a conveyor system where the
soil is cooled; ·
(5) next the cooled soil is sprayed with cold water for dust control
and is placed in 55-gallon drums. The clean treated soil can then
be either placed back on the Site or used for other purposes.
(6) the volatile organics that separate from the soil in step 3
travel into a vapor recovery system where they are captured in a
hot oil scrubbing system;
(7) the oily mixture is then treated in the BCD tank;
The treatment process is a totally closed system and operates on
electricity.
The EPA expects to have the results from the treatability study in
approximately 6-9 months at which time we will prepare another
tact sheet infonning the public ct the results of the study and
whether or not the BCD technology will be used as the treatment
remedy at this Site.
' \ • • In the meantime, should you need more information about Site activities, you can either visit the local
information repository to review all of the documents developed to date located at:
Wake County Public Library, Cary Branch
310 South Academy Street
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
Hours: Monday • Thursday: 9:00 am • 9:00 pm
Friday • Saturday: 9:00 am • 6:00 pm
1:00 pm• 5:00 pm Sunday:
EPA Region 4 Record Center
345 Courtland Street, Ground Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
Hours: Monday • Friday:
or, either write or telephone:
8:00 am • 5:00 pm
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager
or
Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
North Superlund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone] \ .
If you would like to be added to the Koppers, Inc. Site malling list, please complete the following, and mall
to Diane Barrett at the above address. Thank you.
NAM._ _____________________________ _
ADORES, ___________________________ _
PHONE NO, _________________________ _
Official Business
Penalty for Pr1vate Use $300 KtGt\'1tU
OCT 11 ):):lJ
sueERftl\\!P SEUlON
S/F
MR. JACK BUTLER
SUFERFUND SECTION/SWMD
HENDD191
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
& NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
11 ,,J I,, I, lln, I, II, ii ii 1111, 111111 I, II, ,I., 1,1,,, II,, I, I 11, 11111 ,I
r.
___ • _ ______.:___ _ ____j
United States
Environmeiltal Protection
Agency
Office o olid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
August 1993
PROGRAM FACT SHEET
Demonstration ofth~ Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Technology
and SAREX® THERM-0-DETOX™ System
Koppers Company Supef.t)wd Site
Morrisville, North Caroli.pa
THIS FACT SHEET TELLS YOU ABOUT .. ;
EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program ·
A technology demonstration to be performed at the Koppers
· Company Superfimd site, located in Morrisville, North Carolina
A Visitors' Day to be held on August 31, 1993 at the Koppers
Company site
INTRODUCTION
ll1e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies new
methods for hazardous waste cleanup through its SITE Prcigram.
Under this program, created in 1986, innovative trcatincnt tech-
nologies that may significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous waste are demonstrated and evaluated. ll1e
SITE . Program also generates reliable performance and cost
infom1ation on tl1e technologies for use in evaluating cleanup
altematives for similarly contaminated sites.
The teclmology proposed for demonstration is the Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition (BCD) technology developed by EPA'_s Risk
'·"' • Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, using the
SAREX® THERM-O-DETOX™ system developed by ETG ·
:-·· Environmental, Inc. (ETG), and Separation and Recovery Sys-
tems, Inc. (SRS). The purpose of this demonstration is to assess
how well ·the technology removes pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
dioxins from the soil at the Koppers Company Supcrfund site in
Morrisville, North Carolina.
ji:PA'S SITE PROGRAM
Each year, EPA solicits proposals from private technology dcvcl-
. opers to demonstrate innovative technologies ·under tl1e SITE
Program. Technology developers can submit demonstration
proposals any time throughout the year. For each technology
selected, EPA, often with input from state and regional agencir.s,
does the following:
Identifies a site with wastes suitable for treatment
Prepares a.technology demonstration plan
Notifies appropriate agencies for intcrgovcrmncntal and
community reviews
Prepares a fact sheet for tl1e public, proposing the site and
technology match
Prepares the demonstration site
Conducts and audits field sampling and laboratory analyses
Organizes a Visitors' Day to view the technology demonstra-
tion
Evaluates technology pcrfomrancc
Prepares an Applications Analysis Report and a Technology
Evaluation Report summarizing tl1e demonstration results;
as well as several other informational items such as bulletins,
summaries, and a video
• --,-------<•I-------~----:=-,--------
CONTAMINATED
MATERIALS
OR SCREENED SOILS
FEED.
HOPPER
DECHLORINATION
REAGENTS
SCREW CONVEYOR
. MEDUIM TEMP. THERMAL
DESORPTION UNIT'
(MTTOJ
COOLING WATER
VAPOR DISCHARGES
WATER SPRAY·
..
COOLING SCREW
CONVEYOR
,-----V'-'A-"P-"OR RECOVERY. SYSTE~M~---~
TO
ATMOSPHERE
CARBON
POLISHER
AQUEOUS
CONDENSATE
STORAGE
CARBON
ADSORPTIO
.CONDENSOR'
UNIT
DECHLORINATION
OIL ADDITIVE REAGENTS .--~--,
OILY
CONOENSATEf----,
STORAS,E
TREATED
WATER
. ' o~:::1
1::
0
~~:PK::~L------1--
LIQUID
TANK
REACTOR
(LTR)
DECONTAMINATED SOLIDS.
~CONTAINER R D
OIUHC
Figure I: BCD._Technology and SAREX" THERM-0-DETOX™ System
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The BCD technology is an EPA'patented process to remediate soil·
and sludge contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds.
Based on ti], process. requirements of the BCD technology, ETG
and SRS have developed the SAREX® THERM-O-DETOX1"'
.system in cooperation with EPA to evaluate the effectiveness of
this pr~ss under real-time conditions in the, field.
The SAREX®THERM-O-DETOX"'systcm is based ona proven
indirect-heat medium temperature thermal desorption (MTTD)
unit The unit is equipped "'th a mu)tiple-shaft agitator for high
heattransfcr efficiency and· excellent local mixing action.
The BCD physical/ch~mical process detoxifies and chemically
decomposes co~tan1in'ants by removing chlorine atoms. Com-
pounds that the BCD process can decompose include polychlori-
nated biphcnyls (PCB), PCP, chlorinated dibcnzodioxins and
furans, insecticides, and herbicides. · · . .
The. process begins by mixing an morgarnc reagent with, the
contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge. The mi:,.1ure is heated in
theMTTD unit for about I hour at 650 °Fto800 °F.· Some of the
chlorinated.contaminants arc decomposed during this step. The
remaining organic contaminants arc thern1ally dcsorbed and re-
moved \\1tl1 the off-·gas. · ·
Clean soil exiting the solid reactor can be returned to the site. The
remaining ~ntaminants from ihc vapor condensate and residual
· dust are captured ~d treated for 2 to 4 hours at approximately
650 °F in a liquid-tank r'3ctor (LTR). The L TR uses a high-
boiling-point hydrocarbon, a proprietary catalyst, and sodium
h)·droxidc. Nitrogen is pu.rged through ihc L TR to control oxygen
-level~, preventing the tank contents from oxidizing or igniting.
Oily residuals remaining in the L TR contain dust and sludge and
are combustible. They can be burned in an oil-fired power plant, ·
a cement kiln, or treated and reclaimed by waste oil recyclers .. The
aqueous condensate from the process can be discharged to a
· publicly-o\\;,ed treatn;ent works after being polished through an
activated carbon treatn1cnt process .. Decontaniinated sludge can
be disposed of in the same manner as murucipal sludge .. Spent
carbon from the ,vater polishing can also be treated i.n this process.
The o;,iy by-products prqduced by the BCD process are biphenyl,
low-boiling okfinics, and sodium chloride.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Koppers Coi11pany site is located in the Shiloh community;
• _several miles nortl1 ofMorrisvillc, North Carolina. The site covers
approximately 5 2 acres at the intersection of Highway 54 and
Koppers Road (see Figure 2).
--'------'---•.,,...-,--~-----:------1•t----------
.The southeastern section of the site was the CELLON processing TECHNOLOGY D EMONS1:RA TION
area and fonner lagoon area. The CELLON process involved
· pressure-treating wood with PCP and then steaming it. The water The BCD technoiogy and SAREX"'THERM-0-DETOX™ sys-
generated from this process, called· rins~te, was collected, pro-. tern dc~onstration at the Koppers Company ·site is scheduled to
cesscd to ~einove the.PCP by' flocculation, and placed in two occur duf!ng August 1993. The primary 'objectives of this
lagoons at the site for further treatment. The rinsate did however demonstration 'are to:
contain PCP. The CELLON process was used at the site from
1968101975. Thetwolagoonswereclosedandemptiedin 1976.
Water from the lagoons was sprayed onto the ground at the north
end-of the site, and the bottom sludges from the lagoons were spread
to dry.
In 1980, high levels of PCP were found in the soils in the fonner
lagoon area and CELLON processing area. PCP was also detected
in the groundwater. In 1989 the site was added to EPA's National
Priorities List (NPL). A remedial investigation (RI) was cori-
ducted, identifying the primary contaminants at the site as PCP,
polychlorinated dibcnz~p.<Jioxins (PCDD), polychlorinated
dibcnzofurans (PCDF), and isopropyl ether ()PE). The. RI
indicated that the CELLON processing area and lagoon area
served as sources for the migration of contaminants into the
groundwater.
· Detennine how efficiently the BCD process removes PCP,
dioxins, and furans from the contaminated soil ·
Detennine ,vhcthcr treatment residuals (air, water, oil) meet.
cleanup levels . · ·
E vaiuate the potential for the BCD process to fonn additional
volatile organic compounds when.heated to high tempera,
turcs
Obtain information required to estimate treatment costs,
incl~ding capital and operating expenses, for future S upcrfund ·
decision-making purposes
CHURCH ROAD > PJ ..
ew-2 i.12
ew-3
~
KOPPERS
. ·tp·• UNIT STRUCTURES PROPERTY ~ . ' • . • · ~~~:~i • i!::" ,..,
LEGEND
• EXISTING. WELLS
--PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNIT STRUCTURES/
KOPPERS SITE
PROPERTY LINE
FIRE POND
. -· FO~~E<•W-8
. ~~~N
W-7·
Koppcr's Company, Inc. Superfund Site
EPA has prepared a detailed quality asslcc project plan
outlining t!1e methods and procedures for testing and evaluating the
technology. \vben the demonstration is complete, EPA will
compile and analyze the findings in an Applications Analysis
Report and a Technology Evaluation Report. These reports will
be used to evaluate alternatives for cleaning up similar sites across
the' country.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Questions or comments about the SITE Program or the proposed
demonstration should be made by August 25, 1993 to:
Terry Lyons
U.S. EPA SITE Project Manager
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
[phone]
• Specific questions regarding the demonstration site should be
. directed to: · · ·
. Beverly Hudson or Diane Barrett
North Superfund Remedial Branch r
Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE .
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone] or.[phone]
Specific questions regarding the BCD. technology or SAREX®
THERM-O-DETOXU'' system should° be directed to: .
Dr. Yei-Shong Shieh
ETG Environmental, Inc.
. 660 Sentry Parkway
Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422
(215) 832,0700
ft
0 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive ·
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Attenti_on: Terry Lyons
@ Photocopied on Recycled Paper
~I •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION.IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
.
B[l,')u, I I · · ---6 (Ii --1-1 t'. e, TO: ! 'v 1 ( f'vil..l b iJ, J A e,, f(
'
COMP1NY/ORGANIZATION: Dt 12~, Q .(-f:.--/VV . I~ f A HJ, ~ N ~ ¼, ,---(\ l
Rcs \) V• n < :, .
PHONE NUMBER: ql¾ '7 ?3 -~ ?$0/ FAX NUMBER: 9/ o/ 7 3J ·-'If:? !Y
NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (Including this cover shaat): :f
Pi0ase contact the person sending this tax If It Is received poorly or Incomplete.
. .. p .. 1+wd11) t11
I
'FROM: L)E:llt( 1-9
NORTH SUPERFUND REMEDIAL BRANCH
! WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Phone Numbers: (404) 347-TT91 or SD0-435-9233
Fax Number: [phone]
COMMENTS:
I
l l I
!
ft 0 EPA .nlted Stet••
Environmimtel Protection
Agency
0. Solid Wo&to and Emergency Response
Offic f Re&&11rch end Development
Washington, DC 20450
August J 993
PROGRAM FACT SHEET
Demonstration of the Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Teclmology
and SA REX"' THERM-0-DETOX™ System
DRAFT Koppers Company Superfund Site
Morrisville, North Carolina
THIS FACT SHEET TELLS YOU A.BOUT, ..
EPA' s Supcrfitnd Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Prog1a111
A technology demonstration to be pcrfonncd at the Koppers
~ompany Superfund site, located in Morrisville, Nortl1
Carolina
A Visitors' Day tu be held on August ~~, i 993 at the
Koppers Company site Sc\)t<ML<~ •1 I ~c,.::,
INTRODUCTION
111e U.S. Em~romnent.11 Protection Agency (EPA) identifies new
methods for hazardous waste cleanup tl1rough its SITE Program.
Under this program, created in 1986, innovative treatment tech-
nologies thal may significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous waste are demonstrated and evaluated. TI1c
SITE Program also generates reliable performance and cost
infonnaiion on the technologies for use in c\'aluating cleanup
altemaiivcs for similarly contaminated sites.
Tiictcclrnology proposed for demonstration is the Base-Catalyzed
D=mposition (BCD) technology developed by EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering bboraiory in Cincinnati, Ohio, using the
SAREX®TI-lERM-0-DETOX s;'Stem developed by ETG Envi-
ronmental, l.nc. (ETG). and Separation Md Recovery Systems,
lnc. (SRS). ·n,, DUfllOSC nf this rlemorum,tion ic to ru:con how
well the technology removes pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins,
and furaru front tl,e soil ar the Koppers Company Superfund site
in Morrisville. North Carolin.1.
EPA'S SITE PROGRAM
Each year, EPA solicits proposals from private tcclmology devel-
opers to demonstrate innovaiivc technologies under the SITE
Program, Toclrnology developers can· submit demonstration
proposals any tin1e throughout the yc.1r. For c.1ch technology
selected, EPA, ofu:n \\ith input from state and regional agencies,
docs the following:
Identifies a site \,itl, wastes suitable for trc.1onent
Prepares a tcclrnology demonstration plan
Notifies appropriate agencies for intergovernmental and
conununity reviews
Prepares a fuct sheet for the public, proposing the site and
tcclmology match
Prepares the dcmon.strniion site
Conducts and audits field sampling and laboratory analyses
Organizes a Visitors' Daytoviewthete;:hnologydcmonstra-
tion
Evaluates technology pcrfonnance
Pi~J'"'"' ,u, Appllrauons Analym Keµort and a TcchnolQ&')'
Evaluation Report swrnnarizing the dcmon ... <irntion results,
a.swell as several oth2r infonnation:il items such as bulletins,
sununari~s, and a vldeo
DRAFT
--~U---ll!iftt I
CONiAMIN/\TED
MATERIALS
OR SCREENED SOILS
I LJ DECHLORINATION H~~~~R y ____ R_E_A~OENTS
SCREW CONVEYOR
MEOUIM TEMP. THERMAL
C,ESOf:<PllON UNIT
(MTTD)
VAPOR DISCHARGES
WATER SPRAY 7
TO
ATMOSPHERE
CARBON
POLISHER
A'.}Ul!OVS
COtlDENSATE
STORAOE
CON DEN SOR
UNIT
--"--'OIL ADl>llWE
O!LY
CONDENS~TI:f-----~
STORAGE
DECHLORINATION
REAGENTS
COOLH..JGWATER ---t\ -"----_.:,..c___.:,..c___,,,;....J
COOLING SCREW
CONVEYOR CIJH:IOt.'
h:!SOR.PTIO
me.Al ED
WATER
LIQUID
TANK
REACTOR
(LTR)
DECOlffAMINATED SOLIDS
CONTAll!ER
J,'tguu 1: BCV Tcchnolo£Y and SARt':.\* TliERM-0-DETO?: SyJ;lem
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
11,e BCD technology is an EPA-patented prOC<.-'SS to remediau: soil
and sludge contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds.
Based on the pr=ss requirements of the BCD technology, ETG
and SRS ha\'e develoj)"..d the SAR.EX• THERM-0-DETOX
system in cooperation \\1th EPA to evaluaie the effectiveness of
this proe<,'Ss under real-time conditions in tbe field.
1l1e SAREX'.THERM-0-DETOX sy,tcm is based on a proven
indirect-heat medium temperature tbennal desorption (l\fJTD)
unit. 11,c unit is equipped with a multiple-shaft agitator for high
heat transfer efficiency and e.,ccUent local mixing action.
11,e BCD physical/chemic.oJ process detoxifies and chemically
dewmposes ccnuuninants by removing chlorine atoms. Com-
p0tmds th.11the BCD process can decompose include pol,·chlori-
natoo biphcnyls (PCl:l). PCP. chlorinated dibe,i:wdioxins and
furans, insecticides, and herbicides.
111t:~ process begins by mi.,,:.ing w1 inorganic reagent with the
ccntaminatcd soil, sediment, or liquid. Tncnti~-rurcis heated in tbc
MTT1) unit for about l hour at 650 °F to 80(1 °!'. Some oftbe
cl~orinatcd contaminams are decomposed during this step. The
renuining organic contaminants arc thermallv desorbcd and re•
moved \\1th the o!T gas.
2.
Clean soil exiting the solid reactor can be returned to tJ,e site. Tne
remaining contaminants from lhi.: vapor condensate and residual
dust arc captured and tr>~ted for 2 to 4 hours at apµroxim:udv
650 °l' in a liquid-tank reactor (LTR). 'foe L TR uses a high-
boiling-point hydrocarbon, a propti~1my caralyst, and sodium
hydroxide. Nitrogen is µurged Lhrough tlie L TR to control o:-.·ygen
levels, preventing tl,e tank contents from oxidizing or igniting.
Oily residuals remaining in the LTR contain dust and sludge and
arc combustible. 1liey can be bumed in an oil-fired power plant
or treated and reclaimed by waste oil recyclers. The aqueous
condcmate from the process can be discharged to a publicly-
owned treatment works after being polished through an activa!Cd
carbon tr"..atment prcxx.,s. Decontaminated sludge can bedisposoo
of in the same mrumcr as mwiicipal sludge. Spent carbon from the
water polishing can also be rreated in this process.
n,c only by-products produce.cl by tl1e BCD process arc biphenvl
and low-boiling olefinics, and sodium cltloride.
SITE DESCRJPTION
·111e Koppers Compan)' site is l0w1c<l in tl,e Shiloh community,
several miles north of Morrisville, Nonh Carolina. 11,esitc covers
approxinrnrely 52 acres at tlic intersection of Highway 54 and
Koppers Road (sec Figure 2).
111c southeastern section of the site\\~ the CELLON pr=ssmg
area and fomter lagoon area. 11,e CELLON process involved
pccssure-:n:ar.u1g wood "i;h PCP and then steaming it. The water
generated from this process, called rinsate, wa.s collected, pro-
cessed to remove the PCP by flcxx:ularion. and placed in two
lagoons at the site for fitnl,er trcatrne11t. The rinsatc did however
contrun PCP. The CELLON process was used at the site from
1968 to l 975. The two lagoons were closed and emptied in 1976.
Water from the lagoons was sprayed onto the ground at the nonlt
end of the site, and the boMOm sludges from the lagoons were spread
to dry.
In 1980, high levels of PCP were fowtd in the soils in the former
lagoon area and CELLON processing urea. PCP_was also detected
in rl,e groundwater. In 1989 the site was added to EPA' s National
Priorities List (NPL). A remedial investigation (RI) was con-
ducted, identifying rl1e prin1ary contaminants at the site as PCP,
polych.lorinatcd dibcnw-p~ioxins (PCDD), polychlorinatcd
ctibenzofitrnns (PCDF), and isopropyl ether (!PE). 111c RI
indicated that the CELLON processing area and lagoon area
served as sources for the migration of contaminants into the
groundwater,
TECHNOLO. EMONSTRA TION
The BCD technology and SAREX• THERM-0-DETOX system
demonstraiion at the Koppers Company site is scheduled to oocur
during August 1993. The primaiy objectives of this dcmonstrntion
are to:
Dctcmune how cfficientlv the BCD process removes PCP,
dioxins, and furans from, tl1e contruninatc<l soil
DC1cnninc whether treatmei1t n.,-siduals (air, water, oil) meet
cleanup levels
Evaluate the potential forrlie BCD process to form additional
volatile organic compounds when heated to high tempera
tures
Obtain infomIBtion required to estimate treatment costs,
including capital and opcrnting expenses, for future Superfi.md
docision-making pu1poscs
CHURCH ROAD > II IJI,
.,i_1•t;·+.1:.:z.~rm::.',~t-n!1 is;·1ti""'~":'n~v·~11~~--~ .. -1 %e;= 1>r1,;<:::,1"::W~{;'t►:"i._ffPmi:;;.1>.~:; 1:;.,t;~~l~d-,? ,,t1\i~J(tJJ/ft'f$tf/tbJmt:/\l:i:,t1fJ';.\~~~f~lt.,ii\;;;.._ ,tdim~~"-fk$.,:)'..''"t:'(:i.:(<;;>(,';{t'.fl;'i3t:';.;('~t~·•·~-· w ew-2 , -1'iM~::D_ WOO-':£) l•l{EM.~},t;"'t,:t W-13
·:'-:rfJt",·•,;.~N B:YRA..tlC€ O~'TO
. RV::TUP.ts PAOPE/:ITY
KOPPERS ROAD
LEGEt·JD
0 !:XISTIUG WELLS
-PROPcRTY BOU/JDARY
UNIT SIRUC1 URESl
KOPPE;RS s;,E
PR.OPERTI' LHJE
FIRE POIW
j
.......,,4
nnouncement
June 22, 1993
EPA, Region 4 is notifying citizens that due to a recent personnel
change, several of the Superfund sites in North Carolina have
been reassigned to other Remedial Project Managers.
We are pleased to announce that Beverly Hudson is now
responsible for EPA Superfund activities at the Koppers, Inc.
Superfund Site in Morrisville, North Carolina. Beverly is a very
capable and qualified Remedial Project Manager who has been
with EPA for a number of years. The Agency will be conducting
more meetings in the future concerning the Site, at which time
you will be able to meet Beverly and other EPA representatives.
In the meantime, if you have any questions concerning the
Koppers, Inc. Site, please feel free to call us at
1-800-435-9233
Diane Ba"ett, Community Relations Coordinator
EPA, North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365.
•
-... -... -. ..... ...,.-..... -
at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 CourUand Street, N.E.
North Supertund Remedial Branch , • ~ -----·~·,Lr,"" • Dia Ba C R I U C rd ~ U.0.vrr1L,1h VihlL. ne rrett, ommunlty ea ons oo . -,,:.,· -·,:.,, •• f,,.. . --v \~~~•LTV I U.S.PGSIAGE ,. AUanta, Georgia 30365 Region,
Offlclal Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
i JUL 3'90 J;,llYATE i I• \ • /usa s:;:101 ~ n .-, n ... !.
r -----' SIF ---------_ I PAT OE ROSA, ENV I HENDOO l 5 -'\ ! SUPERFUNO BR, SOL~gNMENTAL CHEMIST '
NC DEPT• OF ENVIRONM~iSTE MGMT SECTION '
NATURAL RESOURCES T, HEALTH & ; P. O. BOX 27687
i RALEIGH
\._ ----.
Ill 1111
NC 27611-7687 I
i ..I
........,,,._
I,, 1,11, ,:;. II,,,,, II, ,,Ill,, ,I ,II,, I,, I ,I,,, 11. ,I, I,, ,111,,,I
-,.
' ..
-I ~-..
~j
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION,IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
-
,ro: B I) .. ~ )1A Cf, I \, \( , h-1 h b M 1'Ac)( 6 w-H-ce,
I COMP RY /ORGANIZATION: D<r~< of E-/Vv'. , /~ er~ H l c:j N&b!-n: I
•L.':, (:) v, -n < S
. '
'. PHONE NUMBER: q l~ '1. {3 ·-?-Ji. 0 L FAX NUMBER: 9t i '] 33 ·• <ffJ f'{_
' i ; NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (Including this cover sheet):
;
i
i Please contact the person sending this fa~ If It Is received poorly or Incomplete. I ' I i ..
I~ r-/Jf: r /,Vi 1-FROM: 7,)(1\/ii
J a NORTH SUPERFUND REMEDIAL BRANCH
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Phone Numbers: [phone] or Soo-435-9233 '
Fax Number: [phone]
COMMENTS:
I
3EPA nlled States
Environmental Protection
Ag•ncy
OH\ Solla Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
August 1993 ••-ii-1rE PROGRAM FACT SHEET --- -
Demonstration of the Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Teclmology
and SAREX"' THERM-0-DETOX™ System
DRAFT Koppers Company Superfund Site
Monisville, No1th Carolina
Tins FACT SHEET TELLS YOU ABOUT .•.
EPA' s Supcrfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Progtam
A technology demonstration to be pcrfonncd at the Koppers
Company Superfund site, located in Morrisville, North
Carolina
A Visitors• Day tu be held on Aogust Z~;-1'993 at the
Koppers Company site Sc1>t•M'fr 11 I ~r,,;;.
INTRODUCTION
1l1e U.S. Em~romncntaJ Protection Agency (EPA) identifies new
methods for hazardous waste cleanup tlirough its SITE Program.
Under this prognun, created in 1986, innovative treaonent tech-
nologies that may significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of haz.ardous waste are demonstrated and evaluated. The
SITE Program also generates reliable performance and cost
infonnation on the technologies for use in evaluating cleanup
alternatives for sinularly contaminated sites.
TI1c teclmology proposed for demonstration is the Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition (BCD) technology developed by EPA 's Risk
Reduction Engineering L~boratory in Cincinnati, Onio, using the
SAREX®TI-IERM·O·DETOX system developed by ETG Enli-
ronmentaJ, Lie. (ETG). and Separation and Rccovel)' Systems,
Inc. (SRS). ·ni, DUll/0:iC nfthis rle.morutr.1tion it to ru:G099 how
well the technology removes pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins,
and fumns from the soil at the Koppers Company Superfund site
in Morrisville, Nonh Carolina.
EPA'S SJTEPROGRAM
Each year, EPA solicits proposals from private tcclmology devel-
opers to demonstrate innovative technologies under the SITE
Program. Toclmolo~1• developers can submit demonstration
proposals any tin1e throughout tlie year. For each technology
selocted, EPA, often 11ith input from state and regional agencies,
docs tlie following:
Identifies a site 11ith wastes suitable for trcaonent
Prepares a technology demonstration plan
Notifies appropriate agencies for intergovernmental and
conununity revie1vs
Prepares a fuct shoot for the public, proposing the site and
teclmology match
Prepares the demonstmtion site
Conducts and audits field sampling and laboralOI)' analyses
Organi;;es a Visitors' Day to viewtl1e te;;hnology demonstra-
tion
• Evaluates technology performance
P; ,1,.., es ,u, App!lcadons Analysis Kepo1t and a Tcchnolo&')'
Evaluation Report swrnnarizing the dcmon .. stration results,
as well as several other informational itcnis such as bulletins,
sununaries, arid a 1ideo
DRAFT
08✓11/·33 13:35 ,,;_:._:_.
--C-OMA_N_T:"'":-~-~-~T_/_0 ____ ~c,_l_ifl_t __ l __________ VA--tP!I-E-C_O_V_E_RY-S-YS-.-.:M:~~:::::~:,ll~IF,6l-,~,iJ--..,,,-~ , ..
OR SCREENED SOILS -r , I VAPOR DISCHARGES
FEED
HOPPER
SCREW CONVEYOR
a ,,....,. r-..
I VCJ~
MEDUIM TEMP. THERMAL
DESORPllON UNIT WATER SPRAY
(MTTO)
COOLING WATER
TO
ATMOSPHERE
CARBON
POLISHER
/t,OUfOU5
CONDeNSAtE
STORAGE
CONDENSOR
UNIT
DECHLORINATION
OIL ADlllllVE REAGENTS ,.....~-..,
OILY
CONDENSATE J----.._
STOR>.OE
~-"---'-'---~'----"',-J
COOLING SCREW
CONVEYOR CARBON
A.!>SORPTIO
TAEA1E.D
WATER
ON-SIT~~ACKFILL ------i~
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL ~
LIQUID
TANK
RE/,CTOR
(LTR)
DECOlffAMINATEO SOLIDS
CONTAINER OIUHC
Ylgurc 1: BCJJ ·rcchnokigy and SARr:,\t: THERM-0-DETOX Syine:n
TECHNOLOGY DESCRJPTION
TI1e BCD technology is an EPA-patented process to remediatc soil
and sludge contaminate,;! with chlorinated organic compounds.
Based on the process requirements of the BCD technology, ETG
and SRS have developed tl1e SAREX" THERM-O-DETOX
system in cooperation \\1th EPA to evaluate tl1e effectiveness of
this proo.,'Ss under real-time conditions in the field.
Tiie SAREX"THERJ'vf-O-DETOX system is based on a proven
indirect-heat medium temperature thennal desorption (MlTD)
unit. 111c unit is equipped with a multiple-shaft agitator for high
heat transfer efficiency and e.,ecllent local mixing action.
TI1e BCD physical/chemical process detoxifies and chemically
decomposes contaminants by removing chlorine atoms. Com-
patmds thnt the BCD process can decompose include polychlori-
nated biphcnyls (PCB), PCP, chlorinated dibenzodio:<lns and
furans, insecticides, and herbicides.
11,e process begins by mixing an inorganic reagent \\ith the
contaminated soil, seduncnt, ur liquid. The mixture is heated in the
MlTD unit for about l hour at 650 °F to 800 °F. Some of the
cltlorinatcd contaminants arc decomposed d11ring tl1is step. TI1e
remaining organic contaminants are thermallv desorbcd and re·
moved 1'ith the ofT gas.
DRAFT 2
Clean soil exiting the solid reactor can be returned to tl1e site. The
remaining contaminant;; from the vapor condensate and residual
dust arc captured and tl"'...atoo for 2 to 4 hours at approximately
650 °Fin a liquid-tank reactor (LTR). 111c LTR uses a high-
boiling-point hydrocarbon, a proprict.'ll)' ca1alyst, and sodium
hydroxide. Nitrogen is purged through the L TR to control 0:1.,gen
levels, preventing tl1e tank contents from oxidizing or igniting.
Oily residuals remaining in the LTR contain dust and sludge and
arc combustible. TI1ey can be bumed in an oil-fired power plant
or treated and reclaimed by waste oil recyclers. The aqueous
condensate from the process can be discharged to a publicly-
owned treatment works after being polished tllfough an activated
carbon treatment prOC<,.,s. Decontaminated sludge can bedisposc:d
of in the same nuumer as mwiicipal sludge. Spent carbon from the
water polishing can also be treated in this process.
TI1c only by·products produce<! bytl1e BCD process are biphenyl
and low-boiling olefinics, and sodium chloride.
SITE DESCRIPTION
·11ie Koppers Company site is located in the Shiloh community,
several miles north of Morrisville, Nortl1 CaJolina. 1l1e site cowrs
approxim,1tely 5 2 acres at tl1c intersection of Highway 54 and
Koppers Road (sec Figure 2).
u,::,,-.:. .!. • -.:_ _, • _, I ..........
11,c southcastem section of the site was the CELLON processing
area and fom1er lagoon area. 11,e CELLON process involved
pressure-treating wood with PCP and then steaming it. The water
generated from this process, CJllcd rinsate, was collected, pro-
cessed to remove the PCP by flocculation. and placed in two
lagoons at the site for farther treatment. The rin.sate did however
contain PCP. The CELLON process was used at the site from
1968 to 1975. The two lagoons were closed and emptied in I 976.
Water from the lagoons was sprayed onto the ground at the north
end of the site, and the bottom sludges from the lagoons were spread
to dry.
In 1980, high levels of PCP were found in the soils in the former
lagoon area and CELLON processing area. PCP was alsodetectod
in the groundwater. In 1989 the site was added to EPA's National
Priorities List (NPL) A remedial investigation (RI) was con-
ducted, identifying the primary contaminants at the site as PCP,
polychlorinatcd dibcnzo-p-<lioxins (PCDD), polychlorinatcd
diberlZOforans (PCDF), and isopropyl ether (!PE). 11,e RI
indicated that the CELLON processing area and lagoon area
served as sources for the migration of contaminants into the
groundwater.
TECHNOLOG DEMONSTRATION 1
The BCD technology and SAREX~THERM-0-DETOX system
demonstration at the Koppers Company site is scheduled to cxx:ur
during August 1993. Thcprimaiyobjoctivesofthisdemonstrntion
are to:
•
Dctcmune how efficiently the BCD process removes PCP,
dioxins, and furans from tlie contaminated soil
Detcnnine whether m;anneni n.,-siduals (air, WaICr, oil) meet
cleanup levels
, Evaluate the potential for the BCD process to form additional
volatile organic compounds when heated to high tempera
tures
, Obtain infonnation required to estimate treatment costs,
including capital a11d operating expenses, for future Superftmd
decision-making purposes
CHURCH ROAD
· i.Wmw.''."'¾•W~•.,n ,~:;;;,-.:,~'l~.::.ir.f;,)1":rl<::;;:;:;i: ,-:i::)·mf1<,>~#~ta!l//ji<1·>·· >'i>"';'.•i'.·t .. ,-ii-vl'' •
> /tVii@!,iiii,i, -~ W,
13
,. "
'TAANC€0.
UCTU.ll:ts PRDPERT\'
KOPPERS ROAD
LEGEl·JD
0 EXISTIIIG WELLS
-PROPERTY BOUl,OARY
UNIT STRUCl URES/
KOPPeRS SITE
PROPERTY WJE
FIRE POND
Figurr. 2: Kopp'---r'~ Comp11uy, Jr.::. Superfuml 5ito
3
PAGE C3
.,
11
•
✓ CLIPPING SERVICE 1115 HILLSBORO RALEIGH, NC 27603 TEL (919) 8J3-207g
JOURNAL
WlNSTON-sAl.EM, N. C.
•
.<:J:p ?I.. Q-;,
Plans to Clean Waste Site
In Wake County llit Snag
I , • • , • •, , '
Ill Incinerator in Kansas can't accept coritamfuated soil
BJ T errJ Martin
JOURNAL RALEIGH BUREAU such a rush _to incinerate that they don't even
want to try this approach."
RALEIGH Her group met with EPA officials earlier
Plans to clean up a Superfund site in Wake this month to' make a plea almost unheard of
County by digging up and shipping 5,000 in North Carolina: '.'Treat ·it iri our back
cubic yards of dioxin-contaminated dirt to.a• yard." · ·i :.: . ' · .
hazardous-waste incinerator in Kansas ap-, · Curtis F: Fehn, an EPA official in Atlanta
pears to face a serious glitch. . ·. assigned io the cleanup· of the former Kop-
The state of Kansas doesn't allow the own-·. pers Co. waste site, told the residents that
er of the incinerator in Coffeyville, Kan.·_;_ ·. dechlorination is too experirn~ntal to expect
APTUS Inc. -to burn dioxin. ·· the desired results .
In fact, John S. Ramsey, an environmental
engineer for the Kansas Bureau of Waste
Management, said yesterday that no inciner-
ator· in the country can do what the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency proposes
for the contaminated dirt near Monisville.
"There is no incinerator in the country that
is allowed to burn that stuff yet," Ramsey
said by phone from Wichita, Kansas. "If
there were, I'm sure that your people would
be looking at it." ·
The news, which apparently comes as a
surprise to EPA officials, bolsters the efforts
of Morrisville residents to have the waste
treated at the former wood-preservation
plant by using an alternative chemical treat-
ment.· '.
DORIS GILES, AN organizer of the Clean
Water and Environmental Project of Shiloh, a
community group that opposes incineration,
said that the EPA should try dechlorination, a
process that detoxifies the waste by stripping
off the chlorine ions. ·
"They have been so busy trying to talk us
out of dechlorination that they haven't done
their own homework/' she said.· "~ey're in
. "We knoW that".incm·eration Works; incin-
eration has· been the choice over. the years,"
Fehn._said ·at a public meeting Sept. 3.
But he said yesterday that he had no idea
that the incinerator in Kansas if off-limits to
shipments of dioxin, which is a chlorinated
. indus_trial waste that poses long-term cancer
.risks to humans in amounts as small as sever-
al parts per billion. ... . . ,
STATE· TOXICOLOGISTS have de-
scribed dioxin as the most deadly chemical
·, manufactured by man ..
"As far as I know, the contaminated soil at
that site is suitable for shipment to the incin-
erator in Kansas," Fehn said .
. "We're going over all of the public com-
ments and are looking at every possible angle
. in making our recommendation.'.'
·. A spokesman for APTUS, which is a sub-
sidiary of Westinghouse Electric Co., said
· that the incinerator is under a two•year mora•
torium that prohibits burning waste that con-
tains dioxin· ·
Ramsey S:Ud that the 6~year-olci incinera-
tor dld burn a batch of pesticides containing
dioxin at the request of the EPA in February,
but . that was. an exception.
~tct.i'W~~~ SEP 20 92
-.· ·-\ 'Jti-:-_~: ~--. _ . ., uc, oo ,ggz . tt,) ~slill<Jn;:i~tderlts. wOri'f displ~$ ~ :,~ii}ELEANORE J. HAJlAN},~-:-.. i,j cla~~;•prio-rity'si~e.l>y;~e Environ· cesi'·:'g-su'i:"1~ful_-dechlorinati~n \fcary Extra staff ·',:L'i';c;-"-t~(iff_f ~n . n~_tal'Protectioii Agen_';Y,i',t 1989: 20 ~ou11··.~ost fa_r.;Jess than tbe $1 ~ mil-
.'.-,,;··· · -· · ·, 'thr. · · h th ,. y~· "after Peggy Medlin,"a•-longume lion·or,more 1t,wouid cost to ship the
.. ,._.t t;~A toxic soup runs , oug e...... .--.,-~ -~ •. _ -~ . -. ., · .·. · fi 'all
~i. ;,,,;,-11 b · t ' 3-y re· "s,-de·'n'ts----0·f·Shiloh . a S .. oh res1dent,:saw;th_. e_ ·first fish die waste. Currently, Beazer IS nano y
~-we s, u m n · • -· --' · lli' " -d · 1968 · · · es 'bl fio 'the cleanup
'.'"_.,,.· •.; •. , -II ·ty in Morrisville will 1n: er pon m . . . -r pons, e r. _ _ _ . _
• ,,,, • dma comm um . . • · t• · · . • "Shi! h has been a very difficult
__ J;ii ~-;·not think twice about shaving the !the ·contammation came from the . .. . 0 'd B b B dial
~· ' ·, --· '· • · d · · · · K "'· d tr em t I t which site, sai ar ara enoy, reme
,, "'."· ·K'_"..;;;;.-', ,, .. ·. · waste shippe t_o an monerator m 9pp.ers woo -ea en pan , . ~ , th EPA "Th
f'•';-, _q., __ ,J;,,.,. Kansas --. J-':,J:,,.. u@ a small pond to-dump wood-proJect manag_er ,or_ e . _e
-;c~ '.Roiiif~>,f/'j' '' · · • · f ,al. ,,bli 0· to treii.'tm.ent wastewate; containing process of gettJng a site cleaned up IS
t•·,c~ ,. · ' • th~!~~ ~~'::,: ~0:ft~o:.t 1!tr:e~. c~_j:er-causing PCPs. It ran directly ve0ryechllengthy ~nd ~cluticaL" d b, · b, into'' Medlin's pond dunng heavy onnanon as worsene pro .
"We don't want to put our pro .'iii . thr h th · !ems at ·some EPA test sites Benoy
' !ems in somebody else'.s backyard," ra~. Now it runs ~~~il he entJre said ;However' a new alt~rnative
'·-csaid Ruby Mayo, a. memb~r of the gr~llf~wate_r syStem o o . fo.;, · of, dechl~rination could work. ___ Clean wate_r_ and En~ironment ®'· e,q,enmental process called de-and the.'EPA will consider using Shi-:~t~roject for ShiJ~h;. :;-pie_r.~ IS no sense chlo~n.':tJon could '.1lter PCPs to· a !oh asca,1>ilot tes}'site. _ ,
•
~--·•tn domg that. It s:WIP,ng._ .. --ncilr~OXIC state on site. For between fu"!:Sbiloh however, determination s ... _:_ .\ .. 1'::',~Members of theo;pi'pject._•. quickly $1pJ1 __ i.000 and $475,000, the EP. A and to d6'itp. _e·ri~It. t!Jing runs strong®
_·,;,,:.:,1 .. ,. ivdearned a sense.of.moral obligatJon IS Belr.. Corp.. the compan:;: that !f-"'.'i/2 --~-. · .:~;,,'~ ~r'.11'e in this world. :.~~_o_h,:.:.was de-bo g!,t_[ Koppers, ~o~d~tes~ ~s_ pro-g.:~ please see SHILO O '.
<....... __ _
..• -----·----... --· t' .
FROM 18 (sHILOH
''--Shiloh is a rural community· made· -When the clean _witter group up of about 120 households. Most of meets, it sits on picnic benches under the houses are small and whjte. Some . a large tree to digest scientific facts have American flags flying:_over the ___ and·the red tape ofl:iureaucracy. front stoop. It is peaceful except for · : " ;-. airplanes roaring qyerhead. Family ~n the c~rner of Ch~c;Jl. Street hes lineage is strong: ;Many j_residents: ~oh Bap~t Church, _a_centi:al meet-were raised there, as· were 'their par· · ~ plac~-for the· coi.n~umty. The ents. ~ , ,w.ater h!,~ .. IS tOXIC too.3f: ·: .. ;,<;_. ·; . ·-....... •• ·---~ , .•• -Although Shiloh was annexed into "If there is something wrong in the Morrisville a few years. ago to allow community, we try to fix it,'.' Mayo; · people to receive city ;water, many said. "We stick by each otheibecause ~ residents still rely on their wells, this is home." MedJin said. She has been on city
~·a-..,.:.,-,"";·
~~ t!r·t: '
~-3..
i~." ~ . . --water'for only two years, long after shei£lraised four children on water from'the contaminated pond. . .
i0er~:is nothini :~e cfui'"°do but waft 'and see if someone gets· sick," Mailin·,said. "We always said. there is no@Iace like home, and now~I'won-der.,what we have raised our children upflif:'.' : . ·· -··. · ·::~'--'-· .ira. .'--'i,~ When state officials told Medlin the tistlr3vere killed because fish. are sen-sitive, and die easily; -she·-~_believed ~ .,... .. them~____ .. · '!... . .:::;-·:, ·.·•
. ~
-...\-?i:i-..'. ~i•\ . ') Eveil"'Medlin,'.;:whose property has'. been turned into a toxic site, won't have the waste shipped out of town. , -.-~ . 1· . ;·:u !,S_,bad enough we have _accepted· this for,ourselvfs1all these years,"_she sai4. :"III can't s~ sending it to some-one else:" : .ri. , Medlin's husband worked for Kop:-· pers,,as·have a lot of other·ShiJoh res-idents'.~For years'..he has had chronic emphysema. Medlin does not know if it is due !O plan?chemicals, she said. · ·~Wefare killing ourselves to have: ) jobs," she said. ~-__....,.,,, •. e,•· -:,,,::.
.,
/·. f4::\;;(
ii ~~,,~.'-~-~-;_:·
Reseadh ..
Triangle Park ·
t~jff :;itt~:t~n
Pond
'i;i.f:"i.'.•i .,, ; ,,,, ·:; ~ ;~:
' (.~·
;<~
. }:§ ,,.
l~;~:.fj;.''r> ~~\ .. ,_ .. 1 •. ·,,;•yt.11,.; . . _ . ,..; .X X .'-,,
.. ,
•
CUPPING SERVICE·
1115 HILLSBORO
RALEIGH, NC 27603 TE!.. (919) 833-2ll79
HERALD-SUN
DURHAM, N.C.
SEP 19 92 --
•
i}.,J,(\~~· ~~:•i. -FROM AS ,:\'.:: · · , , ,:: i ft 1, :. L'ii:.. .' ,-lrinat!o'!:could alter. PCPs .t~ ,parents .. -·• . • , __ · -YD:s~oil-toicic's_tate on, site. Fo,-be-/ . "ff. there is something· wrong •"-', ("!\tween :$150,000 and $47:;,ooo. , in .tpe conimunity,\w<Ury to fix ·-s'\the;,EPN'and Beazer, Corp.,. the : it," [;Mayo ·said'-'"We' ~tick by J':'·.•. companY.' that'·-boughi Koppers;{;' each', other-. because. this is . could"test ''tliis''·p-rocess: If sue-' homt",'-''-'·'. '·-/ , cessfur'. ·'dechlorination ' would When the .ciean water group. cost far less than.:the ·$11 ·mil-,. me~t_s. the .. members sit on pie-· lion or·· more. it would cosi:: to . nic tbenches· under a large tree .:••-11. ship the',waste tcil'Kansas.l'_cJr-,· to digest scientific facts and bu-.. -'J,l\rently:' Beazer.·is·.firiaiicially' re: reaucracy's red tape. _ . _ .•-,}!~ ·, :" (.i.-sponsible fof:the''de.inup.: )i'\;•· ; . -On the: corner. of Church ,1, ),)t;,;;shi!oh!J,iisibee,11 a{very',,dlf-:str{et· ·· lies' Shiloh ?~:ap\i\fH ·."'-;;ffi_cult site," ·said Barbara Benoy, •. Church, a central meetmg-place1:, : :•:=;-remediaL· jiroject,:; inaiiager·.,: for. · for 'the community.,';The:•waterL
, ,_., . . • ,. ·• :'"l • • . . . ,....:,:· •... ,,+··· >·'.·.· · : .,1:ry~.:~tA:.;,·tThe_..P~~c_es_s. of get~1ng her~ 1s toxic to_o. ··.\·:·,::t;__:'.\·::_.;-?t:-t:·~t{l . ,·. a s1te·:cleaned up 1s very lengthy. Although Shiloh was ·a11nexed.'!: ·· .. and technical."-; . -· .' into,Morrisville a few yeai_(ago ·.: ,· Dechlorination has worsened to·. allow people to •·receive/city 'problems.at some EPA test sites, water, mariy residents stiif-ieiy·:, Benoy ~aid .. .However, an alter-on··•.their wells; Medlin said/,She .· . nate '. form '. or•• dechlorination has\been on city water for ·only ; might work;. and. the EPA will i:wi:>"years, long after she raised
ii••''· -'•! ' -' ' •' --•_;•_t . -· . . . i:onsid~r;,.u~ing .Shiloh ~r a pjlo.F'. foy~ children on water from the
', ''
· t~st s1te.:.'\~-t· ... _··::··.·>· ·· ... :i\;:-.) ~-._::., <; co~tammated pond . ., _ ...... . . _.'." 111 Shilph. __ de~_~rr.ninatio11 tod? ·;~Tuer~ is notl!ing._we can do ,,. ther1ght•.thmg fU!lS_.strong: Shi-_ . bu{r wait and see .1f someone !oh' is a· rural i:iimmuriity made.-. gets' sick," Medlin said. "We al-. tip. of about :.'<120 · households. · ways said there is no place like · Most of the houses ·are small. home, arid now I wonder what Some have. American flags fly-we have raised our children up, ing over the front' stoop. It is in." · ·· peaceful· except for· airplanes · Even ·Medlin, whose property · roaring overhead. Family !in-has been turned into a toxic eage .is strong: Many resi.dents site,.· won't· have · the' .. waste·:· ;c -:. were raised there, as were their shil2ped out of town. _3> 1·
·~a:s¢t@"·:,. •:'.t
;~~~J!1fi~~~-;
-• soil'bumed iri Kansas: : ~: --ei\~!;~~~ ,,,,,;, :c:>. •--,
JouRNALRALEIGH BUREA~~ ·· ·~:_. ... ·_.:.... ·.;.)\:·:·.· ..
.-~ij~i~:;~iiti1l~ffa)J:1::•-··
• over'~h'attii ci~:aboiifa7 former hazard'.'.: L ' i,\ ••::it~ !~~[~i!L~{~!l~t~~;~~!di
· ErivirOrurieri.tal \PrOtectiOil' 'Agericj:~ m¢t_r ti~;~i0\;~
with. neighbors of'. the former Kopp¢~\( -,--
Co: InC. wood-treatment plant, which 15 _ .
--one of.22 former dwnps in North Caroli-._
-na .listed•:on' the national-priority Jist .. of._ _ -, ~i~i1r~i~~f~%~w~1Jmi•~r:~~~{,ru\d•--·:•' ·ooo·•· _.b,, ..... difof soil tainted bypen'•:(';'••ti' ~(Bt~ltlli
-'" :';THE,: GOVERNMENT,. proposes .,to, -_ dig up the dirt from the IO acres across· .. --
·which -it' was spread in the·I970s.and,_-
·. ;. shiJ)· it._tO·a hazardouS-waste incinerator·; =
:,,in Kansas, wlierethe _EPA says th~, _toxic;
·:· material would be'destroyed, · ,: :
._,-----But'residents who liave since had tlierr,;
,,·; homes hooked up fo water lines' from the --
. 'town of Morrisville say that would just be
· shifting the· burden to ano_ther communi-
· ._. ty:-.\~\~:.:'..::?'.···,.·:~< :--·:"•".~_:· •.!:,·•:'.' I-~-·•,;~;._•.~"'."-.. .,
--"We.do want .:·complete cleanup; but
we atso· want to be assured that other_
• communities aren't affected like we are
and put into the same situation,'' said
Nathariette Mayo.· · · _ ..
"We don't ,warit to take our problem
arici throw it on somebody else's case,'.'-.
'; Those ~oinmentsfrom Mrs, M~yo; the,
··coordinator -of the Shiloh Voters -for
Community Control and Improvement;. '-'came at a public meeting July 23, where
· the EPA outlined IO options for cleaning
'up·:the.land along N.C. 54.' _--" ,. _ •::,-.: -·
'_ She''and other residents lined up yes'
-terday to inake the ·government ari offer.-,
•.''thai'tliey believe would be better tha'ri.
;_ incineration: Treat the dirt at the plarif' ~ 1, • '• ., •. :.''' ... " '" ' -. ' '« '. ' . . ' ' . , . ' . . . ': "' " .
'!/••"·"·" .,,,.,..... See CLEANUP ,'Pacizo•.
' . '• ,/,' .. ,.:
CLIPPING SERVICE·
1115 HILLSBORO
RALEIGH, NC 27603
TEL. {919) 833-~079
JOURNAL
'v,1NSTON-SAI.EM, N. C.
t,'·;.~-:~;;r.·,,.-, ,. : .. • ,,,•,r,1.':• ... ~··.~ic•:1'-c,.•.··--ra,;,; ,· __ .;,
\/si_te;.,. 'Y].th · a -relatively:· new pr?cess .
',known as dechiorinatio-· · . ·
·Unrn . some. cases;, the p s has
r. had ·success _iil removing t c chlo-
rine ions-.:... without incineration_.....:...
thus ending the threat of contami-
nation: .. .· .. _.. . -~ : . .
· But EPA :officials ~aid yesterday
that thecprocess,ha,i :never been -
used_ siiccessfully on day-based }oil_ -
soaked \vith these chemicals:;:,;_,:;>•
-·-CtirtilKF:,' Fehn>'an' EPA:' Super'' . " .. . ",. ': ,-,.;,, , .... _/ ·, .. ~ .. -.> ~". . • 'I: fund official; said:•',This __ is on.the
-cutting. edge. of;techrio\ogy, and'jt,'
has worked iri'thiUaboratciry,' but
· we don't know if.it works on dioxin:.,
.'ln';~_.faCt;'•,.; it'.; COulct ·.:.-~PI"Odti'Ce\:-m:Or"e~. ::·.dJB#fl._''..:\;//.'.:';\itr:·.;_;:t;~::.-:,'(,::::J:l-i~ff[
\,";,Fehn" said·,;. that·v· the•:·: picicess'·-:.•1:-_•• ,,,. ,;,· , • •• •. _ i ,. : , ;:.' · . ·..r,,-.. .,.-" , wound up making condit10ns at one:, :. :ctllinp_ · site in . .Texa5~\Vqrse;-:/~{:Wt/\:-
---"What they wound upw:ith'wai, a'
spongy/ sliiny'aiid' very_'smelly'iiii:ia
thafwas'istilfrhazai-dolis, so .those~
. who are invol~~d are \l,dvising'us;io[;
-. proceed,with'.caution;-'', Fehn•:said •
·. yesterctaY:·r:,:/J_t>N. \i:\1--,; '.\;".-:';. 'i ·.· )/'/)/{~,t
•·•'Hope,· Tayfor,':a.· Shiloh' residei:ii?:
who sayS that incine·ration cat(aisO:;
. call.Se.);; ProbleinSi} ffiaintains ); :thaf
EPA is ignoring the best' approach:"
"THEIR CONSTANT strategy
_is to find problems with dechlorina-
tion but they aren't saying anything
about the problems with incirier3.-
tioni-:This is-just a ploy that they
'dropped-on'us,today," she.said,,
--Fehri saidthat his agency prefers
, a proven ·technology;. · _,, . , -
. The EPA will accept public com-
ments on the cleanup through Sept.
I 6, after which· its regional admin-
istrator in Atlanta will decide which
means to use ..
The cost; estimated at up to $3
million, is to be paid by Beazer East
Inc, of Pittsburgh, which bought
out The Koppers Co, in 1986.
•
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Plan Fact Sheet has been prepared by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose a
plan for cleanup, referred to as the preferred alternative, for
the Koppers Company Superfund Site, (the Site), in
Morrisville, North Carolina. EPA has worked together with
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources,(NC-DEHNR), in the oversight of the
remedial activities at the Site. NC-DEHNR has expressed
preliminary concurrence with EPA's recommendation on the
preferred alternative. In accordance with Section t 17(a) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, EPA
is publishing this Proposed Plan to provide an opportunity for
public review and comment on all the cleanup alternatives,
under consideration for the Site. The public comment period
will run from July 17 . August 17, 1992. EPA, in
consultation with NC·DEHNR, will select a remedy for the
Koppers Company Site only atter the public comment period
has ended and all information submitted to EPA during that
time has been reviewed and considered.
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
July 1992
This Proposed Plan highlights key information that is
contained in the Remedial Investigation (RI) and..
Feaslbillty Study (FS) reports but does not serve as a
substitute for these documents. The RI and FS reports are
more complete sources of information regarding the
remedial activities at the Site and are part of the
Administrative Record for the Site. The Administrative
Record consists of technical reports and reference·
documents used by EPA to compile the Proposed Plan.
These documents can be found in the Information
Repository located at the Cary Branch of the Wake County
Public Library, 310 South Academy Street, Cary, North
Carolina. EPA and the State encourage the public to review
this information, especially during the public comment
period, to better understand the Site, the Superfund process,
and the intent of this Proposed Plan. In addition to the local
Information Repository, EPA maintains a copy of the
Administrative Record in the R_ecord Center at EPA's
regional office in Atlanta, Georgia.
0
//
//
r:::::::J
C=:J
c:::J
./'1/"
, _,.,...,,..F~RMER LAND
// ARM AREA
, / TWO ACRE
, ,,.✓ ACQUI ./ 1971 RED IN
o .. 0
\\
SCALE (F£ET)
100 0 100 200 300
·---·-
FIGURE 1
MEDLIN POND
MEDLIN PONO OUTFALL
•
This fact sheet is the latest of a number of tact sheets that
EPA has distributed for the Koppers Company Site. Briefly,
the preferred remedy includes the following cleanup
methods/technologies:
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS
The contaminated soils would be excavated and sent to a
separate facility off-site for incineration. The area would be
backfilled with clean soil.
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
Contaminated groundwater would be pumped from the
aquifer and treated to remove contaminants. Following
treatment, the water would be discharged to surface water.
FOR CONTAMINATED SURFACE WATER
The on-site pond would be drained and the water treated to
remove contaminants. Following treatment, the water would
be discharged to surface water. The pond would be filled in
with clean soil.
THIS PROPOSED PLAN:
Includes a brief history of the Site, the principal
findings of the RI and a summary of the Risk
Assessment;
Presents the cleanup alternatives for the Site
considered by EPA.
Outlines the criteria used by EPA to recommend
an alternative for use at the Site;
Provides a summary of the analysis of
alternatives;
Presents EPA's rationale for the preliminary
selection of the preferred alternatives; and
Explains the opportunities for the public to
comment on the remedial alternatives, and hence
the cleanup of the Koppers Superfund Site.
BACKGROUNDINFORMATlON
The Koppers Company site is located in the community
known as Shiloh several miles north of the town of
Morrisville, at the intersection of Highway 54 and Koppers
3
•
Road, (Figure 1 ). The Site consists of approximately 52
acres, though ownership of the property is divided. In 1959,
the site was sold by Cary Lumber Company to Unit
Structures Inc. and again sold in 1962 to the Koppers
Company. In September 1986, the majority of the Site was
sold to Unit Structures (a company unrelated to the previous
owners); Unit Structures currently operates a wood
lamination facility at the Site. Koppers Company retained
approximately 10 acres of the Site and has recently acquired
additional portions of the property. In June 1988, the
Koppers Company was acquired by Beazer, Inc. Both
Beazer and Unit Structures own portions of the Site.
The southeastern section of the Site was the location of the
CELLON processing area and the former lagoon area. The
CELLON process is a wood treating process that utilized the
chemical pentachforophenol. The treatment included
steaming the wood after the pentachlorophenol had been
pressure applied to the wood. The water generated from
the steam, known as rinsate, was collected and processeJt.:..
by removing pentachlorophenol by flocculaUon and further
treated by placing in two lagoons on the Site. The final
rinsate did contain amounts of pentachlorophenol. The
CELLON process was used at the Site from 1968 until 1975.
The two lagoons at the Site were closed in t 976. The water
was sprayed onto the ground at the north end of the Site.
The lagoon bottom sludges were spread to dry in the lagoon
area. The lagoon area was fertilized and seed was planted
to create a vegetative ground cover.
Beginning in January 1971 and continuing for the next 10
years, the owner of Medlin Pond reported several fish kills.
In 1980 high levels of pentachlorophenol were found in the
soils of the lagoon and the CELLON treatment areas.
Groundwater contamination of pentachlorophenol was also
detected. In June 1980, the state of North Carolina
conducted an initial inspection of the Site. In July 1980.
Koppers installed seven monitoring wells to provide a ring
of monitoring wells around the plant. Removal actions were
conducted in the former lagoon area in 1980 and in 1986.
In June 1988 at the state's recommendation, the Site was
proposed for inclusion on EPA's NaUonal PrlortUes List
(NPL), and became final in March of 1989. On March 14,
1989, EPA and Beazer, Inc. signed an agreement called a
CERCLA Consent Order under which Beazer would conduct
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to
determine the type and extent of contamination at the Site
and identify alternatives for Remedial AcHon or site
cleanup.
D
0 ~
OFFSITE IUITH
LE6ENO
CJ -
D
0
BEAZER EAST. INC. PHOPEAT'f BOUNDARY
----UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Source: Keystone. 1992
lb
CJ
®
OFFSITE
IIIEST
0
·-----.
5¥¥1•1
SCALE {FEET)
0 100 200 FIGURE 2
•
In February 1989, in response to a separate Consent Order
issued by EPA and signed by both EPA and Beazer, Beazer
installed municipal water lines around the site to provide
public water to area residents wnose wells had been
impacted. Approximately 4 miles of water lines have been
installed and approximately 80 residences have been
connected to the municipal water supply. Some area
residents have voiced complaint over the water line
installation due to the fact that the Town of Morrisville would
not allow hook-up without a petition of voluntary annexation
from the property owners. Many residents have stated that
the resulting taxation should not have been imposed.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
The Remedial Investigation was designed to focus on areas
where contamination would most likely be remaining from
the former wood preserving operations or in areas where
contamination would most probably migrate. For example,
the drainage pathways from the site were studied as far as
1500 feet downstream from the site itself.
In an effort to assist in discussing the key findings of the
sampling program, the site has been divided up based on
use and/or area. Figure 2 shows the division which is
broken down in the following way: Area A is the former land
farm area, Area B is the eastern area of the site minus Area
C which includes the Former Lagoon Area, the Former
CELLON Process Area, and the Fire Pond. Area Dis the
remaining site property and includes the entire western area
on the site. The Medlin Pond is located south of the site
along the southern drainage route. Investigations off site are
referred to by direction and noting OS for off-site.
The contamination identified in the Remedial Investigation
included pentachlorophenol, polychlor1nated dlbenzo-p-
dloxlns, (PCDDs), polychlorlnated dlbenzo turans
(PCDFs), lsopropyl ether (IPE). Several additional
phenolic compounds have been identified: 2-4-
dlchlorophenol, 2,4,6-trlchlorophenol, 2,3,5,6-
tetrachlorophenol.
Focusing on Area C as the source area, more than 90 soil
samples were collected to charactenze the contamination in
the soils. As expected, the greatest concentrations were
found in the areas that were directly associated with the
process area. Eleven monitonng wells were constructed
within the vicinity of Area C. Results of the investigation
indicate that CELLON process and lagoon areas served as
sources for the contamination to migrate into the
5
•
groundwater. Elevated levels (above Maximum
Contaminant Levels [MCLs]) consisting pnmarily of
pentachlorophenol and PCDDs were detected in the
groundwater. Several phenolic compounds were found in
small amounts and have been evaluated in the Baseline
Risk Assessment.
SUIIIIARY OF SITE RISKS
A task of the RI/FS is to analyze and estimate the human
health and environmental problems that could result if the
soil, groundwater and surface water contamination at the
Koppers Company Superfund Site were not cleaned up.
This analysis is called a Baseline Risk Assessment. In
conducting this assessment, EPA focuses on the adverse
human health effects that could result from long-term (30
years) daily, direct exposure as a result of ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact to carcinogenic chemicals
(cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic chemicals present
at the Site.
A goal of the Agency is to reduce the risk posed by a
Superfund Site to below one person out of 10,000 being at
risk. This is the maximu_m risk the Agency will allow.
Typically, the Agency aspires to be even more protective
and strives to lower the Msk so that at only one person out
of one million may be adversely impacted by the
contamination found at the Site.
In order for there to be a Msk, a complete exposure pathway
must exist. An exposure pathway is the route or mechanism
by wtlich a chemical agent goes from a source to an
individual or population. Each exposure pathway must
include the following:
A source and mechanism of chemical release to the
environment,
A transport medium (e.g., soil or groundwater),
An exposure point (wtlere a receptor will contact the
medium),
An exposure route (i.e., ingestion, inhalation, or direct
contact).
A pathway is considered complete when all of the above
elements are present.
Exposure pathways evaluated in the Baseline Risk
Assessment were ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact to
•
contaminants in the soil, surface water, sediments and
groundwater. The Agency has concluded that there are
current unacceptable risks to human health associated with
the site. These risks are the levels of contaminants in the
surface soils in the lagoon and process areas, Area C. The
reason groundwater does not pose a current risk is that
everyone won<ing at the Site or living in the immediate
vicinity of the Site uses either the public water supply system
or bottled water for drinking.
However, there is a future risk for area residents using the
groundwater due to the levels in the aquifer. This scenario
includes the exposure of off-site residents to contaminants
in the groundwater through ingestion, inhalation, and direct
contact.
The EPA has also determined that though there is not an
unacceptable human health risk associated with the
contaminant levels in surface water in either the Fire Pond
and Medlin Pond. PCDD concentrations in surface water .
and associated sediments in both ponds are at a level which
poses unacceptable ecological risks. Evaluation of the
western ditch surface water and associated sediments is
being conducted for potential remediation.
For more information about the risks posed by the
contamination at the Koppers Company Superfund Site,
please refer to the Baseline Risk Assessment Report and
other documents available for review at the information
repository.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The long-term objective that remains to be fulfilled at the
Koppers Superfund Site is to prevent exposure by removing
the potential ways that people can be exposed, (the route of
exposure) or by removing the contaminants through
treatment. The main routes of exposure at the Site are: 1)
drinking the groundwater that exceeds the mandated
Maximum Contaminant Levels, and 2) dermal exposure (or
direct contact) with soils or surface water that exceed human
health levels for exposure. The Preferred Remedy
addresses these exposure pathways. The Remedial action
objectives for the Site are:
1) Prevent ingestion of groundwater contaminated at or
above mandated Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
2) Prevent further contamination of the groundwater.
6
•
3) Restore the groundwater to contamination levels below
MCLs.
4) Prevent migration of contaminants from soils that cause
the groundwater contamination.
5) Eliminate surface water in the Fire Pond and Medlin
Pond by draining the pond.
The specific remedial alternatives under consideration are
summarized in this fact sheet. The FS Report presents a
more thorough description and evaluation of these
alternatives.
Based on new information or public comments, EPA, in
consultation with the NC-DEHNR, may modify the preferred
alternative or select another response action presented in
this Proposed Plan and the FS Report. The public is
encouraged to review and comment on all alternatives
identified.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the alternatives
developed in the FS Report. The primary objective of the
FS was to determine and evaluate alternatives for cleaning
up the Site. Descriptions of the clean-up alternatives are
summarized below.
The cost information provided below for each alternative
represents estimated total present worth (PW) of each
alternative. Total PW was calculated by combining the
capital cost plus the PW of the annual operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost includes
construction, engineering and design, equipment, and site
development. Operating costs were calculated for activities
that continue atter completion of construction, such as
routine operation and maintenance of treatment equipment,
and groundwater monitoring. The PW of an alternative is
the amount of capital required to be deposited at the present
time at a given interest rate to yield the total amount
necessary to pay for initial construction costs and future
expenditures, including O&M and future replacement of
capital equipment. The numbers provided for the
Alternatives, such as S-1, correspond to the numbers in the
Feasibility Study. If not listed, the Alternative was eliminated
early in the evaluation because of a lack of protection or
effectiveness, etc. Therefore, the Proposed Plan did not
present those Alternatives.
-. • REIIEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS SOIL
CONTAIIINATION
The soil alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE S-1: SOILS
No Actton
Capital Costs: $ o
PW O&M Costs: LQ
Total PW Costs: $ o
Time to Implement: None
CERCLA requires Illa! tile "No Action • alternative be
evaluated at every Superfund Site to establish a baseline for
comparison. No further activities would be conducted witll
Site soils under this alternative (i.e., tile Site is lett ·as is').
CERCLA also requires that the selected remedy be
protective of human healtll and tile environment and
because the Site poses a future risk to human healtll and
the environment, tile No Action alternative will not be
selected. There are no operation or maintenance costs
associated with tllis alternative.
ALTERNATIVE S-3: SOILS
Surface Cover
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
. $ 19,000
$1,307,000
$1,326,000
1 month
This alternative provides for surface capping over tile
contaminated soils and includes surface drainage controls.
Final soil compaction, seeding and mulching would be done
to provide long term erosion control. Use of a surface cap
would be designed to eliminate or substantially reduce
potential ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure
pathways.
ALTERNATIVE $-4: SOILS
Surface Capping
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$ 109,000
$1,368,000
$1,477,000
5 montlls
This alternative would be used to isolate the contaminated
soils in tile process/lagoon area. Though not currently
identified in the FS, this alternative would specify tile
construction of a Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
7
••
(RCRA) cap over the contaminated soils. This alternative
also includes surface drainage controls. This alternative
involves tile implementation of institutional controls to
prevent direct contact and incidental ingestion ol
contaminated soils by tile general public. A RCRA
multi-layer cap consists of tile following layers in ascending
order: a densely compacted 2 foot-lllick clay layer placed
over tile contaminated soils, a syntlletic polyetllylene liner of
at least 30 mils in thickness on top of tile clay layer, a
synthetic drainage layer over tile synthetic liner along witll a
geotextile fabric to prevent clogging of the drainage layer,
and finally, 18 inches of native soils and 6 inches of top-soil
on top of the geotextile fabric. A vegetative cover would be
completed and fencing would be installed to provide a
barrier to trespassing.
ALTERNATIVE S-5: SOILS
Excavatton and On-site Landfill
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$ 663,375
$1,506,625
$2,170,000
7 montlls
This alternative involves excavating tile contaminated soils
and landfilling the soils on-site. Major components of this
on-site alternative would include capping and lining tile
landfill area to meet RCRA regulations. A leak detection
system would be installed to ensure tile liners do not fail. A
leachate collection and removal system would be installed.
The cap would be identical to the RCRA cap as identified in
Alternative 4-S for soils. Maintenance of the landfill would
require periodic mowing and control of vegetative cover.
Long term groundwater monitoring would be required to
implement tllis alternative. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean soils, graded, and revegetated.
ALTERNATIVE S-6: SOILS
Excavatton and Off-site Landfill
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$816,000
$ 0
$816,000
approx. 12 months
This alternative involves excavating tile contaminated soils
in the same manner as identified in Alternative S-5. The
contaminated soils would be transported to a RCRA-
permitted off-site landfill. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean soils, graded, and revegetated.
•
ALTERNATIVE S-7: SOILS
Excavation and On-site Treatment by Dechlorination
Process and Replacement of Treated Solis
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$1,838,000
$1,162,000
$3,000,000
Unknown
This alternative involves excavating the contaminated soils
and then chemically treating the contaminated soils on-site.
A mobile treatment unit would be placed on-site. The
chemical process attempts to detoxify and chemically
decompose the contamination in the soils by removing the
chlorine atoms from the pentachlorophenol and the
PCDDs/PCDFs. Upon final treatment of the soils, the soils
would be washed and replaced back onto the site.
ALTERNATIVE S-8: SOILS
Excavation and On-site Incineration
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$3,432,000
$ 0
$3,432,000
6 months
This alternative involves excavation and incineration ol the
contaminated soils in an On-site mobile incinerator. The
incinerator destroys the organic contaminants in the soils.
The treated soils (also considered ash) would either be
replaced onto the site or disposed of in a RCRA-perrnitted
landfill. The costs identified above are developed for final
off-site disposal. Costs will be developed to consider on-site
disposal also.
ALTERNATIVE S-9: SOILS
Excavation and Off-site Incineration
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$2,141,000
$ 0
$2,141,000
approx. 6 months
This alternative involves excavating the contaminated soils
and transporting the contaminated soils to a RCRA permitted
off-site incineration facility. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean soil, graded and revegetated.
8
ALTERNATIVE S-10: SOILS
Excavation and On-site Storage
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$125,000
$534,000
$659,000
Time to Implement: approx. 3 months
This alternative involves excavating the contaminated soils
and moving them to an on-site storage lacility that would be
constructed for the soils storage. A synthetic liner, leachate
detection and collection system, concrete foundation with
curbs, and a cover manufactured of synthetic liner material
would be used. The excavated areas would be backfilled
with clean soil, graded and revegetated. This alternative
would be a temporary measure utilized only until acceptable
technology for treating the soils becomes available. This
alternative would eliminate the exposure routes for ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation as well as the mobility of the
contamination in the soils.
SOIL VOLUMES
The volume of soil identified in the Feasibility Study is
approximately 1,000 cubic yards. This volume was derived
by identifying 3 distinct areas requiring excavation and is the
volume used lor the cost estimates in the Proposed Plan.
The EPA generated soil volumes independent of the
Feasibility Study and estimates that the soil volumes may be
greater, but would probably not exceed t 0,000 cubic yards.
This creates a range from t ,000 cubic yards to 10,000 cubic
yards. EPA looked at 5,000 cubic yards for a cost
comparison between on-site incineration and off-site
incinceration. 5,000 cubic yards was selected since it is the
midpoint of the range.
S-8: On-site Incineration
Total Present Worth Cost $15,000,000
S-9: Off-site Incineration
Total Present Worth Cost $11,000,000
Cost estimates at 5,000 cubic yards will be developed for
Alternatives S-3 through S-7 and S-t O for further
comparison. Selection of the preferred alternative is not
expected to change based on this potential difference in soil
volume.
•
REIIEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS
GROUNDWATER CONTAIIINA TION
The groundwater alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE GW-1: NO ACTION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$0
1.Q
$0
None
This alternative tor groundwater contamination would require
no further activities to be conducted tor on-site groundwater.
The No Action alternative is required to be established for
comparative basis under CERCLA.
ALTERNATIVE GW-3: EXTRACTION, ABOVE-GROUND
BIOREMEDIATION, SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Period of Operation:
$ 869,000
$4,231,000
$5,100,000
30 years
This alternative involves installing extraction well(s) in the
contaminant plume to actively extract groundwater tor
treatment. The steps in the treatment include equalization,
filtration ot suspended solids, pH adjustment, removal ot
organic contaminants and a carbon polishing step. The
primary organic treatment consists of a submerged fixed film
bioreactor to permanently remove and destroy the organic
contaminants. Effluent will be discharged to the surface
water and monitored to insure compliance with National
Pollutlon Discharge Ellmlnatlon System (NPDES)
discharge requirements.
ALTERNATIVE GW-4: EXTRACTION, ABOVE-GROUND
PRETREATMENT & CARBON ADSORPTION, SURFACE
WATER DISCHARGE
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Period of Operation:
$ 419,000
$3,612,000
$4,031,000
30 years
This alternative involves the installation of extraction well(s)
in the contaminant plume on-site to actively extract
groundwater tor treatment. The steps in the treatment
system would consist of equalization, filtration tor removal of
suspended solids, and carbon adsorption of dissolved
9
•
organics. The difference of treatment between, GW-3 and
GW-4 alternatives is the elimination ot the fluidized bed
biological reactor system. The pH adjustment would not be
necessary since this step is taken to optimize conditions for
the biological treatment. Effluent would be discharged to
surface water and monitored to insure compliance with
NPDES discharge requirements.
ALTERNATIVE GW-5: EXTRACTION, ABOVE-GROUND
PRETREATMENT AND UV/CHEMICAL TREATMENT,
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Period of Operation:
$ 419,000
$4,714,000
$5,133,000
30 years
This alternative involves installing extraction well(s) in the
contaminant plume on-site to actively extract groundwater for
treatment. The steps in this treatment alternative consist QL.
equalization, filtration tor removal of suspended solids,
treatment in a UV/chemical oxidation reactor, including
addition of peroxide for oxidizing/converting dissolved
organic compounds to chemical species which meet required
discharge levels and a carbon polishing tor adsorption ot
residual organics. Effluent would be discharged to surface
water and monitored to insure compliance with NPDES
discharge requirements.
REIIEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS
SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION
The surface water alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE SW-1: NO ACTION
Fire Pond
Capital Costs: $ o
PW O&M Costs: 1.Q
Total PW Costs: $ O
Time to Implement: None
Medlin Pond
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$0
1.Q
$0
None
This alternative tor surface water contamination would
require no further activities to be conducted tor on-site
surface water. This alternative is required to be developed
under CERCLA
•
ALTERNATIVE SW-3: POND DEWATERING, SURFACE
WATER TREATMENT, SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE,
BACKFILLING IN POND
Fire Pond
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
Medlin Pond
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$1,300,000
$ 0
$1,300,000
3 months
$695,500
$ 0
$695,500
3 months
This alternative would require the draining of the on-site Fire
Pond and the Medlin Pond, surface water storage followed
by treatment with activated carbon. The storage tanks
would provide the necessary equalization storage and would
reduce suspended solids. Effluent would be discharged to
surface water and monitored to insure compliance with
NPDES discharge requirements. The pends would be filled
in with clean soil. The area would be graded to control
surface drainage and a vegetative cover would be planted.
Wetlands construction would also be conducted under this
alternative to restore the wetlands which would be eliminated
by this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE SW-4: POND DEWATERING, SURFACE
WATER TREATMENT, POND LINING AND REFILLING
Fire Pond
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
Medlin Pond
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Implement:
$952,000
$ 0
$952,000
3 months
$710,000
$ 0
$710,000
approx. 6 months
This alternative is identical to Alternative SW-3 except that
the Fire Pond and Medlin Pond would be lined with a
multi-layer synthetic liner which would be anchored into the
banks of the pends by an anchor trench. The pends would
be allowed to refill by storm water within the respec1ive
drainage areas. Disturbed soil areas would be revegetated
for sediment and erosion control. WeHands construction .
would also be conducted on-site under this alternative 10
10
•
restore the wetlands associated with the pends which would
be eliminated by this alternative.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup alternative for the
Koppers Company Site, as described in this Propesed Plan,
is the result of a comprehensive evaluation and screening
process. The FS for the Site was conducted to identify and
analyze the alternatives considered for addressing
contamination at the Site. The FS and other documents for
the Koppers Company Site describe, in detail, the
alternatives considered, as well as the process and criteria
EPA uses to narrow the list of potential remedial
alternatives. These documents are available for public
review in the administrative record in the information
repesitory.
EPA always uses the following nine criteria to evalua~-
alternatives identified in the FS. The remedial alternative
selected for a Superfund Site must achieve the two
threshold criteria as well as attain the best balance among
the five evaluation criteria. The nine criteria are as follows:
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. Overall Protection of Public Health and Environment:
Degree to which each alternative eliminates, reduces, or
controls threats to public health and environment
through treatment, engineering methods, or institutional
controls (e.g., deed, land use or other restrictions).
2. Compliance with State and Federal Requirements:
Degree to which each alternative complies with all state
and federal environmental and public health laws and
requirements that apply or are relevant and appropriate
to the site conditions.
EVALUATING CRITERIA
3. Cost: The benefits of implementing a particular remedial
alternative are weighed against the cost of
implementation. Costs include the capital upfront costs
of implementing an alternative over the long term, and
the net present worth of beth capital and operation and
maintenance costs.
4. Implementability: EPA considers the technical
feasibility (e.g., how. difficult the alternative is to
construct and operate) and administrative ease (e.g., the
•
amount of coordination with other government agencies
that is needed) of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services.
5. Short-Tenm Effectiveness: The length of time needed
to implement each alternative is considered and EPA
assesses the risks posed to workers and nearby
residents during construction and implementation.
6. Long-Tenm Effectiveness: The alternatives are
evaluated based on the alternatives· ability to maintain
reliable protection of public health and the environment
over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
7. Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume: EPA
evaluates each alternative based on how it reduces (1)
harmful nature of the contaminants, (2) their ability to
move throughout the environment, and (3) the volume or
amount of contamination at the site.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State Acceptance: EPA requests State comments on
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports
as well as the Proposed Plan, and must take into
consideration whether the state concurs with, opposes,,
or has no comment on EPA"s preferred alternative.
9. Community Acceptance: To ensure that the public
has an adequate opportunity to provide input, EPA holds
a public comment period and considers and responds to
all comments received from the community prior to the
final selection of a remedial action.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following summary profiles the pertonnance of the
preferred alternatives in terms of the nine evaluation criteria
noting how it compares to the other alternatives under
consideration. The comparative analysis for the soil
remediation alternatives is as follows:
SOIL REMEDIATION
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for source control:
Alternative S-1: No Action
Alternative 5-3: Surtace Cover
11
•
Alternative 5-4: RCRA Cap
Alternative S-5: On-site Landfill
Alternative S-6: Off-site Landfill
Alternative S-7: On-site Dechlorination
Alternative 5-8: On-site incineration
Alternative S-9: Off-site Incineration
Alternative s-10: On-site storage
COIIPARA TIVE ANALYSIS -SOILS
Overall Protection. One potential risk due to Site soils
under potential future conditions is to the groundwater
through the leaching of contaminants from the soil into the
groundwater. Alternative S-1 (No Action) would not ll!l.:..
protective of human health or the environment. Upon
implementation, Alternatives 3-S and 4-S would prevent
precipitation from leaching contaminants from the soil into
the groundwater, however, would not be protective of the
groundwater due to seasonal fluctuations in the elevation of
groundwater corning into contact with contaminated soil:
Alternatives S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, and S-10 would
eliminate any risks associated with the soil contamination as
well as mitigate any further degradation of the groundwaler.
Compliance with ARARS. There are no federal or state
chemical-specific ARARs tor the contaminants detected in
the soils. There are no action-specific ARARs tor Alternative
S-1. RCRA requirements tor Alternative S-4 (capping) may
be relevant and appropriate. Alternatives S-5, S-7 and S-8
would be required to comply with Land Disposal
Requirements (LDRS) through a Treatability Variance tor the
contaminated soil/debris. S-9 may also be required to
comply with LDRs. The Treatability Variance does not
remove the requirement to treat restricted soil/debris wastes,
they allow the establishment of LOR standards on actual
data collected tonn the Site. LOR treatment levels would be
met tor the soils/debris and tor any sludge or used activated
carbon generated by the treatment or processes.
Long-tenm Effectiveness and Permanence. Alternative SI
would not be effective in reducing contaminant levels in the
groundwater. Alternatives S-3 and S-4 could be effective in
the long tenn through regular maintenance of the cover or
cap, but a review of the remedy would be required every five
years since a cap or cover is not considered to be a
•
permanent remedy and leaves wastes in place that are
above health protective levels. Alternatives S-7 through S-9
call for treatment of the contaminated soil and therefore,
result in the highest degree of long-term effectiveness by
permanently reducing the Site risks. Alternative S-7 has not
been shown to be effective for PCDDs and PCDFs.
Alternative S-10 does not provide long-term effectiveness or
permanence since on-site storage would be on a temporary
basis until better technology is developed.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobllfty and Volume.
Contaminant levels would remain unchanged lor Alternatives
S-1, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7 and S-to. Alternatives S-3 and
S-4 would not reduce the toxicity or the volume of the
contamination, but would reduce the mobility and therefore
the effective toxicity may be reduced. Alternative S-5 may
reduce the mobility of the contamination. Alternative S-6
would permanently reduce the mobility of contamination in
soils at the site; volumes and toxicity remain unchanged. If
effective, Alternative S-7 would reduce the toxicity and
mobility of the contaminants in the soils. . Since the
effectiveness of this treatment has not been demonstrated
for PCDDs/PCDFs, the reduction ol overall toxicity, mobility
and volume for Alternative S-7 is unknown. Alternatives S-
8 and S-9 would effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility and
volume of site contaminants in the soils. Alternative S-1 O
would reduce only the mobility of the contaminants in the
soils.
Shon-term Effectiveness. Alternatives S-1, S-3, and S-4
could be implemented without significant risks to on-site
workers or the community and without adverse
environmental impacts. The principal short term impacts of
implementing Alternatives S-5 through S, 10 is the potential
exposure of workers during excavation and the handling of
contaminated soils.
lmplementabllfty. No implementation is needed for the No
Action alternative. Construction of the cover or cap
(Alternatives S-3 and S-4) would pose no significant
difficulties. Alternative S-7 would require a treatability study
to assure achievement of Site-specific remedial goals and
ARARS. Treatment units are available and site conditions
are suitable for on-site treatment. Review of literature for
this treatment technology suggests that it may not be
effective on PCDDs and PCDFs. Alternative S-8 would
require test burns.
Costs. Total present worth costs for the soil alternatives are
presented below:
12
Alternative s1
No Action
Alternative S3
Surface Cover
Alternative S4
RCRA Cap
Alternative ss
On-site Landfill
Alternative S6
Off-site landfill
Alternative S7
•
On-site Dechlorination
Alternative S8
On-site Incineration
Alternative S9
Off-site Incineration
Alternative S10
On-site Storage
$ 0
$1,326,000
$1,477,000
$2,170,000
$816,000
$3,000,000
$3,432,000
$2,141,000
$659,000
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for groundwater remediation:
Alternative GW-1:
No Action
Alternative GW-3:
Extraction, Bioremediation, Surface Water Discharge
Alternative GW-4:
Extraction, Carbon Adsorption, Surface Water Discharge
Alternative GW-5:
Extraction, UV/OX, Surface Water Discharge
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS -GROUNDWATER
Overall Protection. The No Action Alternative GW-1 would
not address contaminant levels in the groundwater and
therefore would not be protective of human health under
current or potential future conditions. Alternatives GW-3,
GW-4 and GW-5 would address the plume in the aquifer; the
• •
only difference between these alternatives is the type of
treatment to be used on the extracted groundwater and the
discharge option for the treated groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs. MCLs and North Carolina
standards are ARARs for Site groundwater. Alternative
GW-1 would not comply with ARARs. Alternatives GW-3,
GW-4 and GW-5 would attain ARARs throughout the
contaminant plume. Construction of the groundwater
recovery, treatment, and discharge system for each of these
alternatives would satisfy action-specific ARARs. The
disposal of any sludge or spent activated carbon generated
by the groundwater system would also comply with ARARS.
Long-tenn Effectiveness and Permanence. Under
Alternative GW-1, groundwater contamination would
continue to migrate off-site, therefore the No Action
Alternative would not be considered a pern,anent or effective
remedial solution. The contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater will be pern,anently reduced through .
groundwater extraction and treatment specified in
Alternatives GW-3 through GW-5.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume. Alternative
GW-1 would not significantly reduc_e the toxicity, mobility or
volume of contaminants in groundwater. Alternative GW-3
through GW-5 would reduce the volume of contaminants in
the aquifer through recovery. The groundwater treatment
systems will comply with the statutory preference for
alternatives that reduce toxicity of contaminants.
Shon-term Effectiveness. All of the alternatives can be
implemented without significant risk to the community or on-
site workers and without adverse environmental impacts.
Implementability. None of the alternatives pose significant
concerns regarding implementation. Final design of the
treatment systems for Alternatives GW-3 through GW-5 can
not be completed until discharge requirements are defined.
Cost
Alternative GW-1:
No Action $ 0
Alternative GW-3:
Extraction, Bioremediation, Surface Water Discharge
$5,100,000
Alternative GW-4:
Extraction, Carbon Adsorption, Surtace Water Discharge
$4,031,000
13
Alternative GW-5:
Extraction, UV/OX, Surtace Water Discharge
$5,133,000
SURFACE WATER REMEDIATION
Alternative SW-1
No Action
Alternative SW-3
Pond Destruction, Carbon Adsorption, Surface Water
Discharge
Alternative SW-4
Pond Lining, Carbon Adsorption, Surtace Waler
Discharge
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS-SURFACE WATER
Overall Protection. The ecological risk is associated wiffl:..
migratory birds. Alternative SW-1 of No Action would not
address the contaminated surface water in either pond.
Both Alternatives SW-3 and SW-4 remediate the
contamination in the surtace water and are therefore
considered protective.
Compliance with ARARs. The No Action Alternative SW-1,
would not comply with any of the known ARARs associated
with the surtace water contamination. Alternatives SW-3
and SW-4 would comply with location-specific and
action-specific ARARS. Treatment of the surtace water of
Alternatives SW-3 and SW-4 would result in compliance with
the State of North Carolina chemical-specific ARARS.
Long-tenn Effectiveness and Pennanence. Under the No
Action Alternative, surtace water contamination would remain
in the surtace water, therefore, this is not considered a
permanent or effective remedial solution. Contaminant
concentrations in the surtace water would be eliminated by
either Alternative SW-3 or SW-4. These alternatives are
considered to be effective on a long-tern, basis and
permanent.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume. The
implementation of Alternative SW-1, No Action, would not
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants in the
surtace water. Alternatives SW-3 and SW-4 eliminate the
contamination in the surface water. The statutory
preference for alternatives that reduce toxicity of
contaminants would be met by both Alternatives SW-3 and
SW-4.
•
Shon-term Effectiveness. All of the Remedial Alternatives
could be implemented without significant risks to the
community or on-site workers. The potential impacts on the
environment from implementation of Alternative SW-3
include the removal of wetlands and the natural habitat for
fish and wildlife by the destruction of the Fire Pond. This
impact will be countered by a wetland mitigation plan which
• will restore wetlands in a portion of the area.
Implementability. None of the alternatives pose significant
concerns regarding implementation. Final design of the
treatment systems for Alternatives SW-3 and SW-4 can not
be completed until discharge requirements are defined.
Cost
Alternative SW-I:
No Action $ 0
Alternative SW-3:
Pond Destruction, Carbon Adsorption, Surface Water
Discharge
Fire Pond
Medlin Pond
$1,300,000
$ 695,000
$1,995,000
14
•
Alternative SW-4:
Pond Lining, Carbon
Discharge
Fire Pond
Medlin Pond
Adsorption, Surface Water
$ 952,000
$ 710,000
$1,662.000
State Acceptance. The NCDEHNR has reviewed and
provided comments on the reports and data from the RI, the
FS and the Baseline Risk Assessment. The NC-DEHNR
has also reviewed this Proposed Plan and EPA"s preferred
alternative and presently tentatively concurs with EPA"s
selection.
Community Acceptance. Community acceptance of the
preferred alternative will be evaluated atter the public
comment period ends. A response to each comment will be
included in a Responsiveness Summary which will be a
part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site.
0
0 • •
15
• •
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated by Congress under Supertund to respond to citizen's concerns
and needs for infom,ation, and to enable residents and public officials to participate in the decision-making process. Public
involvement activities undertaken at Superfund sites consist of interviews with local residents and elected officials, a community
relations plan for each site, fact sheets, availability sessions, public meetings, public comment periods, newspaper advertisements,
site visits, and Technical Assistance Grants, and any other actions needed to keep the community informed and involved.
EPA is conducting a 30-day public comment period from July 17, 1992 to midnight August 17, 1992, to provide an opportunity
for public involvement in selecting the final cleanup method for this Site. Public input on all alternatives, and on the information
that supports the alternatives is an important contribution to the remedy selection process. During this comment period, the public
is invited to attend a public meeting on July 23, 1992, at the Morrisville Elementary School, 1519 Morrisville Parkway, Morrisville,
North Carolina beginning at 7:00 p.m. at which EPA will present the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan
describing the preferred alternative for treatment of the contamination at the Koppers Company, Inc. Supertund Site and to answeJ'...;._
any questions. Because this Proposed Plan Fact Sheet provides only a summary description of the cleanup alternatives being
considered, the public is encouraged to consult the infom,ation repository for a more detailed explanation.
During this 30-day period, the public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the infom,ation repository located
at the W_ake County Public Library, Cary Branch, 310 South Academy Street, Cary, NC and offer comments to EPA either orally
at the public meeting which will be recorded by a court reporter or in written fom, during this time period. The actual remedial
action could be different from the preferred alternative, depending upon new information or statements EPA may receive as a result
of public comments. If you prefer to submit written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight August 17,
1992 to:
Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Superfund Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
All comments will be reviewed and a response prepared in making the final detem,ination of the most appropriate alternative for
cleanup/treatment of the Site. EPA's final choice of a remedy will be issued in a Record of Decision (ROD). A document called
a Responsiveness Summary summarizing EPA's response to all public comments will also be issued with the ROD. Once the ROD
is signed by the Regional Administrator it will become part of the Administrative Record (located at the Library) which contains all
documents used by EPA in making a final detem,ination of the best cleanup/treatment for the Site. Once the ROD has been
approved, EPA once again begins negotiations with the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to allow them the opportunity to
design, implement and absorb all costs of the remedy determined in the ROD in accordance with EPA guidance and protocol. If
negotiations do not result in a settlement, EPA may conduct the remedial activity using Supertund Trust monies, and sue for
reimbursement of its costs with the assistance of the Department of Justice. Or EPA may issue a unilateral administrative order
or directly file suit to force the PRPs to conduct the remedial activity. Once an agreement has been reached, the design of the
selected remedy will be developed and implementation of the remedy can begin.
16
♦_J
• •
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides affected communities by a Supertund site with the opportunity to apply for a
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). This grant of up to $50,000 is awarded to only one community group per site and is designed
to enable the group to hire a technical advisor or consultant to assist in interpreting or commenting on site findings and proposed
remedial action plans. A citizens'group interested in the TAG program needs to submit a Letter of Intent to obtain an application
package from:
Ms. Rosemary Patton, Coordinator
NC Technical Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division
U.S,E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Benoy, Remedial Project Manager or
Ms. Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Ga 30365
Phone: [phone]
Toll Free No.: 1-4I00-435-9233
17
•
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer. An underground geological formation, or group of
formations, containing usable amounts of groundwater that
can supply wells and spnngs.
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 method to be utilized to clean
up/treat contamination at a Superfund she. This file is held
in the information repository for public review.
Appl/cable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
{ARARs): The federal and state requirements that a
selected remedy must attain. These requirements may vary
among sites and vanous alternatives.
Basel/ne Risk Assessment: A means of estimating the
amount of damage a Superfund site could cause to human
heath and the environment. Objectives of a risk assessment
are to: help determine the need for action; help determine
the levels of chemicals that can remain on the site after
cleanup and still protect health and the environment; and
provide a basis for comparing different cleanup methods.
Carcinogenic: Any substance that can cause or contribute
to the production of cancer; cancer-producing.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act (CERCLA): A federal law passed
in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthonzation Act (SARA). The Acts created a
special tax paid by producers of various chemicals and oil
products that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as
Supertund. These Acts give EPA the authority to investigate
and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites utilizing money from the Supertund Trust or by taking
legal action to force part es responsible for the contamination
to pay for and clean up the site.
Ffocculatlorr. A process which causes substances to
combine or to create larger partcles; to cause to form lumpy
or fluffy masses in a solution.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface that
fills pores between matenals such as sand, soil, or gravel
(usually in aquifers) which is often used for supplying wells
and spnngs. Because groundwater is a major source of
drinking water there is growing concern over areas where
agricultural and industrial pollutants or substances are
getting into groundwater.
18
•
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS): The pQnciple
screening tool used by EPA to evaluate nsks to public
heath and the environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS calculates a
score based on the potential of hazardous substances
spreading from the site through the air, surface water, or
groundwater and on other factors such as nearby
population. This score is the pnmary factor in deciding if the
site should be on the National Pnorities List and, if so, what
ranking is should have compared to other sites on the list.
Information Repository: A file containing accurate up-to--
date information, technical reports, reference documents,
information about the Technical Assistance Gr'ant, and any
other matenals pertnent to the site. This file is usually
located in a public building such as a library, city hall or
school, that is accessible for local residents.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): The maximum
permissible level of a contaminant in water delivered to any
user of a public water system. MCLs are enforceable
standards.
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 in the water.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCP):The federal regulation that guides determination
of the sites to be corrected under the Supertund program
and the program to prevent or control spills into surface
waters or other portions of the environment.
National Pollutant Discharge Ellmlnation System
(NPDES): A provision of the Clean Water Act which prohibits
the discharge of pollutants into waters of the linked States
unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state or (where
delegated) a tribal government on an Indian reservation
allowing a controlled discharge of liquid after it has
undergone treatment.
National Priorities List (NPLJ: EPA's list of the most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for possible long-term remedial action under
Superfund. A site must be on the NPL to receive money
from the Trust Fund for remedial action. The list is based
primanly on the score a site receives from the Hazard
(,
•
Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to update the NPL
at least once a year.
Parts per BIii/on (ppb)lparts per MIii/on (ppm): Units
commonly used to express low concentrations of con-
taminants.
Plume: A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant
from a given point of origin into either air or water.
Potent/ally Responsible Parties (PRPs): Any individual or
company -including 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 PRPs have
contaminated.
Proposed Pfarr. A public participation requirement of 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, and presents any
waivers to cleanup standards of §121(d)(4) 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.
Reasonable Maximum Exposure: Calculation of the
highest exposure to all contaminants at a site that an
individual would be expected to receive under current and
future land-use conditions.
Record of Decision !ROD): A public document that
announces and explains which method has been selected by
•
the Agency to be used at a Superfund site to clean up the
contamination.
Removal Action: Short-term immediate actions taken to
address releases of hazardous substances that require
expedited response.
Remedial fnvestfgation/Feasib/1/ty Study {RIIFS): The
Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive sampling
and analytical study to gather data necessary to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site;
to establish criteria for cleaning up the she; a description
and analysis of the potential cleanup alternatives for
remedial actions; and support the technical and cost
analyses of the alternatives. The Feasibility study also
usually recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative.
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and written
public comments received by EPA during a public comment
period and EPA's responses to those comments. The .
responsiveness summary is a key part of the Record oT-·
Decision.
Supertund: The program operated under the legislative
authority of CERCLA and SARA that funds and carries out
the EPA solid waste emergency and long-term removal
remedial activities. These activities include establishing the
National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the
list, determining their priority level on the list, and conducting
and/or supervising the ultimately determined cleanup and
other remedial actions.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCS): Any organic com-
pound that evaporates readily into the air at room tempera-
ture.
MAILING LIST ADDmONS
If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to be placed on the list to receive future information on the
Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site, please complete this form and return to Diane Barrett, North Superfund
Remedial Branch, EPA -Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
NAME~: ________________________ _
ADDRESS~: _______________________ _
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE.: ____________________ _
PHONE NUMBER.: ______ AFFILIATION (If any).: ___________ _
• •
USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Koppers Company, Inc. Super.fund Site is
important in helping EPA select a.final remedy for the site. You may use the 5Pace below
to write your comments, thenfold and mail. Additional comments may be included with
thisform.
Name. _______________ _
Address. ______________ _
Phone#, ______________ _
• •
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET
The public comment period for the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site is from Friday, July 17,
1992 until midnight Monday, August 17, 1992. EPA will review and consider all comments before
making a final cleanup decision for the Site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fold on dashed lines, staple, stamp and mail
Name _________ _
Address -----,---=--City _____ State _Zip __
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch/Waste Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
mu
Stamp
Herc
(
•
Overheads for Proposed Plan Public Meeting
July 23, 1992
Koppers Superfund Site
Morrisville, North Carolina
,,,,.
1
~
I I . I
I I I
1
' I ..... .
..... .O.;::
..... .;::
2 3
----.G
_ ...
SCALI: IFEFT)
LESENO ----
0 JOOO
COUNTY INSTALLED NATER MAINS
SHILOH NATER SYSTEM PHASE I II II
2000
4
----SHILOH NATER SYSTEM PHASE III II PHASE III EXT.
SHILOH NATER SYSTEM PHASE IV
NOTE' ALL LOC.A TIONS AR£ APPROX.DI.A TF.
5
I
I
I
IIIUl84
6 7
+
PUBLIC /fA TE!/
SERVICE AVAILABILITY
IN VICINITY OF THE FORMER
KOPPERS CO.. INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
ua#-# -..,-,.,_ -. , B513153
MAJOR SITE CONTAMINANTS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
POL YCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS (DIOXIN)
POL YCHLORINATED DIBENZO FURANS (FURANS)
ISOPROPYL ETHER •
• •
PHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2-METHYL -4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,3,5,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
..
--+-
o ..
c::::::::::::J
c:::J
c::::J
0
~
□
PROP€RTr OIIWE. V BY BEAZER ·EAST, INC
PROPERTY ONNED BY . UNIT STRUCTURES..
8CAL£ IFEETJ
100 0 100 200
INC.
300
UNIT s PROPE~~~CTUAES LINE
BEAZER E, ONPANY. INC HDRRISVILLE. "AST, INC · SITE
• NORTH CAROL [NA
-~--z' --"==::z -=
0
I
c::::::::J
c=i
C::J
0 ()
OFFSITE NOATH
LESENO
0
LJ
0 -
·•••··•·•• 8EAZEA E.1.ST, INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
----UNIT STRUCTUR~S me. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
'1
®
OFFSITE NEST
0
·-----.
SCALE (FEE11
0 100 200
LEGEND
-----
D
HlWITOIIINfi KEll LOCATION
INC. PROPER TY BlXNMRY 8£,UEH EAST.
lNI T s NV<," • r.-n...-rl.RES INC PROPERTY BOlWIJARY
?coo
C9A C9C
I
I
• I
D
SCALE (FEET)
F"lw -7ii2 O t50 JOO 450
\! 0
0
ca,
-ea * =
-$-
c? Qw
AfilJ NCAR OFF SI 1£
lW j~;!;/1'6 IIEU l OCA TIONS _
/IIO'v If G"PERS CONPANr. I NC. SI ft:
FQNIIER 8£,.ZER FAST. INC.
!f/OIIRISVILLE. NC
•
•
= lb
LJ
0
C9A
0 100 200
0
Cl
• SOIL SAHPLIN6 LOCATIONS
FORH€R KOPPERS COHPANY, INC.
BEAZER EAST, INC.
HORRISVILLE, NC
SITE
lilllIIUJ -
•
0
c::::::::J
c:::J
c:::::i
a.
0
D
SW2B
1
I DAAlMASE DITCH ______ EASTE~XlMA.TEl
I
I
I
I
\
•
SWlB
L.£lll!IC> ......,._.E LIX:UllNi 51.A't.CE ltATEHli
e PfD'EFIN BOU«)ARV '""Al£'R EAST. INC.
•-""' ....,.,..,.,RTY l!klOIClARV • TJLICT\HS INC. ~" ___ lMH 9
C
SW36 """'°'. 600. S01.JTHF.AST -~
./' MEDLIN POMJ ~ CN.JTFLOW OlTC)H SW35 !Af'f'AO)(IMATE
0 ~ SW23 ,.
·-----·T SW2◄
-..cTED !IURFACE •TER
-NPLELOCATIONS SU¥"ACE J(A TER Sol r. IM:. SITE
FORNER KoPPERS COIIFAN iltC.
BEAZER E-:.:;TH CAROi.INA NORHISVILLE.
I ._._. -----
l]
0 a
Cl
0
• {) $>
□ l
• " • c:J '
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP STANDARDS
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
DIOXIN
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 . PPB
0.05 PPT
0.1 PPB
•
=
LEGEND
D
MONITORING JtELL LOCATION
BEAZER EAST, . INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNOARY
NOTE·
KELL PWJ lt'AS UTILIZED AS
A PUMPING TEST WELL.
• •
• D
•
~C9B
C9A C9C
0 0
L] •
ftkwf-of brovn.J (P~
C ~ vi 'J P~-kh I l}-1'0 pl\"'-" ~
~ /,
I
I
I
I
I. CIIA
Cl
I
J
SCALE !FEET)
O 150 300 450
CJ
•
'
1
3
{
I
·-~~ ~4/----r~ ~
~;:;:;,-. !
,\
' ' +-'
' ,, '>.
' '
/ /
---~ I
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
I I
' \
' ~.I:
'
LEGEND
;,
/ I ,~
I I
.--/v ----<::
"--1'
/,
""
t
SCALE (FEET/
0 1000 2000
--COUNTY INSTALLED WATER MAINS
--SHILOH WATER SYSTEM PHASE I & II
I
--SHILOH WATER SYSTEM PHASE III & PHASE III EXT.
--SHILOH WATER SYSTEM PHASE IV
,'VOT'E': Al.!. LOCATIONS ARE .APPROX.nt.ATE'.
5
I
UIIM
6
. OJ
I I
• i I I
I =1
+ -
I
\
I
(,:;, j
~~_j
'>
Q
---~u.ar. UC:. PADP£An'IICUG.ilA'f'
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA
AREA 1, FORMER LA600H AREA PROPER
AREA 2. FORMER DITCH AKI SAKI FILTER
AREA 3, FORMER TREATIHll CYLit«lER AREA
F I R E P O N D
SCALE {FEET)
0 30 60
\
\
\
\
DELil'EA rION OF
\
\
FrJ TENT I AL SOlllCE AREAS
SOIL SAJ#llINlfi LOCAfI{JIIIS
FOli/lER L-4/iOall A-'F-4 4NJ CEZ l CW FNOCESS lfREA FOliNER l(QOPERS COl#'AN'f'. I/IC. SI TE IJE,UER EAST. INC.
NCWHISYillE. NC
•
•
SOIL REMEDIATION
S-1 NO ACTION
S-3 SURFACE COVER
S-4 RCRA CAP
S-5 ON-SITE LANDFILL
S-6 OFF-SITE LANDFILL
S-7 ON-SITE DECHLORINATION
S-8 ON-SITE INCINERATION
S-9 OFF-SITE INCINERATION
S-10 ON-SITE STORAGE
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
GW-1 NO ACTION
GW-3 EXTRACTION, BIOREMEDIATION, SURFACE
WATER DISCHARGE
GW-4 EXTRACTION, CARBON ADSORPTION,
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE •
GW-5 EXTRACTION, UV/OXIDATION, SURFACE
WATER DISCHARGE
SURFACE WATER REMEDIATION
SW-1 NO ACTION
SW-3 POND DEWATERING, CARBON
ADSORPTION OF SURFACE WATER,
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
SW-4 POND DEWATERING, POND LINING,
CARBON ADSORPTION OF SURFACE
WATER, SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
•
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1 . OVERALL PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEAL TH AND
ENVIRONMENT
2. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS
•
•
EVALUATING CRITERIA
3. COST • 4. IMPLEMENTABILITY
5. SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
6. LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
7. REDUCTION OF MOBILITY, TOXICITY AND VOLUME e
MODIFYING CRITERIA •
8. STATE ACCEPTANCE
9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
•
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SOIL REMEDIATION
S-9 -SOIL EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE INCINERATION
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
GW-4 -GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, CARBON
ADSORPTION, SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
SURFACE WATER REMEDIATION
SW-3 -SURFACE WATER POND DEWATERING, e
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT (CARBON
ADSORPTION, SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE,
BACKFILLING WITH CLEAN SOIL FOR THE
ON-SITE FIRE POND AND MEDLIN POND
;.ilil:.:"..;·,rn,11o...i .,=;i.,,•.•.:·•o1•=w ,.v,,;,.• ~=· .-,
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORO-
DIBENZO-p-DIOXIN
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
• •
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.1 WHAT IS DIOXIN?
1
The chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins are a class of compounds that are
loosely referred to as dioxins. There are 75 possible dioxins. The one
with four chlorine atoms at-positions 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the dibenzo-p-
dioxin chemical structure is called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD). It is a colorless solid with no known odor. 2,3,7,8-TCDD
does not occur naturally nor· is it intentionally manufactured by any
industry, except as a reference standard. It can be inadvertently
produced in very small amounts as an impurity during the manufacture of
certain herbicides and germicides and has been detected in products of
incineration of municipal and industrial wastes. At the present time,
2,3,7,8-TCDD is not used for any purpose other than scientific research.
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO 2,3,7,8-TCDD?
The main environmental sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are:
Use of herbicides containing 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acids (2,4,5-T)
Production and use of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol in wood preservatives
Production and use of hexachlorophene as a germicide
Pulp and paper manufacturing plants
Incineration of municipal and certain industrial wastes
Small amounts formed during the burning of wood in the presence of
chlorine
• Accidental transformer/capacitor fires involving chlorinated
benzenes and biphenyls
Exhaust from automobiles powered with leaded gasoline
Improper disposal of certain chlorinated chemical wastes
Although 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and hexachlorophene are no
longer produced commercially (except for certain medical purposes),
disposal sites of past production wastes are still sources of present
exposure. 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been found in at least 28 of 1,177 hazardous
waste sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). Very low levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD have been detected in ambient air. Detection of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in drinking water has not been reported. 2,3,7,8-TCDD has not been
detected in most rural· soils examined, but it can be present at trace
levels in urban soils. The highest concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
detected in a waste-oil-contaminated soil in Missouri that contained a
2,3,7,8-TCDD level more than one million times higher than soils from
normal urban areas. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in fish obtained from the
----' ;
' ) ·, • Public H~alth Statement 3
According to one estimate of ambient exposure, breathing air
constitutes 2%, drinking water less than 0.01%, and consuming foods
98% of the total human exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. No estimate of
relative intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD due to skin absorption is
available.
1.4 HOW CAN 2,3,7,8-TCDD AFFECT MY HEALTH?
In humans, 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes chloracne, a severe skin lesion that
usually occurs on the head and upper body. Unlike common acne,
chloracne is more disfiguring and often lasts for years after the
initial exposure. ·""
There is suggestive evJdence that 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes liver damage
in humans, as indicated by an increase in levels of certain enzymes
in the blood, although these effects might also have resulted from
the concomitant exposure to the chemicals contaminated with
2,3,7,8-TCDD or to the solvents in which these chemicals are
usually di'l(solved. Animal studies have demonstd~ted severe liver
damage in some species.
There is suggestive evidence that 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes loss of
appetite·, weight loss·, and digestive disorders in humans, although
these effects might also have resulted from the concomitant
exposure to the chemicals contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD or to the
solvents in which these chemicals are usually dissolved. Animal
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD results in severe loss of body weight
prior to death.
Although not demonstrated in humans, in animal studies 2,3,7,8-TCDD
produced toxicity to the immune system. This toxicity can result in
greater susceptibility to infection.
Although not demonstrated in humans, in some animal species
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD resulted in adverse reproductive effects
including spontaneous abortions. The monkey is very sensitive to
this toxic property of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
• Although not demonstrated in humans, in some animal species
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD during pregnancy resulted in malformations
in the offspring. Low levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD have been detected in
human milk, but the effects on infants and children are unknown.
The human evidence for 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone is inadequate to
demonstrate or reflect a carcinogenic hazard, although certain
herbicide mixtures containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD as an impurity provide
limited evidence of causing cancer in exposed humans. Based on the
positive evidence in animal studies, 2,3;7,8-TCDD is probably
carcinogenic in humans.
1.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE IF I HAVE
BEEN EXPOSED TO 2,3,7,8-TCDD?
There is no common medical test available to demonstrate
convincingly that you have been exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. It is believed
that a blood test to detect certain enzymes indicating liver damage may
be helpful in determining whether exposure has occurred. These tests do
•
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DEVELOPMENTAL
EFFECTS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
0.0001 ~ ~ 0.00008 ~
0.00004
0.00002
l r
0.000008
I
0.000006
I
0.000004
I
0.000002
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
· l MINIMAL RISK
FOR EFFECTS I OTHER THAN
0.000001 __ CANCER
I
Public Health Statement
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
I
0.00001 DEATH ____ _
0.000005
REPRODUCTIVE l
TOXICITY AND
CHLORACNE ___ ::r
LIVER DAMAGE
0.000001
I
0.0000008
I
0.0000006
0.0000004
l r
0.0000002
I
0.0000001
l T
0.00000005
I
0.00000001
l r
0.000000005
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
5
I
MINIMAL RISK
FOR EFFECTS
OTHER THAN
0.000000001 __ CANCER
I
Fig. 1.1. Health effects from ingesting 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
• Public Health Statement
1.7 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO
PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
Both the EPA\ and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
I (IARC) have concluded that 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes cancer in animals and
probably causes ckncer in humans. I The EPA calcplated health advisories (HAs) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
drinking water, that is, estimates of levels below which adverse health I • effects are not expected to occur. The 1-day HA is 1 part of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD per trillion\ parts of waste (1 ppt) for a child; the 10-day HA is
0.1 ppt for a child. The longer-term HA is 0.01 ppt for a child and
0.035 ppt for an kdult; the lifetime HA is also 0.035 ppt for adults.
I These are very small amounts. The EPA also calculated the amount of
I 2,3,7,8-TCDD in ambient water (lakes and rivers) that would be
I associated with increases in one additional incidence of cancer over
background cancer\ incidence in a population of 1,000,000 to be 0.013
parts per quadrillion, an extremely small amount. This calculated
measurement takes\into account that 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrates in fish;
·hence, exposure may occur through both the drinking of water and the
eating of fish. W~th regard to advisories based on EPA's cancer risk
estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, it should be noted that the Agency is in the
process of revisirig this risk estimate.
7
6.1
I • 6.0 DECHLORINATION
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
•
The Alkaline Metal Hydroxide/Polyethylene Glycol (APEG) dehalogenation technology
uses a glycolate reagent generated from an alkaline metal hydroxide and a glycol to remove
halogens (e.g., chlorine, bromine, fluorine, etc.) from halogenated aromatic organic compounds in
a batch reactor. KPEG (potassium hydroxide/polyethylene glycol) is the most commonly used
type of APEG reagent. Potassium hydroxide, or sodium hydroxide/tetra-ethylene glycol
(ATEG), is another variation of the reagent. APEG processes involve heating and physical
mixing of contaminated soils, sludges, or liquids with the chemical reagents. During the reaction,
water vapor and volatile organics are removed and condensed. Carbon filters are used 10 trap
volatile organic compounds that are not condensed in the vapor. The treated residue is rinsed to
remove reactor by products and reagent and then dewatered before disposal. The process results
in treated soil and wash water.
Solids and Uqulda
containing
aromatic halogenated
compounds
II.agent,
Heal (25°C to t 50")
Dechlorination
• Batch process
6-1
llealdual media with
treatnient byproduct,
Treated air emlulona/apent
carbon
Extracted water lcw
treatment
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.S
• •
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
• Dechlorination was selected by EPA for cleanup at five Superfund
remedial sites: Wide Beach, New York; Resolve, Massachusetts; Sol Lynn,
Texas; Myers Property, New Jersey; and Tenth Street Dump, Oklahoma.
None of these cleanups has been completed. It was also selected for three
emergency response actions.
• The Wide Beach cleanup is ongoing. The process is a combination of
APEG and the AOSTRA -Taciuk process. A project case study is
included as Exhibit 4.
• The technology has been approved by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances to
treat PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
APPLICATIONS
• Dechlorination reduces the toxicity of halogenated organic compounds -
particularly dioxin and furans, PCBs, and certain chlorinated pesticides.
• It is appropriate for soils, sludges, sediments, and liquids.
TECHNOLOGY STRENGTHS
• It has greater public acceptance than incineration.
• Dehalogenation has been used successfully to treat contaminant
concentrations of PCBs reported as high as 45,000 ppm to less than 2 ppm.
• Uses standard reactor equipment to mix/heat soil and reagents.
• Energy requirements are moderate, and operation and maintenance costs
are relatively low.
TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS
• Most effective with aromatic halides when APEG and KPEG reagents are
used, although A TEG reportedly works with aliphatic halides. The
presence of other pollutants, such as metals and other inorganics, can
interfere with the process.
• Wastewater will be generated from the residual washing process.
Treatment may include chemical oxidation, biodegradation, carbon
adsorption, or precipitation.
• Engineering controls, such as a lined and bermed treatment area and
carbon filters on gas effluent stacks, may be necessary to guard against
releases to the environment.
6-2
6.6
6.7
6.8
•
POTENTIAL MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
• Excavation is required.
• The waste material must be screened to remove debris and large particles
• Size reduction techniques can be used to achieve a feed size required by
the equipment.
• The pH of the waste may require adjustment. The KPEG process operates
under highly alkaline conditions. The pH of acidic material must be
adjusted to provide an alkaline environment.
• The waste may require dewatering. Very wet (less than 20 percent water)
material requires excessive quantities of reagent.
• The temperature of the wastes may be adjusted.
The KPEG process operates at 212"F -350"F. Waste material must
be heated.
• The waste material and reagent may be mixed to ensure adequate transfer
of the contaminants.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
• Treatability studies are necessary to help determine the residence time in
the reactor. The treatment process is affected by the type of contaminant;
initial and desired final concentrations; pH; water content; humic and clay
content of soils.
• The ability to recover-and recycle reagents is key to determining process
cost effectiveness.
• Although individual batch units may have limited capacity, several may be
operated in parallel for a large-scale remediation.
BASE-CATALYZED DECOMPOSITION (BCD)
BCD is another technology for removing chlorine molecules from contaminants such as
PCBs, dioxins, and pentachlorophenols. The EPA and the U.S. Navy are conducting extensive
· research on this new technology. Like the KPEG process, BCD requires the addition of a reagent
to the contaminated soils and heating of the material for the reaction. But because the reagent is
not a glycol reagent, it is significantly less expensive than the KPEG reagent.
Laboratory research indicates that the BCD process is appropriate for PCBs,
pentachlorophenol, dioxins, and chlorinated pesticides with a very high destruction/removal rate.
6-3
• • It also appears to work well on all types of soils. Because this technology .has not been widely
applied, it is difficult to predict what difficulties will arise at future sites. To be effective, it
requires the soil to be screened or ground. In 1991, the U.S. Navy will be applying BCD at a site
in Guam. This technology is discussed in greater detail in Exhibit 5.
6-4
•
6.9 EXHIBIT 1 -WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLE
Waste Type: Soils and Slud&es
Technolou: Glycolate Dechlorination
Characteristics
Impactin& Process
Feasibility
Elevated
concentrations of
chlorinated organics
Presence of:
• Aliphatic organics
• Inorganics
• Metals
High moisture content
(>20%)
Low pH (<2)
Presence of other
alkaline reactive
High humic content in
soil
Reason for Potential Impact
Concentrations greater than 5% require
excessive volumes of reagent. (Low ppm
is optimum.)
Reagent effective only with aromatic
halides (PCBs, dioxins, chlorophenols,
chlorobenzenes).
Water may require excessive volumes of
reagent
Process operates under highly alkaline
conditions.
Aluminum and possibly other metals that
react under highly alkaline conditions
may increase amount of reagent required
by competing for the KPEG. The
reaction may also produce hydrogen gas.
Increases reaction time. Clay and sandy
soils as well as high organic content soils
can be treated with increased reaction
time.
Data
Collection
Requirements
Analysis for priority
pollutants
Analysis for priority
pollutants
Soil moisture content
pH testing
Metals analysis
Organic content in
soil
Source: Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
(1988)
6-5
,
•
6.10 EXHIBIT 2 -DATA FROM SEMI ANNUAL STATUS REPORT
Selection Frequency*
NUMBER
of TIMES
SELECTED
Dechlorination
3 ,...--~,---~---,----,---...---
21---+--~l--~I--~-----+---~
85 86 87 88 89 90
FISCAL YEAR
• Data deriV9d from 1982 • 1990 Rscorris of Decision ( RODs) and anticipated design and
construction activitiss. September 1991
Contaminants Treated By Dechlorination
4
Number 2
of
Superfund
Sites I
PCBs Herbicides svocs Dioxin
• Data derived from 1982 -1990 RBCDrds of Oocision (ROOs) and anticipated design and a,nstruction
activities.· At some sftes, the treatment is for more than one major contaminant
6-6
6.11 EXHIBIT 3 -INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEMI-ANNUAL
STATUS REPORT
Dechlorination
1
•.• ioo
1
Site Name, State, Specific Site Media Key Contaminants cJ Region (ROO Date) Technology Description (Quantity) Treated
1 Re-Solve, MA• Dechlorination of Chemical Resi<Lals from PCBs Design
(09/24/87) Reai(ljala from Reclamation Thermal coq:tletion
Theral Desorption Facility Desorption of planned
Also see Thermal 22,S00 cy of 1993
Desorot ion Soil
2 Myers Property, NJ* Dechlorination Pesticide Soi I and SVOCs (Hexachloro· Predesign
(09/28/90) (fol lowed by soil Manufacturing Sediments benzene), DDT, Dioxin,
washing) (50,000 cv TCOO, DOD, and ODE
Also see Soil Washing carbined)
2 Signo Trading/Mt. KPEG Treatment waste Sludge (15 Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD-Project
Vernon, NY (Emergency management gels) laden herbicides) coq:,l eted;
Response -AM signed facility Operational
12/19/86) (warehouse) 10/20/87
10/21/87
2 Wide Beech Developnent, APEG dechlorination Contaminated Soi I (22,000 PCBs Project
NY* (09/30/85) using anaerobic Road Oust, CV) c~lete;
thermal process Dri\leweys, end Operational
111i t Ditches 10/90 • 6/91
6 Fruitland Onan, NM Dech l or i net ion Operation and liquid (150 Dioxins (2,4,5, I) Treatebillty
(Emergency Response maintenance gals/bench study for
·AM signed 9/8/90) facility scale) APEG/KPEG was
111successful;
EPA
considering
BCO
6 Sol Lym/Industrial APEG · Plus lransformer Soil (800 cy); PCBs Installation
lransformers, TX* Oechlorinat ion and Solvent Oil (400 gals) scheduled to
(03/25/88) Recycler begin Fall '91
6 fenth Street Dechlorination Salvage yard Soil (7,500 PCBs In design;
D~/J1.r1kyard, OK* and industrial cv> Design
(09/27/90) waste~ coq>l et ion
plarned Spring
092
7 Crown Plating, MO KPEG lreatment Electroplating Liquid (15 Herbicide (s i l \leJ11.; 2,4,5 Project
(Emergency Response facility gals) IP) COffl)leted in
·AM Si9lled 8/29/89) 1989
Indicates that a treatability study has been c()ffl)leted.
Note: Contacts listed are EPA regional staff lXlless otherwise indicated.
.,A
___ ,wt
Lead Agency and Contee ts/
Treatment Contractor Phooo
(tf avai I able)
PRP lead/ Lorenzo Thanto
Mixed Flrdlng; 617-223·5500
Chemical Waste FIS 883· 1500
Management, Inc.
Ftild lrad/ln John Prince
Negotiation 212-264-~ FIS 264·1
F...-d Lead; Galson Charles
Research Corp. fitulrmions
( alhcont rector to 201-321-6608
OHM) FTS 140-6608
Flrld lead/USACE; Herb King
Soil Tech, Inc. 212-264·1129
(atbcontractor to FIS 264·1129
Kimins)
Fllld Leed; Galson Craig Carlton
Research Corp. 214·655-2270
Fl S 255-2270
PRP lead; Galson John Meyer
Research Corp. 214-655·6·
(subcontractor tc FIS 255·6
ENSR Consulting)
Fllld Lead Noel Bennett
214-655-6715
FIS 655-6715
fl..n:I Lead Hark Rober ts ' 911·236·1881
FTS 757-3881
June 7, 1991
Carol Delorenzo & Michael Nelson
7058 Rambling Hills Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
Dear Ms. Delorenzo & Mr. Nelson:
•
Thank for responding to the June 1991 issue of Update. Enclosed is the first issue
of Update, which will give you some background information on the site.
I've referred some of your more specific questions to Shannon Craig, the program
manager for the site for Beazer East. In the meantime. I thought it might be helpful
to let you know other, local sources of information.
The official EPA information repository is at the Cary Branch of the Wake County
Public Library, at 310 South Academy St. The repository includes a tremendous
amount of information on the site. You may call the library at 467-8908 for
information on hours.
The EPA Region IV Public Affairs Office in Atlanta has a toll-free number for
inquiries (1-800-241-1754). I don't know when EPA's next public meeting on the
site will be scheduled; Ms. Barbara Benoy is the Remedial Project Manager familiar
with the site. You can leave a message for her at the toll-free number, or call her
directly at 404/347-7791.
Al Ward with the Wake County Health Department also has been involved with the
site. You may contact him at 250-4400. Pat DeRosa, an environmental engineer
with the state's Superfund Section, has worked with the site for several years. She
may be reached at 733-2801.
I hope this information is helpful. Please call me at 821-0900 if you need additional
information.
Sincerely,
/&~ ~1$-(___
Kathar/ne C. Neal, APR
Editor
cc: Shannon Craig
Barbara Benoy
Al Ward
Pat DeRosav'
·WIEC!tl~IEO
JUi~ l 2 1991
SUPERFUND SECTION
t.n TechKnowledge Communications
~ 4020 Wes/Chase Blvd. Suite 370 Raleigh, NC 27607 9191821-0900 Fax [phone]
•
lP/1--
UNITED .TES ENVl~ONMENTAL PROTECTI.AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
EPA SUPERFUND SITE UPDATE:
In an effort to keep area citizens apprised of any and all activities relative to
the Koppers Company, Inc. site, the following information will appear as a display
ad in both the Raleigh News & Observer and the Durham Herald-Sun on June 13. If
you have any questions concerning this notice, please contact Diane Barrett,
Community Relations Coordinator at the EPA Region IV office in Atlanta, Georiga, or
call [phone].
Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site, Morrisville, NC
The Region IV office of the u.s; Environmental Prot.ection Agency (EPA) has
receive<:1 a letter of intent and application app_lying for a Technical Assistance
Grant fiom the Clean Water• & Environment Project for Shiloh in Morrisville, NC, in
connection with Superfund remedial activities at the Koppers Company, Inc. site in
Morrisville, Wake County, NC.
The Superfund law allows for i"ssuance of only one grant of· up to $50,000 to one
citizens•group at any one site on the National Priorities List {NPL). The grant is
provided to enable communities ?ffected by an NPL site to hire a technical advisor
to in~erpret EPA data and doc\lments and· a~aist in providing. input to EPA on
proposed cleanup actions. In order to ensure that all community views are
represented in the recipient group ~fa. TAG, EPA encourages all groups interested
in applying for a grant at the Kopt:,<::rs site to consolidai::12 and fl.le a joiu.t
application. Within 30 days from the date of this notice groups that wish to join
the Clean Water and Envi~onment Project for Shiloh in applying for this grant must
notify:
Ms. Peggy Medlin
Clean Water & Environment Project for Shiloh
.Route 2, Box 19
Morrisville, NC 27560
[phone]
Groups wishing to file sepa_r.ately in competition for the TAG must submit a
letter of intent·to file an application for the specific site within a 30-day
comment period beginning June 13 and ending on July 15, 1991. Please submit your
request to:
Ms. Denise Bland, TAG Coordinator
Waste Management Divisi~n
U'.S.E.P.A. -Regio·n IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Documents r~lating to EPA activities at the Koppers Superfund site are
availab_le fol: citizen review at the information repository located at the
Morrisville Town Hall, i22 North Church street, Morrisville, NC.
Additional information may be obtained from·Diane Barrett, Community Relations
Coordinator, in the Region IV office on [phone] or leave a message at
1-800-241-1754 for a return call.
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
•
SUPERFUND UPD~~j;ijW/E[D)
JUL 01> 1991
Fact Sheet sOPERRJNDSEcr10N
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION:
The U .s·. Environmental Protection Agency is
pleased to provide a status report of activities
to date on the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) efforts at the Kop-
pers Company, Inc, Superfund Site. A
Remedial Investigation (RI) is an i~tensive, in-
depth study of a Superfund Site to determine
the nature and extent of contamination. It is
carried out by an EPA team of health and en-
vironmental specialists such as hydrologists,
engineers, and biologists to determine the
exact nature of the hazardous wastes, the na-
ture of the threat, if any, that may be posed to
human health or the environment, and the ex-
tent of any contamination at the Site. The
Feasibility Study (FS) is the portion of the
process where EPA environmental engineers
and other technical staff consider, describe,
and evaluate options for .cleaning up the Site
based on information obtained from the
Remedial Investigation.
SITE BACKGROUND AND
HISTORY:
The Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site
in Morrisville, North Carolina, is located on a
June 1991
52-acre tract on Highway 54 West. This land
is bordered by Koppers Road (SR 1635) to
the south/southeast, Church Street (SR 1637)
to the west, a home site with open fields to the
north, and a Southern Railroad right-of-way
to the east/northeast. The Site consists of 16
buildings and a 3-acre pond, which is main-·
tained for fire protection. ·
The 52-acre site was used as a sawmill by
Cary Lumber Company until approximately
1959, when the property was purchased by
Unit Structures, Inc. The property was later
sold to Koppers Company, Inc. in 1962. In
September 1986, 42 acres of the Site, includ-
ing all the manufacturing and production area,
were sold to Unit Structures, Inc. (a company
unrelated to the previous owners). Unit Struc-
tures currently operates the manufacturing
and laminating wood production facility.
Koppers retained 10 acres of the Site, includ-
ing the pond, a CELLON (a wood preserving
process) treatment and lagoon area, a s~ray
area, and a narrow corridor along the railroad
tracks. In June 1988, the Koppers Company
was acquired by Beazer, Inc.
..
N
o ..
\\
\\
'\
I I
c::::::J
TWO ACRE
ACmIRED IN
1971
UNIT
STRUCTURES
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY Olt'NED BY BHS
AOUIRED IN 1971 THO ACRES 100
SCALE IFE£TI
0 100 200
--
300
CEMETERY ~◊
UNGRADED WOODED AREA
~ --
L SITE HAP GENERA
RALEIGH/HORRISVILLE.
Cl
• Beginning in ~3.!!uary 1971 and continuing
for the next 10 years, the owner of Medlin
ponds reported several fish kills.
• In March 1980 high levels of PCP con-
tamination were found in the lagoon area
and in the former CELLON treatment area.
• Groundwater contamination of PCP was
detected on Site.
• In April and May 1980 Koppers removed
a portion of the contaminated soil from
the Site.
• In June 1980 the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Environment, Health and Nature
Resources conducted an initial inspection
and documented the need for further inves-
tigation.
• In July 1980 Koppers installed seven
monitoring wells to provide a ring of
monitoring points around the plant.
• In November 1980 in response to the
State's findings of PCP, Koppers removed
an additional 240 cubic yards of con-
taminated soil to a permitted landfill.
• In July 1986 an additional 1,250 cubic
yards of contaminated soil was removed
by Koppers.
• In June 1988 at the State's recommenda-
tion, the Site was proposed on the Nation-
al Priorities List (NPL). The Site was
finalized on the NPL in March of 1989.
•
• On March 14, 1989 EPA and Beazer, Inc.
signed an Admininstrative Order on Con-
sent for the performance of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study.
• Currently, Koppers Company, Inc. has
agreed to continue to supply bottled water
to all community residents whose wells
· show any presence of contaminants and to
pay for the extension of approximately 4
miles of municipal water service to af-
fected residents of the community.
The Remedial Investigation was completed
and submitted to the EPA for review on June
18, 1991. The Feasibility Study is scheduled
to be submitted for Agency review in August.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Community relations are vital to the Super-
fund process. Citizen involvement is stressed
in the Code of Federal Regulations governing
Superfund site activities. Public meetings,
fact sheets, and the estabiishmem of an infor-
mation repository are typical methods used to
provide information to a Superfund site com-
munity. The repository contains all relevant
site documents prepared during this process
which are available for public review.
As indicated in the Superfund process flow-
chart, we are between steps 3 and 4 of on-
going site activities. Direct public
SUPERFUND PROCESS
,-1--------~►~ 1 REMOVALS
~------------1►9 ENFORCEMENT
C;J 2
NPL R•nklng
........
3
lnvNUgaUon
4
fMalbllfty
Sludy
l..._ _______ --1►r I COMMUNITY RELATION8 I
3
7
Cleanup Plan
a·
Long-Term
Clunup
•
involvement is encouraged once the RI/FS has
been completed. The RI and FS reports, along
with EPA's proposed plan for the Site, will be
made available for public review. A copy of
the proposed plan, which also includes a brief
description of the RI/FS results, will be
mailed to interested parties and all persons
who have requested placement on EPA's mail-
ing list for the Site. EPA then will hold a
public information meeting to present a sum-
mary of the RIJFS process (including the
results of the FS) and explain the proposed
plan to remedy contamination on the Site.
EPA will hold a 30-day comment period
during which citizens can submit written com-
ments on the remedial alternatives considered
in the study and EPA's proposed plan. A
public hearing will be held during the com-
ment period to receive verbal and written com-
ments. The hearing will be recorded to assist
EPA in preparing a Responsiveness Summary
(a report that summarizes citizen comments
and EPA responses). After the comment
period is closed, EPA will prepare a formal
decision document called a Record of
Decision (ROD) that summarizes the decision
process and the selected remedies. This docu-
ment will include the Responsiveness Sum-
mary and will be submitted to the EPA
Regional Admininstrator for approval. Upon
approval, the design of the remedy will be
developed and the implementation of the
remedy can begin.
To assist concerned citizens at Superfund sites
in obtaining a better understanding of all
aspects of this long, intricate process, EPA
provides a valuable tool to communities, the
Technical Assistance Grant. The grant offers
up to $50,000 to one incorporated, non-profit
group at a site to hire technical advisors to
help them understand existing information
and information developed during the Super-
fund cleanup process. An area coalition, The
Clean Water & Environment Project for
Shiloh, has applied for this grant. If you are
4
•
interested in joining this group, please contact
Ms. Peggy Medlin in Morrisville.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
North Remedial Superfund Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Ms. Diane Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
North Remedial Superfund Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS,
CONTACT:
Ms. Rosemary Patton
N. C. Technical Assistance Grants Coordinator
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
• ' ' •
INFORMATION REPOSITORY:
The Administrative Record is the official compilation of documents, data reports, and other infor-
mation important to the status of and decisions made relative to a Superfund Site. Information
for the Koppers site is available for public viewing and copying at the local information
repository:
Wake County Public Library
Cary Branch
310 South Academy Street
Cary, NC 27511
Hours: Monday -Thursday 9:00 am -9:00 pm
Friday -Saturday 9:00 am -6:00 pm
Sunday 1:00 pm -5:00 pm
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS:
If you know of others who would like to receive information on the Koppers Superfund Site,
please have them complete this form and mail to the address below.
Name ______________________________ _
Address _____________________________ _
City, State, ZIP __________________________ _
Affiliation ____________________________ _
Phone. ______________________________ _
Diane Barrett -Community Relations Coordinator
North Remedial Superfund Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region IV,
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
5
.-
• . '
c.J
·· UNITED STATES-·----· ----· -·----
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV -North Remedial Branch
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
87
1 ------· --. HEND0015 ;
PAT DE ROSA, ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMIST '
SUPERFUNO BR, SOLID WASTE MGMT SECTION!
, DIVISION OF HEAL TH SERVICES 1
NC DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
1 PO BOX 2091
RALEIGH NC 27602-2091 I
I
-_ _,!
Welcome to the second issue of
Update, a newsletter written to pro-
vide you information on the
Superfund site located al the corner
of Highway 54 and Koppers Road in
Morrisville. Although the name of
the site is the Koppers Morrisville
site, Beazer East, Inc. is involved
with the site investigation and reme-
diation. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is oversee-
ing our site activities.
EPA initiated a Remedial Investi-
gation and Feasibility Study (RI/
FS) at the site in January, 1990.
Beazer started RI field activities in
April 1990. In this issue of Update,
we will review RI activities and ques-
tions received from the last Update.
If you need more information on the
site's history, we would be happy to
send you the first issue of Update.
Just call Beazer's new toll-free
telephone line at 1-800-352-2668.
WHAT'S BEEN DONE?
The Koppers Morrisville Remedial
Investigation (RI) is designed to
identify what kinds of chemicals are
where, and what issues they pose, if
any, for human health and the envi-
ronment. We have spent the last
year developing sampling and health
and safety plans, installing monitor
wells, and taking samples from:
• site soil;
• •
~
-HEGt.lVED Beazer East [nc.
Current l~a~ cWfJt Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the Koppers Morrisville site
SOPERRIND SEtlllli
• on-site and off-site groundwater
wells; and
• on-site and off-site surface water
and sediments.
We completed the first round of
sampling in August, 1990 and met
with EPA to discuss the results. The
second round of sampling was fin-
ished in December, 1990.
Beazer also conducted a fish sam-
pling program as part of the second-
round sampling activities. Fish were
collected from the off-site Medlin
pond and on-site fire pond. To
Research
Triangle
Park
Shiloh
Baplist
Church
Barbee Rd
(SH 1706)
Spring 1991
provide a basis of comparison, we
also sampled fish in a pond located
several miles southwest of the site.
The fish, including bluegill and
bass, were sent to the laboratory
for analysis.
Many of you are interested in seeing
the RI sampling results. As part of
the RI/FS process, all data must be
validated first to ensure accuracy,
and then compiled into a formal
report. This approach decreases
the chance of releasing interim
results that are incorrect or do not
tell the whole story.
Approx:. Scale in Feet
500 0 soo 1,000
Walkins Dr.
Morrisville, N.C.
Supcrfund Site
WHAT'S NEXT? on the findings of the RI. The FS : may remember our local telephone
should go to EPA early this Fall. "Info-line". This number has been
Beazer is scheduled to submit the RI . replaced with our new toll-free
report to EPA thiS(f\lrlJmer,. _ Thi~, .,A!teneceiving the FS a_nd following_ a j number. Give us a call at 1-800-352-
report will detail the:.inyestig~ti9_nj;_:_ ~p_ybltc comment penod, _ EPA ':'II : 2668 (Monday -Friday, 9 a.m. to
and anal ses done for the site. After issue a Record ofDeets1on 1denttfymg : 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time) if you
EPA has ;eviewed the Ri report, they. the selected cleanup alternatives. : have a question. If we're busy an-
: swering someone else's question,
will make the docull/,~~t-~vailJI?1~-~~~: F,OR MORE INFORMATION j please leave us a message. We will public review. ~ : return your call and start gathering
The next step in the process is to
conduct the Feasibility Study (FS).
Beazer has already started prelimi-
nary work on the FS. The purpose of
the FS is to develop and evaluate
options for cleaning up the site based
We want to be responsive and acces-: the answers to your questions.
sible to the Morrisville community. :
This newsletter, our 1-800 number, :
and periodic discussion sessions with
residents represent our commitment.
If you received our first Update, you
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Shannon ~raig, our Program Man-
ager for Environmental Services in
Beazer's Pittsburgh office, also wel-
comes your calls. She can be reached
at [phone].
We were pleased to receive responses on the comment sheets included in the first issue of Update. To further understand
your questions and concerns, in November 1990 we invited residents who responded to our newsletter to meet with
Shannon Craig, Beazer Program Manager, and John Mitsak, Keystone Project Manager (the environmental engineering
firm conducting the RI/FS) .. We would like to share with you answers to some of the questions we're hearing.
Q: Are you testing wells in the community?
A: Yes! Beazer has sampled many domestic wells. Quarterly samples are sent to a laboratory for analysis and the
results are ready in about 60 days. Once we have the data from the laboratory, we send a letter to residents explaining
the results. We also provide this information to EPA in Atlanta, the North Carolina Superfund Section, and the Wake County
Health Department.
Q: How are wells selected?
A: The domestic wells included in the quarterly sampling are within approximately a one-mile radius of the former
Koppers plant. We have tested nearly all of the household wells within this area.
Q: How many residents have been hooked up to municipal water?
A: In 1988, Beazer voluntarily offered to pay for the hookup to a municipal water line for each home with an affected
well that showed trace levels of wood preservers used at the plant formerly owned by Koppers. To date, 80 local residents
have been hooked up to municipal water. Beazer has installed more than three miles of water lines in the community.
Q: When will EPA decide how to clean up the site?
A: The RI/FS should be completed and reviewed by EPA before the end of 1991. At that point, EPA will develop
a plan for cleaning up the site, and will make the RI and FS reports and the proposed plan for the site available for public
review. An EPA public information meeting, public comment period, and finally a public hearing will follow the release
of these documents. EPA will then prepare a formal Record of Decision that summarizes the decision process and selected
remedies. Once this document is approved by the EPA Regional Administrator in Atlanta, Beazer can begin negotiating
an agreement with EPA to design and implement the cleanup.
• p ~J~(
Beazer East Inc.
MAILING LIST 8 COMMENT FORM
We want this newsletter to reach everyone who is interested in the site. If you would like to be added
to our mailing list, or if you have a neighbor or friend to add, please fill out this form, fold, staple, stamp
and mail1 You can also use this form to provide us any comments you may have about the site.
Name: ___________________________________ _
Address:-------------------------------
City, State, Zip Code:----------------------------
Telephone Number: ___________________________ _
Comments:---------------------------------
Kathy Neal
c/o TcchKnowlcdgc Communications
4020 WcstC:hasc Blvd., Suite liOO
Raleigh, NC 27607
Place
Stamp
Jlcrc
L
ans iJ/]1{lS].UOW S.tac/c/O)l aq1 .tof £pn1s ifi,]1q]SVaJ
;uonv'flnsar,u11v1patuaH aq1 uo uonviu.tofur 1ua.un:y :3aJSNI
TechKnowledge Communications
4020 WestChase Blvd., Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27607
•
Resident
Morrisville, NC 27560
•
;,:;' -:.]· .; Shiloh. hitting the, bottle for water .... _
,,. . : , , . . . , · · , . • . _. . . ~I.1,::~1-:1 _"I'
:;;:Community's resideritsblame.pesticide-contaminated:wells on chemical firm•1..i•;;
,t '· ' ... -

.

,, ..
J ~-...;..------'-----■------------"a peculiar smell' ·and· :a: r~lh~r :
~ BJ STEPHEN HOAR·. pungent taste" in water from the
: Staff writer . 'They. [Koppers ·.: . .·. church's welLHe said using bot-._
¥ ·c1. ·. t: L .. h. . . . Chemical Co.]· ':.'.: '•:\.", . tfledhwater has·bteen infcobnvcnient
,: : .. · emen me. yons,: 1s wife, · · · · -· •'•'· ·. • •·•'· •,., · . or IS congrega 10n o a out.400.
t . Barbara, and· their two·children contaminated the, .·,·:,e<;:' . "We have to store up enough.
➔ ,have a well next to their house in. :water. The·y shbuld '.take·· water· to wash dishes, to antici-
;;--Morrisville's Shiloh community; . ."pate how· much ·water we would·,
\ .. but they no longer drink or cook ·.care Of it for the ·rest Of· ,,need for cooking," he explained. -
} .. with its water. . · .. · -1• , , ... And some candidates for baptism, .
•
, ,. · Several weeks ago they learned· OUr IVeS .. · :-" .. · ... n·.. :he said, have been reluctant to be
; ,that small amounts of pentachlo-:. •· Unda Lyo;,sc;;,:i' immersed in the baptismal pool.
~ · rophenol, a pesticide and wood-.. _ Shiloh resident; at right_:._ The Shiloh communit:i,: of 150 to
:_ treating chemical, had been de-[". with son Greg · .175 people stretches.for more than ,
, . tected in their well. Pentachloro-; · :_:-a mile along N.C. 54 and Church
! · phenol has been shown· to cause · , · · Street from Koppers Road to the.
. . I ,,, •
, , .• cancer i[\.mice, so health authori' ,; former :Koppers. :e.mploy'ees·· . · .Wake-Durham county line. -
t ., "ties advised them, "as ·a precau-· i have·cancer or have died from it. .. Founded. more than a century ago
: : tionary measure," not fo drink the i The Shiloh coalition has asked ·by former slaves, Shiloh remains
.: .. water;.· · . ... . !.the. state health director, Dr.· . a close-knit community that cen-.
-• .• · ... ·· -Tl1~·· families in ·two· 'houses ,.Ronald· H. Levine; and the U.S. : , . ters on Shiloh·Baptist Church.
; :, nearby and the leaders of Shiloh · ; Environmental Protection Agen-., . . . Industry, heavy traffic on N .C.
!· Baptist Church, just. across .!·CY to make Koppers test all the; _,54. and increasing noise from.
• Church Street, received the same···: wells in the community, clean up Raleigh;Durham • International
;: advice.about their wells .. Now.all. \·the_ l.and where wood-treatm.ent · Airport have invaded.the.commu-
: .. are usmg bottled.water.supplied , wastewater was dumped and ex-nity in recent years. But "Shilo-
• by Koppers Chemical Co:, which · : tend public water lines to their deans" hope to· ·preserve the
·: '· formerly treated wood with penta: ·· ·:· houses: The coalition· has also . neighborhood's rural lifestyle and'
·' • chlorophenol at.a.plant about half· (requested medical screening for · distinct· identity. Some have· re-·•
•
. : · a mile south. · . . · ·· _-. i·.everyone who lives . within one :.; ;[.used developers' offers ·up to·
i-Koppers consultants and feeler:: ,mile of the plant site. . · . -·. • ·$84,000 per acre for their land and
' : •· · al, state and local health authori: .. : , State health officials have urged ·, are watching closely to see what·
• ties are sizing up the extent of the ) the EPA to use federal authority . ·. Koppers does.
;: . contamination that exists now; 13 ; to require the company to extend · staff photo bV Scott Sho,pe •. :· -The company has tested 34 wens·
!.·: years after Koppers stopped using . ! water lines to Shiloh. An EPA • . .. ·:in. the neighborhood and has ad-•·.
pentachlorophenol •in Shiloh: ..... · · ··· t crew. took soil and water samples·. · on federal officials or invoke state· .. ·, vised the owners of 30 of them that ·
:F "People are,. extremely con-i in Shiloh last month and test . autliority to aeclare··the sit1('.'a1(:·.-.. it·is safe to continue drinking the_.·
'/, cerned and scared," said Nathan-l results are expected around•Dec . .-, Imminent health hazard." • . . · ...... water. Regular. tests ofthe wens·.
'_r ette Mayo, who heads the·Shiloh-··:-l. · .. Linda Lyons, who lives three· ,,.;·will continue, h.owever. . . '
f Coalition for Community.,Control • i , Wake County is extending a. · .doors··south of her uncle;Clemen-· •·: ··Shannon Craig; a ·consultant to
·; · and Improvement. · . :, -'•water·· line from Morrisville · to ·tine-Lyons,. said ·Koppers.· should ..... Koppers, said it would be prema-
;,. No public water lines serve ... '.Research. Triangle Park. By. run water lines to Shiloh. "They,:.,ture for the. company to accept
•· Shiloh; the entire community of ; spring the line should run along contaminated the water," she.· liability. "There's no proof where
-1. about 80 families depends on well ·, Koppers Road right past the said. "They should.take care ofit\ •~ny of this came from,'_' she said.
, . water. And the news about con-: plant. . . . . · for the rest of our lives." . · .;. We think we kl'lilv, but there's no
: laminated groundwater has rekin-·. · .Dr. Levine has told community The Rev.· Johnny · Leak, . the •' proof."· . .. .: ,. ·· · · ·
; · died fears that an abnormally . leaders that if the EPA fails to act pastor of Shiloh .Baptist Church;·· · She said the company and the ..
1 high: number of people in the 'by the end of this month, state .... said ttiat seven or eight years ·ago;' EPA would.cooperate in a com-.
';, community. -:: ,inclu~.g_:'. many officials could put more pressure .•· church members.:began· noticing:,, ;. · : ,: ,·. · .·· .See~HILOH; page .. JD ,
, ..
• • 0 • •••• hd • • 0 • !•
, Continued f.rom page 10 .,
prehensive study of the groundwa•.
ter, surface water, soil and air
'.and.the EPA.would then decide'
what remedies were needed:"
. ·Ted Taylor, a state toxicologist,··
says . there· is no conclusive· evi-··
dence that" pentachforophenol
causes canCer in humans. NeVer-.
theless, an EPA study group in'
Washington has tentatively classi-··
fied the chemical as a '"probable·
1 . ::~mr~
hulTlan carcinogen.".,':.----'. -•· .,.,. ,. · ,
Ms. Craig pointed out that only ·•· worked there. During the ·1970s;!
<'very low trace levels"• of penta-,···Mr, Baker said, he had sinus and.
chlorophenol have been found in . respiratory trouble, liver trouble:
any wells. She cited the conserva-. and pain in· his joints; and his:
tive assumptions Dr. Taylor used: .. weight dropped from 245 pounds
to calculate a "safe". level of 4 > to 176. But most of his symptomsi
parts per triUion: If a person ·subsided, he said, when he began\
drank 2 liters of water ·per day taking his own drinking water to,
from the same well. for 70 years, •. ·. work. · . ·' •· ·.
his "excess risk" (above· the . "I did not have any problem 'ti!:
normal risk) of developing cancer ·. I got some of that water in my•
would be one in a million ... ,.··: •.· system,"· said .Mr. Baker; who:
'.:. The· chemkal comp.any has de-:•: was·one of about 50 workers at the 1
'dined· a con,munity. request to· plant. "I went down,· down, 1
. provide water for any family that:· down."·· · , . . _ •
. asks for it. Several families are '· · Dr. Levine, · the state health.
buying their own botUed water:-director, said he hopes the EPA
' · The 52-acre· Koppers Chemical will bear the cost ·of ha.ndling the ·
~Co. site runs along the northside . contamination ·in Shiloh, thus con-
:.of .Koppers_ Road .. from. Church ~·:.serving state inoney to clean up
.Street to N.C: 54. Koppers bought• pollution elsewhere .. ·Eithe.r the
the property in 1962 arid manufac-:·• EPA or the slate would first ask"'
, tured glue,laminaled. wood prod-'. Koppe~s lo pay for the cleanup .
ucts, such as slructurai'beams '.· voluntarily, and then could sue to.
··until 1986 ... ··•:···, .... ·•·.·. ::· '.' ' '··•·"recover the cost if the company
From.!968 to 1975, Koppers also .,.r~fus~d. "·:·.:-· :.: ··.··.: -· ---: ······ ·:
•:treated· wood with pentachloro/ ·:··Dr: Ernest E: McConnell,. a i
phenol,· which slowed decay by "former director of toxicology re•:
: killing fungi. Although the compa-·. search at the National Institute of i
'. ny sold most of the property· in · Environmental Health Sciences at,
· 1986, Koppers still owns the · 10 · Research Triangle Park, said·
· acres where wood was treated.· public waler lines should be ex-I
· . Wastewater from the treatment tended into the. area and Shiloh:
'. was discharged into a fire-protec• ' residents and. former Koppers
· tion pond and into two· unlined workers should be screened for ·
'lagoons. In 1980 and '81, Koppers , medical problems. . . . .
.. found pentachlorophenol · in ·soil, . Dr. McConnell said .Koppe.rs i
pond water and ground water on . and the health agencies studying'
' the site. In 1980 and . 1986 . the the contamination in Shiloh seem
'company removed nearly 'i,soo ·. !!'ired in.concern over legal Jiabil-:
cubic yards of contaminated· soil.:. 1ty:., ', · · ' .. ······1···•· ., •:·' .+· •· .
' and took it to a hazardous waste · -· "The system ·is bogged ·down,'.' ; < dump in South Carolina. he said. "The system is worried ·
:: Mack Baker, a former deck ·. about suits and countersuits rath·
. foreman at the . Koppers · plant, . er th.an what is good for . the·
; blames the water in Koppers' well people. It is simple and relatively
1 '.for serious )Hnesses ,,he experi-.. inexpensi~e to -. . . give 'those
·. enced during the 21 years he people some relief.'",',:::·' :.:·.''.":''
) .. ~,s••· ~ ·, .. l'-.',I ·:·~ . .:.:-~•/1/ . ~ -~~::~\~·/;. ~:.~.~~'.:.~;~:';' _,_;''.:~··::~ i .. ,_', ... , :,' )~~:~·:1r,_~'~:::-I·!~;;~;-~~:: ..
• 4, ''' ~ -, ¥ . --· -~~-"~""' --~•~'""" ~,.,,-,__,,.-:;"")"""~1
--~'{ ~~!(;~
• •
~
Beazer East Inc.
Current Information on Lhc RemedJillnvcstigation/
Feasibility Study for the \Koppers rytorrisville site
Jnne 1990
Message from Shannon Craig, Beazer East It may be helpful for you to know
more about the members of the
Beazer team. Welcome to the first issue of
Update, a newsletter that will go out
to community members in Morrisville
and Shiloh, and to others who arc
interested in what is happening with
the Superfund site in Morrisville. We
view this newsletter as an opportunity
to provide you with information,
answer your questions and update
you as work on the site progresses.
First and foremost: Beazer East
has a genuine concern for the health
and welfare of the community. We
are committed to being responsive,
thorough and accessible to all citizens.
This newsletter represents a part
of that commitment. In this first issue,
we will introduce to you some of the
other ways we plan to help keep you
informed.
We want to be very clear about
one thing: the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is in charge
of what happens at the Superfund site.
We will continue to work closely with
EPA as the project continues.
But, since we have been and will
continue to be neighbors, during and
after the remediation, we thought we
would develop some ways for us to
Who are we?
In June 1988, Beazer PLC bought
Koppers Company, Inc. The name
was changed to Beazer Materials &
Services, Inc., and again to Beazer
East, Inc. Beazer provides
construction materials and services
primarily to markets in the eastern half
talk directly with each other. Our
goal is to help make communication
easier through this newsletter, our
new local telephone "Info-Linc," and
the discussion sessions we plan to
hold. You can read more about them
in this issue.
By the way, we know that many
of you are very familiar with the
details of the Superfund site. We
don't want to oversimplify complex
issues. But we do want this
newsletter to be clear so that everyone
understands what we're talking about.
If you'd like to be on the mailing
list to receive this newsletter, please
return the enclosed sheet to our
newsletter editor, Kathy Neal, c/o
TechKnowledge Communications,
4020 WestChase Blvd., Suite 400,
Raleigh, NC, 27607.
As always, I'm happy to talk with
any of you by phone at (412) 227-
2684 in Pittsburgh, or when I'm in the
Morrisville area.
Shannon Craig
Program Manager,
Environmental Services
Beazer East
of the United States.
The State of North Carolina and
EPA still refer to the Supcrfund site as
the Koppers Company, Inc. Site, but
Beazer East now owns it and is
responsible for the necessary
investigations and the cost of site
remediation has been assumed by
Beazer East.
Shannon Craig is the Beazer East
program manager for this site. She is
responsible for the conduct and
completion of all activities specified
by EPA for the site investigation and
development of remediation
alternatives. For the past 1 1/2 years,
she has supervised a well inventory
and quarterly sampling of wells. She
has worked with residents, the town
and the county to install a water main
for the local water supply. Shannon
is located at Beazer's headquarters in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Keystone Environmental
Resources, Inc., of Pittsburgh, has
been retained by Beazer to conduct
the field investigations, feasibility
studies, and prepare required
documents. John Mitsak is the
project manager for Keystone. The
Keystone team of professionals will be
in Morrisville for 12 to 1/4 weeks
conducting tasks associated with the
investigation.
To help us with our community
relations program, we have retained
the Public Involvement Services
Group of Dames & Moore, an
internationally known engineering
firm with special expertise in waste
issues. Some of you may have talked
with Dr. Martha Rozelle, Ileazer'-s
national consultant on community
relations. Marty's office is in Phoenix,
Arizona. To help her and us stay in
touch with you, Marty is working with
TechKnowledge Communications,
a Raleigh public relations firm.
TcchKnowledge specializes in
communicating about science and
----•----•·----technology, induding environmental
issues. The firm's two partners, Ben
Kittner and Kathy Neal, are natives
of North Carolina. Ben lives in
Raleigh and Kathy lives in Durham.
How did we get here?
As we mentioned earlier, Beazer
bought the Koppers Company in 1988.
We have been working diligently with
EPA to address the environmental
issues associated with the Koppers site
in Morrisville.
EPA and the State of North
Carolina have both done an excellent
job of putting together detailed
information on the history of the
Koppers site. The June 1989
Superfund Fact Sheet prepared by EPA
is an excellent source of information.
We won't try to duplicate the Fact
Sheet here, but it may be helpful to
recap some of that information.
In 1968, the then-Koppers plant in
Morrisville began using a special
process to treat wood using the
chemical pentachlorophenol. Part of
that process involved steaming the
wood. The solution that resulted from
the steaming process was treated in
small ponds, or lagoons, on the
Koppers site.
Koppers stopped using the
process in 1975. The lagoons were
closed by backfilling after removal of
residual water in 1976. Later testing
of on-site wells at the Koppers plant
showed evidence of low levels of
pentachlorophenol and other
chemicals in the water.
In 1980 and 1981, the Slate of
North Carolina conducted tests of the
Koppers wells, soil and ground water.
Koppers arranged to have several
hundred cubic yards of soil removed
in 1980. The state continued
monitoring the site.
The presence of
pentachlorophenol in soil in the old
lagoon area was confirmed in 1984.
In 1986, Koppers excavated an
additional 1250 cubic yards of soil at
various depths to remove remaining
soil containing pentachlorophenol. In
1988, the slate recommended that the
Koppers site be placed on EPA's
National Priorities List.
Later in 1988, Beazer began
negotiating with EPA on a plan for
investigating the site. This is known
as the Remeclial Investigation/
Feasibility Study, or RI/FS. The RI/FS
work plan is r~quired to be in place
before any work can be done on the
site. EPA approval of the RI/FS work
plan was concluded in January 1990.
Where are we now?
Since September 1988, Beazer has
supplied bottled water to residents of
any homes with wells that have trace
levels of penta. In adclition, Beazer
financed the installation of more than
three miles of water lines in the
community. We also agreed to
arrange and pay for the hookup to a
municipal waterline for any affected
residents who wished to do so, and
we have arranged and paid for hook-
ups for 38 local residents.
We did these thlnp without
being required to by EPA. We feel
Shiloh
that is important to remember because
we believe it demonstrates our
concern for the community. We have
paid the hookup cost, the meter fee
and the acreage fee for one acre for
each home with an affected well (and
some unaffected) that showed trace
levels of wood preservers used at the
plant formerly owned by Koppers.
In 1988, Beazer began negotiating
with EPA on a plan for investigating
the site. This is known as the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, or RI/FS work plan, and it is
required to be in place before any
work can be done on the site. RI/FS
is a term that you will hear a lot about
during the next two years. EPA
approval of the RI/FS work plan was
concluded in January 1990.
What is the next step?
The next step is the Remeclial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. The
Remedial Investigation is EPA's in-
depth study of the site and is part of
EP A's usual procedure. It is designed
to identify exactly what kinds of
Approx. Scale in Feet
SOO O 500 1,000
Baptist ~-.u•
Church ,J'S=#~===°' Watkins Dr.
Research
Triangle
Park
Barbee Rd
(SR 1706)
Church St.
(SR 1637)
Map taken from EPA fact sheet, 1989.
• •
~
Beazer East Inc.
Current Information on the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the KopJX!rs Morrisville site
Kathy Neal, Update Editor
c/o TechKnowledgc Communications
4020 WcstChase 131vd., Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27607
June 1990
□
• •
~
Beazer East Inc.
Current Information on the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the Koppers Morrisville site
MAILING LIST REQUEST FORM
Please fill out the following form if you would like to receive Uptlate, and return it to,
Name
Kathy Neal, Uptlate Editor
cJo TechKnowledgc Communications
4020 WcstChase Blvd., Suite /400
Raleigh, NC 27607
Address ____________________ _
Phone, ________ (work) ________ (home)
What topiCS would you like to see discussed in the nexr issue?
Do you have any specific questions'
Do you have any comments about the first issue of Update?
Is there anything else you would like us to know'
June 1990
chemicals are where, and what issues
they pose, if any, for human health
and the environment. The RI will be
especially helpful in understanding the
direction and extent of any
preservatives present in groundwater,
as well as any preservatives present in
soil and surface water.
Once Beazer and EPA have
addressed the presence of
preservatives, and the related issues of
health and environmental matters, if
any, the options that exist to
remediate the presence of
preservatives can be discussed and
evaluated. This is done in the
feasibility study portion of the Rl/FS.
When the RJ/FS is complete, a
proposed plan will be developed.
The public will have an opportunity to
learn more about the plan through an
EPA public information meeting, and
to comment on the plan. After
responding to citizen comments, EPA
will issue a Record of Decision. Then,
the design of the remediation will be
completed.
The process, from RI/FS to
beginning the remedial action, can
take up to three years. It takes that
long to collect available information,
and to examine the options for how
best to remediate the site so that
health and the environmental issues
are addressed.
In addition to the Rl/FS, Beazer
East, in conjunction with the N.C.
Division of Health Service, Wake
County and the EPA, continues to
monitor off-site domestic water wells
in the vicinity of the site. To date,
Beazer has connected 38 residents to
the municipal water supply.
Additional hook-ups may be made as
additional information regarding the
site is known.
How can the public
be involved?
Involving the public in the
process of a Superfund site clean-up is
required -as it should be. EPA has
developed a Community Relations
Plan to address community concerns
What is the chemical
pentachlorophenol?
Pentachlorophenol (PEN-ta-klor-a-
. fin-all) is a wood preservative that was
~ed at the former Koppers plant until
. 1975. It has been found in water arid
soil samples.on site,
. At Beazer, we call this chemical ·
·'•• '.penta." Some people also call it PCP.
··.. . Penta is used widely in the
production of timber industrial .
products; S',lch as utility poles and
•··fenceeosts.--Millions of penta:treaied > utility poles ha~e cairied electric and
•·· pho~·•lini,s to homes througlic)Ut.
/;;jJ;iftJi::J?~{n~!~:f~;;;;; )••\-·
.~atedwood·has remained a.popular
\clioice for ind1JStriaLand agrii::ulrural
(:uses:;/(:-"" ···'.· .j•:-._. '(>·'
< i !11 the .wood-treating pl'9cess;
p<!iila is presiiuie-applied''i,fthe .wood.
cells to add long-term protection .
ag:iinsifungi and insect attacks,
and help citizens participate in the
process.
At Beazer, we also believe
strongly in informing and involving
the public. Here are several ways you
can learn more about what's going on:
• Update. We'll publish and
distribute this newsletter
whenever there are significant
new developments. Be sure to
send back the form telling us that
you'd like to be on our mailing
list. As we have discussed, the
clean-up will be a long process.
The newsletter is one way we'll
keep in touch.
• Beazer I,ifo-Line. You no
longer have to call long-distance
to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to get
an answer to your questions. You
can call the Beazer I,ifo-Ltne at
460-6446. The line rings in the
Morrisville office of Beazer. If no
one is in the office, you can leave
a message on the answering
machine. Someone will report
back to you on when you can
expect an answer. We want to tX!
clear: We may not be able to get
an immediate answer to all your
questions, but we will try. You
will receive an answer, and you
won't have to make a long-
distance call.
• Beazer Discussion Sessions .
We think the newsletter and the
information phone line are good
ideas, and they will help us know
more about each other's concerns.
But there's nothing like personal,
face-to-face conversations. We
plan to hold those conversations
in the form of discus.sion sessions.
They will take place from time to
time in different locations. They
won't be formal public meetings
or public hearings, although they
will be open to the public. There
will be plenty of opportunity for
formal meetings, and EPA will be
organizing them. We hope that
our discussion sessions will offer
us a chance to talk with one
another, to learn more about
what's going in the community,
and to answer your questions.
Questions and answers
We know that you may have lots
of questions. In each issue of the
newsletter, we plan to answer some of
them in this section. Questions that
have been raised so far include:
Why is it taking so long for
the site to be cleaned up?
Once a site is declared a
Superfund site, the law requires that a
very complicated process begin. It
can take up to five years. To start,
soil, surface water and groundwater
must be tested completely to
determine the extent to which
chemicals might be present. This
takes place during the Remedial
Investigation (RI). These tests are
very detailed and time-consuming.
According to the consent order that
EPA and Beazer have signed, the RI
will begin in the Spring of 1990 and
should be completed by mid-1991.
After this examination has taken
place, EPA and Beazer will look at
various techniques to clean up the
site. This is called the Feasibility
Study, or FS. The FS should be
completed by late 1991.
Then a proposed plan for the
clean-up is prepared. This is called a
Remedial Action Plan, and the public
will be able to comment on it before
the final plan is completed.
All of this is required by federal
laws and regulations. Beazer cannot
change this structure to make the
process faster. Each required task has
to be completed, and it takes time to
complete each one correctly.
How many wells
have been tested?
There are approximately 110 wells
within a one-mile radius of the site.
Of those wells, 95 have been sampled
at least once. The State, EPA and
Beazer will agree on wells to test and
parameters to be analyzed. Some
wells will be sampled quarterly.
Why does it take so long
to get results from
the water sampling?
Laboratory analyses of samples
take approximately six weeks.
Evaluation of data, submitted to the
State and EPA and transmittal to
residents necessarily takes several
weeks more.
Who pays for the waterline
hook-ups?
Tapping into the waterline
requires a hook-up fee, an acreage fee
and a meter fee. Beazer has paid for
the hook-up and meter fees, the fee
for one acre of property for each
house whose well showed traces of
wood treating chemicals in it, and a
one-time allotment for unexpected
expenses. After the hook-up,
residents must pay their own water
bills and property taxes that result
from being annexed to the Town of
Morrisville.
What happened with the
cancer study the State did?
In early 1989, the State looked at
the number and kinds of cancer cases
in Morrisville and Shiloh that had
occurred since 1968, the year Koppers
began using penta.
The study found !lQ evidence of a
cancer ucluster" -any unusual
grouping of the disease. It also found
no evidence of any common
environmental cause for any of the
cancers, or any link between them
and the traces of penta in the ground
water. The study did suggest that
additional sampling of wells could be
conducted. This continues to be
done.
TechKnowledge Communications
4020 West Chase Blvd., Suite 400 ·WtCi:JVED BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
MORRISVILLE, NC
PERMIT NO. 20
Raleigh, NC 27607 JUN 21 1990
SUPERFUND SECTION
Resident
Morrisville, NC 27560
I y .
. '·
': • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC Tl ON
AGENCY REGION IV
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
345 COURTLAND ST. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365.
.LABAMA FLORIDA GEORGIA
KEMT\JCK'(
Ml SSI SSIPPl NORTH CAROLI NA SOUTH CAROLINA
TE~SSEE
~EPA
February 15, 1990
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS Ail\TISORY
ttt(.;EIVED ENVIRONMENT AL NEWS
FEB l U 1990
SUPERFUND SECTION H. Michael Henderson
(404) 347 -3004
ATIANTA, GroRGIA -The u. s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region IV has received a letter of intent to apply for a technical
assistance grant at the Koppers Canpany, Inc. Superfund site -Morrisville,
NC fran the Shiloh Coalition For Conrm.mity Control and Improvement.
By law, only one grant for up to $50,000 may be awarded to a citizens'
graip at any one site on the National Priorities List. Because of this
limitation and in order to ensure that all camrunity views are represented
in recipient graips, EPA encourages all citizens' graips interested in
applying-for a technical assistance grant at the Koppers Morrisville, NC
site to consolidate with the Shiloh Coalition For Camtunity Control and
Irnprovenent and file a joint application.
and
Gra.ips wishing to join the Shiloh Coalition For Ccrnmunity Control
Irnproverren€ffor the purposes of this grant application should notify: .. ,.....
~..:. .. Ms. Nathanette Mayo
Shiloh Coalition For Camrunity
Control and Irnproverrent
Ra.lte 2, Box 77
Jlbrrisville, NC 27560
Interested ccmnunity groups should notify Ms. Mayo no later than Friday,
March 16, 1990.
-r-t:>RE -
• •
Koppers continued:
Groups desirir~;(to file a separate grant application must sutmit
a letter of intent to file an application to EPA, Region IV no later
than Friday, March 16, 1990, All applications must be filed no later
than l'bnday, April 16, 1990, within 60 days of this press notice.
Camrunity organizations requiring additional tbre to draft a
letter of intent or to file an application may submit a written request
for an extension of this tbre to EPA, Region IV for consideration.
For additional information on the technical assistance grants program
contact: Jim Coyle
Technical Assistance Grants Specialist (T.AG) u. s. Envirornental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street N. E,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
or call: (404) 347 -2234
Letters of Intent to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant for
the Koppers Canpany, Inc. -l'brrisville, NC Superfund site, as well as
grant applications, should be sent to:
Ken Turner
Grant Specialist
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Carrtland Street, N, E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
or call: 347 -7292
Ibcuments relating to EPA activities at the Koppers Superfund site are
available for citimn review at the !t:lrrisville Town Hall, 222 N. Church St.,
P, o. Box 166, Morrisville, NC 27560. Contact: E.Velyn Lumley, Town Secretary
at (919) 469 -1426.
'!he 52 acre Morrisville tract on Highway 54 West is located approximately
one mile north of the l'brrisville Town Hall in !obrrisville, NC.
-Ht -
-,-
• •
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAM
WHAT IS A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT?
Technical Assistance Grants were established by Congress to provide funds to citizens' groups whose members live near Superfund sites where they may have been exposed to health hazards or other risks to their well being. Grant funds are awarded up to a maximum amount of $50,000 to provide citizens with resources for hiring experts to interpret technical reports and other site-related information in language understandable to the average person.
WHO MAY APPLY FOR A GRANT?
Technical Assistance Grants may be awarded to citizens' groups whose members are affected by hazards at Superfund sites and who organize themselves for the purpose of obtaining and administering· grant funds. Congress limited the number of grants to one per site. Where more than one potentially eligible group exists, the groups are encouraged to join together and apply for grant funds as a coalition group.
WHAT CONDITIONS MUST BE MET BY GRANT APPLICANTS?
Congress has obligated EPA to obtain reasonable assurances that Technical Assistance Grant monies will be awarded and spent responsibly. Applicant Groups must demonstrate their competence for financial accounting and administrative record keeping. They must also match federal funds expended with a 20% contribution from their own resources. The matching contribution does not have to be in cash, but may consist of locally donated services, equipment, supplies, office space, and so forth.
HOW DOES A CITIZENS' GROUP APPLY FOR A GRANT?
The EPA Region IV office has assigned a specialist to work with Citizens' Groups seeking funds from the Technical Assistance Grant program. Interested groups should address inquiries to:
James Doyle, TAG Specialist
Grants and Contracts Support Unit
USEPA -Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
,,
:, UNITED STATES • OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
: ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TE CTI ON 345 COURTLAND ST. N.E.
• ASAMA ~OAIOA .
GEORGIA
KEMTUCK'(
Ml SSl SSIPP1 NORTH CAROLI NA ·sOUTH CAROLINA
TEt--N:SSEE AGENCY REGION IV ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365. ---· ----------- - --------- --~ ------------
oEPA
February 15, 1990
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS AJJ\lISORY
·u1t.C EJ VIED
FEB 2 o 1990 ENVIRONMENT AL NEWS
SUPERFUND SECTION
H. Michael Henderson
(404) 347 -3004
ATIANTA, Gro~IA -The u. s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region IV has received a letter of intent to apply for a technical
assistance grant at the Koppers Canpany, Inc. Superfund site -Morrisville,
NC fran the Shiloh Coalition For Conmunity Control and Improvenent.
By law, only one grant for up to $50,000 may be awarded to a citizens'
groop at any one site on the National Priorities List. Because of this
limitation and in order to ensure that all camrunity views are represented
in recipient groops, EPA encourages all citizens' groops interested in
applying for a technical assistance grant at the Koppers Morrisville, NC
site to consolidate with the Shiloh Coalition For Camrunity Control and
Improvement and file a joint application.
Groups wishing to join the Shiloh Coalition For Ca?lrn!•~ity Control
and Improveme~!for the purposes of this grant application should notify:
·1,·:
Ms, Nathanette Mayo
Shiloh Coalition For Camrunity
Control and Improveirent
Ra.lte 2, Box 77
Morrisville, NC 27560
Interested camrunity groups should notify Ms, Mayo no later than Friday,
March 16, 1990.
-t-ORE -
•
Koppers continued:
Groups desiring.to file a separate grant application must sutmit
a letter of intent to file an application to EPA, Region IV no later
than Friday, March 16, 1990. All applications must be filed no later
than ltlnday, April 16, 1990, within 60 days of this press notice.
Camrunity organizations requiring additional time to draft a
letter of intent or to file an application may submit a written request
for an extension of this time to EPA, Region IV for oonsideration.
For additional information on the technical assistance grants program
contact: Jim n:,yle
Technical Assistance Grants Specialist (TAG)
U. S. Envirormental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
or call: (404) 347 -2234
Letters of Intent to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant for
the Koppers canpany, Inc. -ltlrrisville, NC Superfund site, as well as
grant applications, should be sent to:
Ken Turner
Grant Specialist u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
or call: 347 -7292
D:x:uments relating to EPA activities at the Koppers Superfund site are
available for citizen review at the !t>rrisville Town Hall, 222 N. Church St.,
P.O. Box 166, Morrisville, NC 27560. Contact: EVelyn Lumley, Town Secretary
at (919) 469 -1426.
The 52 acre Morrisville tract on Highway 54 West is located approximately
one mile north of the ltlrrisville Town Hall in ltlrrisville, NC.
-Ht -
0 •
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAM
WHAT IS A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT?
Technical Assistance Grants were established by Congress to provide funds to citizens' groups whose members live near .Superfund sites where they may have been exposed to health hazards or other risks to their well being. Grant funds are awarded up to a maximum amount of $50,000 to provide citizens with resources for hiring experts to interpret technical reports and other site-related information in language understandable to the average person.
WHO MAY APPLY FOR A GRANT?
Technical Assistance Grants may be awarded to citizens' groups whose members are affected by hazards at Superfund sites and who organize themselves for the purpose of obtaining and administering· grant funds. Congress limited the number of grants to one per site. Where more than one potentially eligible group exists, the groups are encouraged to join together and apply for grant funds as a coalition group.
WHAT CONDITIONS MUST BE MET BY GRANT APPLICANTS?
Congress has obligated EPA to obtain reasonable assurances that Technical Assistance Grant monies will be awarded and spent responsibly. Applicant Groups must demonstrate their competence for financial accounting and administrative record keeping. They must also match federal funds expended with a 20% contribution from their own resources. The matching contribution does not have to be in cash, but may consist of locally donated services, equipment, supplies, office space, and so forth.
HOW DOES A CITIZENS' GROUP APPLY FOR A GRANT?
The EPA Region IV office has assigned a specialist to work with Citizens' Groups seeking funds from the Technical Assistance Grant program. Interested groups should address inquiries to:
James Doyle, TAG Specialist
Grants and Contracts Support Unit
USEPA -Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Phone: [phone]
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Koppers -Morrisville, N.C.
Superfund Site
PUBLIC MEETING
ANNOUNCEMENT
A Public Information Meeting
Has Been Scheduled For
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1989
AT 7:00 p.m.
in the
NORTHWOODS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL CAFETORIUM
500 West Durham Road
Cary, North Carolina
The purpose of the meeting Is to Inform the public of EPA activities at the
Koppers-Morrisville Superfund Site, located In Wake County, and to address questions
and concerns that the community might have regarding EPA's Involvement at the site.
A question and answer period will follow a brief presentation by EPA and State officials.
. . •
SUPERFUND
FACT SHEET
C ... :·• a ::c ,--• i ;.
;: :: .. °" t_·_( V::
? !_· ~--F?: ·;_; ti,i~_i DH/\!
--,!!
Koppers Company, Inc. Site
Morrisville, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet on the Keppers Company, Inc. Superfu..rid
site in Monisvillc, NorL'1 Carolina has been prepared by
the Region IV Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The purpose of the fact sheet is to inform
interested citizens and local officials of the nature and
status of EPA 's activities at the site. The fact.sheet provides
a brief background and history of the site and describes the
remedial investigation and feasibility study process (RI/
FS) that EPA is currently directing. Opportunities for
public involvement are also discussed.
SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Koppers Company, Inc. -Monisville, North Carolina
Superfund site is located approximately one mile north of
the Morrisville Town Hall in Monisville, North Carolina.
The site is situated on a 52 acre tract on Highway 54 West
This tract is bordered by Koppers Road (SR 1635) to the
south/southeast, Church Street (SR 1637) to the west, a
home site with open fields to the north, and a Southern
Railroad right-of-way to the east/northeast. The railroad
lines parallel Highway 54. Thesiteconsists of 16 buildings
and a 3-acre pond, which is maintained for fire protection.
Approximately 2,169 residents live within a 3-mile radius
orn,e site. The nearest residential community to the site is
the Shiloh community, less than one mile along Church
Street. A map of the site vicinity is included on page 2.
·}~tyrf{SM~~T\~9i~P{?fi~;)¥fS?.&~\~~ftywJ~!Ht••· · ,fgr.m~hoi) abo~t s,,t,e activities at the KiipjieriH\1cirrisville•••
June 1989
Runoff from the northeast corner of the site drains east-
ward to an intermittent creek. This creek flows southeast
approximately two and one-quarter miles to Crabtree
Creek. Runoff from the southeast cornerof the site drains
to Koppers Pond, which is used for fire protection. Inter-
mittent overflow from Koppers Pond drains south approxi-
mately 1,000 feet to another pond on the residential prop-
erty across the road, hereinafter referred to as "Medlin
Pond." Intermittent flow from Medlin Pond continues
southeast approximately one and three-quarters miles to
Crabtree Creek, which flows into the Reuse River.
Ground water is the primary source of drinking water for
the majority of the site community. Studies performed by
the U.S. Geological Survey have shown that surface layers
of water-bearing rock or soil are interconnected within the
area, functioning as a single water supply source, or
aquifer. Private wells are common sources of domestic
water for the site community. The community is in an area
of the State referred to as the Triassic Basin, named after
the triassic soils of the area.
The Koppers site was used as a sawmill by Cary Lumber
Company until approximately 1959, when the property
was purchased by Unit Structures, Inc. Unit Structures
continued sawmill operations and began a glue-laminating
process on site. The property was sold to Koppers Co., Inc.
in 1962. Koppers continued sawmill and glue laminating
operations, and also introduced a wood preserving process
called CELLON in 1968. In September 1986, 42 acres of
the site, including all the manufacturing and production
areas, were sold to Unit Structures. Unit Structures cur-
rently operates the manufacturing and laminated wood
production facility. Koppers retains 10 acres of the site,
including the pond, a CELLON treatment and lagoon area,
a spray area, and a narrow corridor along the railroad
tracks. In June 1988, the Koppers Company was acquired
by Beazer, Inc.
• N
Page 2
• •
KOPPERS-MORRISVILLE, N.C. SUPERFUND SITE: SITE VICINITY MAP
WEA VER RD. (SR 1638)
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE
PARK
SHILOH
BAPTIST
CHURCH
BARBEE RD.
(SR 1706)
CHURCH ST.
(SR 1637)
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500 1,000
WATKINS DR.
Purneii • Wal<e Forest • Barham
• Falls. •Lassiter Bay I ear •
Leesville• Wake Crossroa<is
Slxforks. MIilbrook
• eM1lbum1e Eaile • MORRISVILLE • WI loers Grove• Ao "-• • Norfolk carpenter • • Raleigh • Upchurch Cary • • Apex Macedonia
•Friendship Mccullers• Auourn
• New HIil 'Baoks • Holly Springs
•W1Don
W1II0W Sp~ngs
•
WAKE
COUNTY,
N.C.
• Under the ownership of Koppers, two types of treatment
activities were conducted: lamination processing and the
CELLON wood preserving process. The CELLON proc-
ess, which was used from 1968 to 1975, consisted of
pressure-injecting a pentachlorophenol (PCP) and liq-
uified butane isopropyl ether (IPE) solution into the wood.
Excess PCP salt was removed from the wood by steaming
it. The wash solution from this steaming process was
filtered to recover PCP, then discharged to the fire pond on
site. Approximately six months afterCELLON processing
began, Koppers installed two unlined treatment lagoons to
contain the residual wash solution. Koppers discontinued
the CELLON process after 1975.
In January 1971, after heavy rains, the owner of Medlin
Pond reported fish kills in his pond to State Health offi-
cials. The property owner reported being unsuccessful in
attempts to discuss the overflow from Koppers pond and
the fish kills with Koppers management. Over the next ten
years, the property owner reported a series of fish kills to
State, County, and Local officials and requested govern-
ment assistance in locating the source of the problem.
However, no connection between Koppers and the fish
kills in the Medlin pond was made by State or County
officials.
Koppers "closed" the CELLON effluent waste treatment
lagoons in 1977 by spraying liquid from the lagoons over
two fields on site and spreading sludge from the bottom of
the lagoons over the lagoon area and adjacent soil to dry.
In March 1980, Koppers began to study PCP contamina-
tion of soil, groundwater, and pond sediment on site. High
levels of PCP contamination were found in the lagoons, in
the former CELLON treatment area, and in wells on the
site, according to facility records. As a result of these
findings, Koppers removed a portion of the contaminated
soil from the site in April and May 1980.
In June 1980, the North Carolina Department of Health
conducted an initial inspection and documented the need to
further inspect the site, based on the history of fish kill
reports and evidence of PCP in Koppers' well water. Also
in July 1980, Koppers installed seven monitoring wells to
provide a ring of monitoring points around the plant.
Following the inspection, the State conducted ground
water and sediment tests on the site. It also sampled
monitoring wells, private wells off-site, and the Medlin
pond between July and September of 1980. In response to
the State's findings of PCP in sediment from areas on the
site, Koppers removed an additional two hundred and forty
cubic yards of contaminated soil to a pcm1ittcd landfill in
• iwHAT'§·••'.k.iff§M§t>i.&:~i~v~$Ti~'.k.-fi8~?•·• .. ···::-··:·•-:,·,.,•,;,.,_.._.;,;,,;,;c.:,;,•,::•:•.:::•;;./:•::-:-:·:··
11111,~111 ••soil arid surface watehuvarioussite• localionsiln addition••• mefi1fa6iiil ;Hij ~;µ ti;; ~;;;Jj;;ij !9~kii j®'jrid}iiiiei; ;
November 1980. No enforcement action was taken at this
time, although State and EPA officials recommended
continued monitoring at the site.
In June 1981, the State conducted a more detailed soil in-
vestigation in the area of the former effluent waste treat-
ment lagoons and soil irrigation fields. PCP contamination
was still present in both areas. Contamination was con-
firmed by Koppers in a subsequent sampling investigation
conducted by the company in June 1984, and an additional
1,250 cubic yards of soil and contaminated materials were
removed by the company from the old lagoon area in July
i986. .
At the State's recommendation, the site was proposed for
the EPA National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites in
June 1988. The National Priorities List, or NPL, is EPA's
list of priority hazardous waste sites in the country that are
eligible for Federal money for cleanup under Superfund.
Since June 1988, the environmental consultant hired by
Beazer, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc., has con-
ducted sampling on-and off-site. These tests have re-
vealed the presence of PCP and/or fPE in several private
wells in the immediate vicinity. Since September I 988,
Beazer, Inc. has provided bottled water to users of wells
that have a PCP concentration above 0.04 parts per billion
(ppb). Currcnuy, Beazer. Inc. is providing botLlcd wa1crto
Page 3
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Koppers -Morrisville, N.C.
Superfund Site
PUBLiC MEETiNG
ANNOUNCEMENT
A Public Information Meeting
Has Been Scheduled For
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1989
AT 7:00 p.m.
in the
NORTHWOODS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL CAFETORIUM
500 West Durham Road
Cary, North Carolina
The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of EPA activities at the
Koppers-Morrisville Superfund Site, located in Wake County, and to address questions
and concerns that the community might have regarding EPA's involvement at the site.
A question and answer period will follow a brief presentation by EPA and State officials.
• where repons and other documents are made available to
citizens. (See below). EPA is currently developing its
CRP for the Koppers Company, Inc. -Morrisville, Nonh
Carolina Supcrfund site. In addition to the CRP cffon and
the preparation of this fact sheet, EPA will work in coop-
eration with State and Local officials to present informa-
tion to citizens.
As pan of the Superfund program, EPA is providing com-
munities with an opportunity to apply for Technical Assist-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N .E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Mr. Walton Jones
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N .E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Interested panics also may call the EPA Region IV Public
Affairs Office at [phone]. This number can be used
to leave a message for the Remedial Project Manager or
Community Relations Coordinator. When calling, please
leave a name and day-time telephone number, and tell the
office that you are calling in· reference to the Koppers-
Morrisville, Nonh Carolina Superfund site. Identifying
the site will ensure a more prompt response.
• ance Grants (TA Gs). These grants of up to $50,000 arc
designed to enable community groups to hire a technical
advisor or consultant to assist them in interpreting and
commenting on site findings and the planned cleanup.
Citizens who are interested in the TAG program may
obtain an application package by calling or writing the
EPA Technical Assistance Grants contact listed in this fact
sheet.
CONCERNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS:
Mr. Matt Robbins
Chief, Contracts and Grant Support Unit
Division of Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS SITE
CAN BE REVIEWED AT THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION REPOSITORY:
Cary Branch
Wake County Public Library
310 South Academy Street
Cary, NC 27511
[phone]
Hours: Monday -Thursday: 9am to 9pm
Friday and Saturday: 9am to 5pm
Sunday: 1pm to 5pm
Page 5
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
•
j
I
SUPERFUND
FACT SHEET
•
R!ECEnfED
JUN '12 i989
Koinners Comp SUPERFiJil~D BRASNl'Ht rr I• any, nc. le
Morrisville, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This fact sheet on the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund
site in Morrisville, North Carolina has been prepared by
the Region IV Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The purpose of the fact sheet is to inform
interested citizens and local officials of the nature and
status of EPA 's activities at the site. The fact sheet provides
a brief background and history of the site and describes the
remedial investigation and feasibility study process (RI/
FS) that EPA is currently directing. Opportunities for
public involvement are also discussed.
SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Koppers Company, Inc. -Morrisville, North Carolina
Superfund site is located approximately one mile north of
the Morrisville Town Hall in Morrisville, North Carolina.
The site is situated on a52 acre tract on Highway 54 West
This tract is bordered by Koppers Road (SR 1635) to the
south/southeast, Church Street (SR 1637) to the west, a
home site with open fields to the north, and a Southern
Railroad right-of-way to the east/northeast. The railroad
lines parallel Highway 54. The site consists of 16 buildings
and a 3-acre pond, which is maintained for fire protection.
Approximately 2,169 residents live within a 3-mile radius
of the site. The nearest residential community to the site is
the Shiloh community, less than one mile along Church
Street. A map of the site vicinity is included on page 2.
June 1989
Runoff from the northeast comer of the site drains east-·
ward to an intermittent creek. This creek flows southeast
approximately two and one-quarter miles to Crabtree .
Creek. Runoff from the southeast comer of the site drains
to Koppers Pond, which is used for fire protection. Inter-
mittent overflow from Koppers Pond drains south approxi-
mately 1,000 feet to another pond on the residential prop-
erty across the road, hereinafter referred to as "Medlin
Pond." Intermittent flow from Medlin Pond continues
southeast approximately one and three-quarters miles to
Crabtree Creek, which flows into the Reuse River.
Ground water is the primary source of drinking water for
the majority of the site community. Studies performed by
the U.S. Geological Survey have shown that surface layers
of water-bearing rock or soil are interconnected within the
area, functioning as a single water supply source, or
aquifer. Private wells are common sources of domestic
water for the site community. The community is in an area
of the State referred to as the Triassic Basin, named after
the triassic soils of the area.
The Koppers site was used as a sawmill by Cary Lumber
Company until approximately 1959, when the property
was purchased by Unit Structures, Inc. Unit Structures
continued sawmill operations and began a glue-laminating
process on site. The property was sold to Koppers Co., Inc.
in 1962. Koppers continued sawmill and glue laminating
operations, and also introduced a wood preserving process
called CELLON in 1968. In September 1986, 42 acres of
the site, including all the manufacturing and production
areas, were sold to Unit Structures. Unit Structures cur-
rently operates the manufacturing and laminated wood
production facility. Koppers retains 10 acres of the site,
including the pond, a CELLON treatment and lagoon area,
a spray area, and a narrow corridor along the railroad
tracks. In June 1988, the Koppers Company was acquired
by Beazer, Inc.
• N
Page2
•
KOPPERS-MORRISVILLE, N.C. SUPERFUND SITE: SITE VICINITY MAP
WEAVER RD, (SR 1638)
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE
PARK
SHILOH
BAPTIST
CHURCH
BARBEE RD.
(SR 1706)
CHURCH ST.
(SR 1637)
SR 1636
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500 1,000
Purne,1 • Wake Forest•
Barham Barham
• Fallse •Lassiter Baylear •
Wake Crossroads
WAKE
COUNTY,
N.C.
Under the ownership of Koppers, two types of treatment
activities were conducted: lamination processing and the
CELLON wood preserving process. The CELLON proc-
ess, which was used from 1968 to 1975, consisted of
pressure-injecting a pentachlorophenol (PCP) and liq-
uified butane isopropyl ether (IPE) solution into the wood.
Excess PCP salt was removed from the wood by steaming
it. The wash solution from this steaming process was
filtered to recover PCP, then discharged to the fire pond on
site. Approximately six months afterCELLON processing
began, Koppers installed two unlined treatment lagoons to
contain the residual wash solution. Koppers discontinued
the CELLON process after 1975.
In January 1971, after heavy rains, the owner of Medlin
Pond reported fish kills in his pond to State Health offi-
cials. The property owner reported being unsuccessful in
attempts to discuss the overflow from Koppers pond and
the fish kills with Koppers management. Over the next ten
years, the property owner reported a series of fish kills to
State, County, and Local officials and requested govern-
ment assistance in locating the source of the problem.
However, no connection between Koppers and the fish
kills in the Medlin pond was made by State or County
officials.
Koppers "closed" the CELLON effluent waste treatment
lagoons in 1977 by spraying liquid from the lagoons over
two fields on site and spreading sludge from the bottom of
the lagoons over the lagoon area and adjacent soil to dry.
In March 1980, Koppers began to study PCP contamina-
tion of soil, groundwater, and pond sediment on site. High
levels of PCP contamination were found in the lagoons, in
the former CELLON treatment area, and in wells on the
site, according to facility records. As a result of these
findings, Koppers removed a portion of the contaminated
soil from the site in Aprn'and May 1980.
In June 1980, the North Carolina Department of Health
conducted an initial inspection and documented the need to
further inspect the site, based on the history of fish kill
reports and evidence of PCP in Koppers' well water. Also
in July 1980, Koppers installed seven monitoring wells to
provide a ring of monitoring points around the plant.
Following the inspection, the State conducted ground
water and sediment tests on the site. It also sampled
monitoring wells, private wells off-site, and the Medlin
pond between July and Septemberof 1980. In response to
the State's findings of PCP in sediment from areas on the
site, Koppers removed an additional two hundred and forty
cubic yards of contaminated soil to a permitted landfill in
•
November 1980. No enforcement action was taken at this
time, although State and EPA officials recommended
continued monitoring at the site.
In June 1981, the State conducted a more detailed soil in-
vestigation in the area of the former effluent waste treat-
mentlagoons and soil irrigation fields. PCP contamination
was still present in both areas. Contamination was con-
firmed by Koppers in a subsequent sampling investigation
conducted by the company in June 1984, and an additional
1,250 cubic yards of soii and contaminated materials were
removed by the company from the old lagoon area in July
1986.
At the State's recommendation, the site was proposed for
the EPA National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites in
June 1988. The National Priorities List, orNPL, is EPA's
list of priority hazardous waste sites in the country that are
eligible for Federal money for cleanup under Superfund.
Since June 1988, the environmental consultant hired by
Beazer, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc., has con-
ducted sampling on-and off-site. These tests have re-
vealed the presence of PCP and/or !PE in several private
wells in the immediate vicinity. Since September 1988,
Beazer, Inc. has provided bottled water to users of wells
that have a PCP concentration above 0.04 parts per billion
(ppb ). Currently, Beazer, Inc. is providing bottled water to
Page 3
•
all residents whose wells have shown any level of PCP or
!PE.
EPA and Beazer, Inc., the potentially responsible party,
signed an Administrative Order on Consent for the per-
formance of the remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) of the site on March 14, 1989. In recent
preliminary negotiations with EPA, Beazer has agreed to
continue to supply water to all community residents whose
wells show any presence of contaminants and to pay for the
extension of municipal water service to affected residents
·of the community.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Once the RI/FS is complete, the RI and FS reports, along
with EPA 's proposed plan for the site, are made available
for public review. A copy of the proposed plan, which also
includes a brief description of the RI/FS results, will be
mailed to interested parties and all persons who have
requested placement on EPA's mailing list for the site.
EPA then will hold a public information meeting to present
a summary of the RI/FS process (including the results of
the FS) and explain the proposed plan to remedy contami-
nation from the site. Following the meeting EPA will hold
a comment period during which citizens can submit writ-
ten comments on the remedial alternatives considered in
the study and EPA's proposed plan. A public hearing will
be held during the comment period to receive verbal and
written comments. The hearing will be recorded to assist
Page 4
EPA in preparing a Responsiveness Summary (a report
that summarizes citizen comments and EPA responses).
After the comment period is closed, EPA will prepare a
formal decision document called a Record of Decision
(ROD) that summarizes the decision process and the
selected remedies. This document will include the Re-
sponsiveness Summary and will be submitted to the EPA
Regional Administrator for approval. Upon approval, the
design of the remedy will be developed and the implemen-
tation of the remedy can begin.
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
EPA has developed a community relations program under
Superfund to respond to citizens' concerns and needs for
information as well as to enable residents and officials of
a site community to participate in decision-making. Be-
fore EPA carries out or authorizes technical work on a site,
EPA staff or contractors prepare a Community Relations
Plan (CRP) that identifies interested parties and the con-
cerns and questions existing in the area. Toe CRP is based
upon discussions in the community with local leaders and
private citizens. In response to their concerns and the level
of interest present, this plan identifies techniques EPA will
use to communicate effectively with the community as the
RI/FS proceeds. These communication efforts often in-
clude telephone contacts, small informal meetings or for-
mal public meetings, news releases, correspondence, and
fact sheets. EPA also establishes an information repository
• where reports and other documents are made available to
citizens. (See below). EPA is currently developing its
CRP for the Koppers Company, Inc. -Morrisville, North
Carolina Superfund site. In addition to the CRP effort and
the preparation of this fact sheet, EPA will work in coop-
eration with State and Local officials to present informa-
tion to citizens.
As part of the Supcrfund program, EPA is providing com-
munities with an opportunity to apply for Technical Assist-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Mr. Walton Jones
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Interested parties also may call the EPA Region IV Public
Affairs Office at [phone]. This number can be used
to leave a message for the Remedial Project Manager or
Community Relations Coordinator. When calling, please
leave a name and day-time telephone number, and tell the
office that you are calling in reference to the Koppers-
Morrisville, North Carolina Superfund site. Identifying
the site will ensure a more prompt response.
• ance Grants (T AGs). These grants of up to $50,000 are
designed to enable community groups to hire a technical
advisor or consultant to assist them in interpreting and
commenting on site findings and the planned cleanup.
Citizens who are interested in the TAG program may
obtain an application package by calling or writing the
EPA Technical Assistance Grants contact listed in this fact
sheet.
CONCERNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS:
Mr. Matt Robbins
Chief, Contracts and Grant Support Unit
Division of Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., N .E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS SITE
CAN BE REVIEWED AT THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION REPOSITORY:
Cary Branch
Wake County Public Library
310 South Academy Street
Cary, NC 27S11
[phone]
Hours: Monday -Thursday: 9am to 9pm
Friday and Saturday: 9am io 5pm
Sunday: 1pm to 5pm
Page 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
..
Water
pipelines
.offered
Finn says it will help
_ pay for Shiloh lines
By STEPHEN HOAR
Staff writer
A Pitlsburgh company this
week offered to lay public waler
lines to the Shiloh section of
i\'Iorrisvillc, where chemicals sus-
pected of causing cancer have
contaminated at least six wells.
Representatives of Beazer Ma-
terials and Services Inc., former-
ly known as Koppers Co .. told the
I'vlorrisvillc Board of Commission-
ers on Monday night that the
company \vould extend and pay
for lines up Chu~ch Street and
N.C. S•l Lo the area where tests
have shown the groundwater lo be
contaminated.
Shannon Craig, Be_azcr's pro-
gram manager for environmental
services, said in an interview that
the company \Vas acting on its
own.
"I would definitely call what
wc·vc done voluntary," with no
pressure from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, she
said.
The company offered lo lay a
16-inch main and a 12-inch main to
serve Shiloh_ allowing for addi-
tional development in the area as
well as for the needs or Cxisti.ng
households, if the town would pay
for the extra capacity. Thus Mor-
risville would share in the cost of
the water lines, estimated at
$:i00.0110.
Tests lwve shmvn that six wells
arc tainted with pcntachlorophe-
nol, a wood-treating chemical
used at-a plant Koppers once
opcratea in Morrisville. Only
trace amounts have been found so
far,. but Dr. Ronald H. Levine,
state health director, has recom-·
mended that the owners of those
wells USC bottled water for cook-
ing aiid drinking. The company
has been providing the bottled
\\.'atcr for Several months.
Last week, the chemical compa-
ny also agreed lo supply bottled
water to 17 morC families in
Shiloh "as a precautionary mea-
sure." Ms. Craig said Beazer was
taking that step at the request of
Dr. Levine.
New tests show that five of the -
six wells contaminated with pcn-
lachlorophenol also contain min-
ute amounts of chlorinated dioxin
and furans, according to a joint
statement by Beazer, stale health
officials and EPA. The statement
described dioxin and furans as
potential human carcinogens.
Ms. Craig said the company
would also pay the lap-on fees for
22 households, one business and
one church -those ,vhose wells
had shown detectable levels of
contamination with chemicals
used in the wood-treating plant.
Beazer is expanding its well
sampling in all directions around
the site of the old plant. Thirty-
four wells were tested last year,
and contamination was found as
far as six-tenths of a mile from the
plant. Crews from Beazer and the
EPA are laking samples this ,Veek
from >IG wells, most of them being
tested for the first time.
Beazer spokesmen told the Mor-
risville cornmissionCrs l\londav
thal lh_cir company had .retained
Bass, Nixon and Kennedy, a Ra-
See FIRM, page 2C
Firm offers
to extend
water lines
Continued from page 1 C ·
leigh engineering firm, lo design
the water-line ·extensions and ad-
minister the contract. The com-
missioners directed Town Manag-
er Phin Horton to work out the
details of an agreement with
Beazer. ·
Michael A. Norman, an engi-
!?ctlc,7 t-.., NC
fe,j, /5 1 9 P'l ,
neer al the_ EPA's regional head-
quarters in Atlanta, said the agen-
cy would continue trying to work
· out a "_consent agreerrient" in
which Beazer would pledge lo lay
the water line to Shiloh. He did not
object to the company's an-
nouncement that it was taking
that step voluntarily: -
"I think we were both· working
toward the same goal," Mr._ Nor-
man said.
Providing a public water supply
for Shiloh would be only the first
step in addressing the contamina-
tion from the wood-treating plant
Under federal law, a full-scale
cleanup would come later: -·
nr~ctices behind thcfTI," f\:_1r. Wal_-