NCD981927502_19960423_Geigy Chemical Corporation_FRBCERLA PM CI_Public Meetings 1990 - 1996-OCR

.-•... . . .
April 23, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund
RD/RA Kick-Off Public Meeting
Geigy Chemical Corp. NPL Site
NCO 981 927 502
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
On 17 April 1996, representatives of the NC Superfund Section participated in a kick-off
public meeting with the EPA for the Remedial Design/ Remedial Action for the Geigy Chemical Site.
The meeting was held at the Aberdeen Fire Department in downtown Aberdeen, NC. The meeting
was called to update the public on the status of the work at the Geigy Chemical Site and to inform
them about the RD/RA work proposed to begin in August on the soil and groundwater cleanup at
the Site. A community relations group have also been going door to door in the area to keep the
public informed of the projects progress and invite them to this public meeting to learn more about
the investigation and remedial action work proposed at the Geigy Chemical NPL Site located in
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina. Handouts and agenda for the public meeting are included
in the NC Superfund-Geigy files.
cc: Grover Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
. '
I • GEIGY CHEMICAbiC0RPORATION SITE . . . ' e,~.: :;. "):< •• ~ . . ;., ..•.• ·: •·\ . -: . · . Abe'rdeen, North Caronna . ' . . . . .:-. .. : .... ,:, \: ~ ~\~·-i:~·•·;~:y~_;:·r~-·-
...... _,.
'. ·,· ..
: ' .. · ..
. ., . ' -__ ._ ....
' ,, E,P..1'5-'~.§M~~gJ(+,6,D_E_SIG~/REMEDI.AL ACTION . '. : .. . .. -MEETING AGENDA .
J
/ April 17, 1996
... ••. t
', . . ~:: ·: -~ -. ~
Aberdeen Fire Department Station
800 Holly Street & Highway 1
Aberdeen, North 'Carolina
Welcome, Introduction of
EPA and Guests ·
Brief . History of Superfund
(Approx. 5 minutes)
Brief Site History . ,,'.:>, , ,-.. ' -

.

(Approx,:'1 O minutes)·.
. Diane Barrett . ;
Com~unity Relations Specialist
'I'•
Bernie Hayes.
..·. EPA Rem~t:Jial'Project Manager ,.' ..
Remedial Action for Soil RUST Environmental
. (Approx. 10. minutes) ;;_ Consultant
· · . ·. . · ,. . . • · . . , .; tv :~"}/, ,,/? ' C ;-J; f. Remedial Action·forG'roundwater . · • . RUSI Eilvirorimerital>-;:, . . . t-r!.(~1•1';,_~ .••• ~>;:,,{~ . . ::~ ·_: .-·:' ' .' f!(, ., . ~ ·.· . . : . . ,. ·__ .• ' -

.

.. -~ '-_ '•f..'(;.:ft1:'&i. ~::~;,_~~[~ -§jt·\~ '.~~::,.;;,1~t~k h:~';' . (Appr~~f1.~Jnihu'tes) "., ,:, i:/ . · . \ <. ;~:}· '':;ziT Consulta,htf':;'?";'?.
, -:'.}'.· •":.; _:: ., . . . :. :/:: • 1r1;b -:rr· · · ·· t~?~f~· · · · <···
DowngratUent Groundwater Results · · RUST Environmental . . ' (Approx .. 15 minutes) Consultant
Summary of Site Issues
(Apprpx. 5 minutes).
I '
,' I
Bernie Hayes
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Question & Answer Period Moderated by Bernie Hayes
Adjournment ·
.. ·-
\ • •
NQIES
::r°"" sr,,~
• • • . REMEDIAL DE~N FACT SHEET
. 2 ·.·. ·.··.· ~
&. ~ Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
March 1996
This fact sheet is not robe considered a technical docwneni buJ has been prepared in order to provide the public with a beuer undersranding
of the process wu1 activities tfwJ will be undertaken at the Site in the near fuJure. For more technical informarion, please review documenis in
the Information Repository at the Aberdeen Town l{a/1.
INTRODUCTION
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources approved the Final Design Report for the Geigy Site in March 1996. 1l1e Final
Design Report describes the remedial activities that will occur for removing the contaminated soil and treating
groundwater at the Site. Contaminated soil will be excavated and sent to approved off-site disposal facilities.
The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil, then graded and seeded to prevent erosion.
Groundwater will be extracted and.treated using Jctivated carbon. Treated groundw~ter will be discharged
at the Site through infiltration galleries. ·
SITE HISTORY
The Geigy Site is located one-half mile east of
Aberdeen on N.C. 211 in Moore County, N.C. The
two-acre facility property is bordered by N.C. 211
to the north, the Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad to
the south and private property to the east and west.
The facility contains partial concrete foundations
from two former warehouses, a small office
building, a concrete tank pad, empty storage tanks
and a decontamination pad.
From 1948 to 1967, the facility was used by various
companies /10 blend and produce crop protection
products. From 1968 to 1989, the facility was used
for retail sales and distribution of agricultural
produ<'.'ts. Products distributed and sold at the
facility were used for many years to protect and
fertilize tobacco, cotton and other crops in North
Carolina and throughout the Southeast.
1n I 989 the Site was closed and EPA named it to
the Superfund National Priorities List. Also in
1989, Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation
and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
removed 517 cubic yards of soil and debris. From
1990-95 activity at the Site. included numerous
studies and removal of an additional 1,764 cubic
yards of soil.
1n 1993, Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation
and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
entered into a Consent Decree with EPA in which
they agreed to clean up the remaining impacted soil
and groundwater at the fonner blending facility Site.
APRIL 17, 1996
AVAILABILITY SESSION
TIME 2:00 -6:00 pm
PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 -9:00 pm
lVHERE: ABERDEEN FIRE
STATION
SUMMARY OF REME.TION
Schedule of planned activities:
May 1996 Remedial action contractor will
be selected.
August 1996 Remedial action scheduled to
begin
October 1996 Soil remediation scheduled to
be completed.
November 1996 Groundwater treatment system
will be installed.
December 1996 Start-up of treatment system.
All construction work is scheduled to be completed
before the end of 1996. Extraction and treatment of
contaminated groundwater will begin once the
construction io complete. EPA must approve the
contractor and the construction plans before work
can begin.
Soil
Demolition debris and fill material, approximately
1,500 cubic yards, will be sent to a Subtitle D
land fill. Excavated soil that is considered as
hazardous waste by characteristic will be sent to an
off-site incinerator for treatment. Excavated soil
that is not classified as a hazardous waste will be
sent to a Subtitle C landfill. The total volume of
soils to be excav'ated is approximately 3,000 cubic
yards.
The soil "jll be removed from the facility site area
and from a small piece of partially wooded property
across fylighway 211 from the facility Site, belonging
to the;'Bethesda Cemetery Association. (See Figure
1.) The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean
soil and then replanted with native vegetation.
Groundwater
The groundwater remediation will include
construction of a 20 gallon per minute groundwater
treatment facility, consisting of a pre-fabricated
building, equalization tank, transfer .. pumps,
cartridge filters, carbon adsorption canisters and a
2
monitoring station.e companies will install at the·
Site an infiltration gallery consisting of three parallel
trenches for receiving treated groundwater, which
will be recharged into the aquifer. (See Figure 2.)
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Health and Natural Resources has issued a discharge
permit for the infiltration gallery. The groundwater
treatment facility is expected to operate for a
number of years.
REMEDIAL ACTION
The Remedial Action are those activities to be
performed to clean-up the Site. They include:
•
General
Mobilize contractor's equipment and set up
temporary office facilities at the Site and prepare
access roads.
Furnish on-site workers all health and safety
equipment and decontamination apparatus
Put in place control systems for erosion, fugitive
dust and air monitoring. ,
• Prepare the Site by clearing vegetation from
excavation areas, surveying the excavation lines,
and constructing a new access gate.
Coordinate construction activities with the
Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
Restore the site and roads upon completion of
construction and remove temporary facilities.
Soil
Remove existing Site foundations and structures
to a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. The volume of
this material to be removed is approximately
1,500 cubic yards. ·
Excavate the top foot of soil within the
excavation boundaries. Excavated soil that is
\
considered to be a chara.iitic hazardous
waste will be sent to an approved . off-site
treatment facility. Excavated soil that is not a
hazardous waste will be sent to a RCRA
· Subtitle C landfill. The total volume of soils to
be excavated is approximately 3,000 cubic
yards. Confirmation sampling will be conducted
to verLfy that excavation is complete.
Backfill the excavated areas with clean soil. Re-
vegetate the excavated areas with native
vegetation.
Groundwater
Install five piezometers, four monitoring wells,
and four new extraction wells. Install extraction
pumps and well head equipment to the four new
and one existing extraction wells. Install piping
from the well heads to the treatment building.
Construct a 20 gallon per minute groundwater
treatment facility consisting of a pre-fabricated
building, equalization tank, transfer pumps,
cartridge filters, carbon adsorption canisters,
and a monitoring station. (See Figure 2.)
Install an infiltration gallery consisting of three
parallel trenches for rece1v1ng treated
groundwater to recharge the aquifer. 1l1is
system is designed to operate in a similar
manner as the drain field for a septic tank
system. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources has
issued/a discharge permit for the infiltration
gallery .
. ,
I
Operate and maintain the groundwater
treatment system, including periodic monitoring.
J
For additiona.ormation:
EPA Regional Office 1-800-435-9233
Bernie Hayes, Project Manager (ext. 2048)
Diane Barrett, Community Relations
(ext. 2073)
Geigy Site Infoline 1-800-424-2447
Laura Tew, Olin Corporation
Mary Ann Gillis, Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Liz Simon, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
Documents developed during the Superfund
process are available for public review in the
Administrative Record files located in the:
Aberdeen Town Hall
ll5 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, N.C. 28315
Phone: (910) 944-lllS ·
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE EXCAVATION BOUNDARY
D CONCRETE SLABS/FILL
x--x EXISTING FENCING TO BE REMOVED
NORTH
•
FIGURE 1
SOIL REMOVAL AND EXCAVATION AREA:
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE·
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
ill.Elill
EXISTING EXTRACTION WELL (PW-1 S)
PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL (PW-2S, PW-2D,
PW-3S, AND PW-4S)
-rENCE
DIRECTION OF EXTRACTED GROUNDWATER FLOW
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD TEMPORARY FACILITY AREA
INFILTRATION GALLERY
FIGURE 2
NORTH
i
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMEN
SYSTEM LAYOUT
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
!PA Facts ~bout
Excavation
What is excavation'!
Excavation is the removal of contaminated
material from a hazardous waste site using heavy
construction equipment. This equipment is the
same type of equipment that might be seen at road
building projects such as backhoes, bulldozers, and
front loaders. On certain sites, specially designed
equipment may be used to prevent the spread of
contaminated waste.
How does excavation work'!
The first step in excavation involves the sampling of the
contaminated area. Typically a grid is laid out on the
ground so that sampling locations can be identified.
Drilling equipment is used to take samples of the soil
and groundwater at each location identified by the grid.
Samples are taken at several different depths in the saine
location so that a vertical, as well as horizontal, map of
the contamination can be pieced together. Special
sensing equipment can be used to identify the nature of
contamination on, sites that are suspected of holding
wastes in metal drums. Historical records such as
photographs, eye witness accounts from past employees,
and the contamination's effects on vegetation can also be
us~ to pinfpint the area to be excavated.
Once the area of contamination is fully mapped, the
actual rfmoval of material can begin. Excavation is
accomplished by digging up the contaminated materials
and loading them onto trucks for hauling. If on-site
remediation of "cleanup" treatment is used, the excavated
waste may be taken to a staging area for treatment such
as soil washing. The soil is ·then returned to its original
location for use as backfill. If off-site treatment is
required, the trucks will be properly covered and marked.
The trucks will then haul the soil to the treatment
location. After the soil is cleaned, ii may be returned to
the site to be used as backfill.
In cases where hazardous wastes have been buried in the
ground, it may be necessary to remove a layer of soil
prior to excavating the waste. This layer, called
overburden, is removed and set aside in a clean area to
await replacement to its original location.
June 1992
Soil testing is accomplished in the walls and bottom of
the excavated area to ensure that all contaminated soil
has been removed. Large volumes of soil next to the
waste area may have been contaminated by leaching.
Leaching occurs when rain, surface or groundwater
flowing through the soil carries some of the
contaminants away from the original source and into
neighboring areas. Excavation proceeds until the
cleanup goals arc met. The concentration of waste
materials in surrounding areas should no longer
represent a threat to human health, wildlife and natural
habitats, or groundwater supplies.
In some cases, the leaching process may have carried the
contaminants vertically downward into an aquifer. An
aquifer is an underground rock and soil formation that
is capable of holding large amount~ of water. To carry
out excavation in areas where the contaminants has
entered the aquifer, it may br necessary to install a
vertical barrier around ihe excavation site (see Figure 1 ).
The water in the site area is then pumped out so that
. the soil can be more easily removed. The water that is
removed from the site will probably need to be treated
before it can be returned to the soil or discharged to a
sewage treatment plant. The vertical barrier will be
removed once the site is backfilled, to allow the aquifer
to return to its original state.
Excavation of hazardous wastes or contaminated
materials must be carefully planned. This planning will
include operations to mm1m1ze the spread of
contamination to clean areas of the site. Once
excavation equipment is in a contaminated area, it must
remain there until the work is completed. The
equipment must be thoroughly cleaned and
decontaminated prior to leaving the site.
•
Why do we use excavation'!
With the proper equipment and control devices,
ha,.ardous wastes can be excavated with minimal
exposure of people adjacent to the site. Wastes can be
removed for further treatment .or disposal at an
approved landlill. Excavation can use common
construction equipment and is a widely used and
accepted method of dealing with ha,.ardous wastes.
Finally, excavation is a relatively economical method
compared to other more exotic technologies.
What precautions must be taken during
excavation?
Excavation and removal of hazardous wastes followed
by land disposal or treatment arc common methods
often used at re.mediation sites. There arc no absolute
limitations on the types of wastes which can be
excavated and removed. However, worker health and
safety weigh heavily in the decision to excavate
explosive, reactive, or highly toxic waste material.
Excavation of sites that contain. volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) require special considerations.
Organic compounds are those that contain carbon and
are usually associated with life processes. Volatile
compounds arc those that tend to vaporize and mix
with the air if they are heated or disturbed in any way.
A common example is the strong odor of gasoline that
you smell when 11lling the tank of your car. A foam
· may be sprayed on the area to be excavated to keep
such vapors in the soil. This prevents the VOCs from
entering the air and resulting in the exposure of
workers and nearby individuals to contaminated air.
Other mcth9ds of vapor suppression involve the use of
tarps or cdiistruction of enclosures around the site.
Grading' and spreading of excavated sites must be
accol\'Plished once the excavation operations arc
complete. If the hazardous m_atcrials were removed
from the soil on-site, the excavated soil can be returned
to its original location. Sites where the contaminated
soil has been taken to an approved landfill for disposal
may be backfilled using clean soil from another site,
usually called a borrow pit. Once the backfill
operation is complete, the site must be graded and
seeded to prevent erosion and to restore the site for
future use.
•
What is the purpose of surface grading and
revegetation?
Surface grading, when properly designed and
performed, can be an economical method of controlling
erosion and diverting rainwater run-off. The surface
over the excavation site is constructed in such as way
as to allow rain to quickly flow away instead of soaking
in, while preventing the erosion of the backfilled
material. This grading is very important to the stability
of the site and promotes the establishment of
vegetation.
Revcgetation stabilizes the surface of the site and
decreases erosion of the backfill material by rainwater
as well as wind. It also contributes to the development
of a naturally fertile and stable surface environment.
Plants and cover crops can be used to upgrade the
appearance of former disposal sites that arc being
considered for various re-use options.
F"tgUrc 2: Equipment Commonly Used In Excavalion
For more information about Excavation, please
contact EPA at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program
Community Relations Coordinat6r
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Tbc information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Supcrfund Innovative Technology Evaluation, a publication of the U.S. Environmcnlal
Protection Agency, November 1990:
SITE HISTORY • March 1996
Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
Site Description
The Geigy Site is located one-half mile east of Aberdeen on N.C.211 in Moore County, N.C.
The two-acre facrlity property is bordered by N.C. 211 to-the north, the Aberdeen and
Rockfish Railroad to the south and private property to the east and west. The facility contains
partial concrete foundations from two former warehouses, a small office building, a concrete
tank pad, empty storage tanks and a decontamination pad. . •,
From 1948 to 1967, the facility was used by ·various companies to blend and produce crop
protection products. From 1968 to 1989, the facility was used for retail sales and distribution
for agricultural products. Products distributed and sold at_ :he facility were used for many
years to protect and fertilize tobacco, cotton and other crops in North Carolina an_d ·
throughout the Southeast.
Si(e History
1989
1990
1991
J 1992
I
1993
1993-94
Site is closed. EPA names the· Geigy Chemical Corporation Site to the National .. '
Superfund Priorities List. Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation and
'' . Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation remove 1.4 million pounds of soil
and debris.
EPA enters into an Administrative Order of Consent with Olin Corporation,
Ciba-Geigy Corporation and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation to
conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study at the facility.
Companies conduct a second removal of soil from the facility --about 4 million
pounds --significantly reducing levels of pesticide-related chemical compounds
in the soil.
EPA issues a Record of Decision, which is a general outline for a plan to clean
up the remaining impacted soil and groundwater at the former blending facility.
Companies enter into Consent Decree with EPA stating they agree to perform
the remedies described in the Record of Decision.
Companies perform detailed scientific and engineering studies at the facility
property and design cleanup plans.
I
2
• •
1995 Companies undertake extensive sampling of groundwater west of the facility.
The sampling is to determine the physical nature of the groundwater flow and
test for 21 pesticide-related chemical compounds.
1996 In March EPA approves Geigy facility site remediation plan. Remediation
is scheduled to begin in August, with soil remediation completed by
October. The groundwater treatment system will be installed by
November. Start-up of the treatment system is scheduled for December.
All construction work is scheduled to be completed before the end of 1996.
In March, EPA also approves Data Summary Report for downgradient study
, . _,31:ea. Discussions begin regarding additio~al response actions based on the
, results of the Data Summary Report.
For Additional Information:
EPA Regional Office 1-800-435-9233
Bernie Hayes, Project Manager (ext 2048)
Diane Barrett, Community Relations (ex.2073)
Geigy Site Infoline 1-800-424-2447
j/
Laura Tew, Olin Corporation
Mary Ann Gillis, Ciba-Geigy Corporation .
.Liz _Simon, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
• GEIGY CHEMICAW::ORPORATION
§nPERFUND SITE
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina ,.
FACT SHEET: DOWNGRADIENT STUDIES
March, 1996
Introduction
In 1995, Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Kaiser Alwninum & Chemical Corporation
agreed to prepare a Data Summary Report about the concentrations of pesticide-related chemical
compounds in the aquifers downgradient from the Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site.
The Site is one-half mile east of Aberdeen adjacent to N.C. 21-1. The sampling was· to determine the
physical nature of the groundwater flow and test for 21 pesti~ide related chemical compounds. The
need for this study was determined based on earlier groundwater investigations ·which· indica:ed that
the full extent of groundwater contamination had not been determined.
From May to November of 1995 the companies undertook extensive sampling of groundwater west
of the facility Site. The boundaries for the sampled area were: the site, McFarland's Branch on the
south, the Aberdeen & Rocldish Railroad and Trough Branch on the north and Ray's Mill on the
west.
Concurrently with gathering information for the Data Summary Report, the companies diligently
surveyed for the use of private wells in the study area. They also tested the water of Municipal
Well #2, the only operational municipal well adjacent to the study area. The results of that private
welJ survey and the municipal well testing were given to EPA and the State by the companies.
Results
In March, EPA and the State of North Carolina accepted the results of the Data Summary Report.
The report and the concurrent survey and testing that the companies did confirm:
Gr~pndwater flow in the area is very complex. There are multiple aquifers, each flowing in
vaefying directions. However, the direction of flow in these aquifers is generally to the west.
Streams in the area are serving as natural boundaries to the flow of groundwater, restricting the
)
_t migration of contaminated groundwater.
Levels of pesticide-related chemicals detected in the study area arc elevated to the point that the
aquifers in the study area should not be used for drinking water supply without treatment.
Lindane is present at concentrations above the state drinking water standard.
1l1e water being consumed by residenl, in the study area, however, is well within all State
drinking water standards, including those for lindanc. The water supplied by the Town of
Aberdeen Public Water System meets all drinking water standards.
I
The test of Municipal ~l #2 confirmed earlier test results as re.-ed by the North Carolina
Department of Enviroaital Health and Natural Resources tha•e water is meeting state
drinking water standards. ·
The Data Summary Report can be reviewed at the Information Repository located in the Aberdeen
Town Hall.
For additional information:
EPA Regional Office 1-800-435-9233
Bernie Hayes, Project Manager (exL 2048)
Diane Barrett, Community Relations (ex. 2073)
Geigy Site lnfoline 1-800-424-2447.
I
.,' I
Laura Tew, Olin Corporation
Mary Ann Gillis, Ciba-Geigy Corporation .
Liz Simon, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical C~rpor~tion
" f
PA Facts bout
Pump-and-Treat
What is the pump-and-treat method?
The pump-and-treat method is the most common
remedial (cleanup) technology used in purifying
contaminated aquifers. These aquifers are natural,
underground rock formations that arc capable of
storing large amounts of water. The pump-and-treat
process· usually includes three steps. First, the
contaminated. groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer through recovery wells.' Second, the
recovered water is treated. Finally, the treated water
is discharged and the contaminants are disposed of.
Groundwater collection systems arc designed to
capture contaminated groundwater by removing ii
from the aquifer. These collection systems arc also
used to prevent the spread of contamination. As the
contaminated groundwater is recovered from the
aquifer, the contamination is prevented from moving
deeper into the aquifer or spreading into surrounding
clean aquifers.
Why not simply treat water at the well?
Another form .of the. pump-and-treat process, called well-
head treatment, is sometimes used when drinking water
wells are contaminated. In some cases, it has been found
to be cost-effective to· continue to recover contaminated
groundwater, but to remove the contaminants heforc
delivering ii tfuscrs.
There are ,everal variations of this approach. At some
sites, the )ourcc of the contamination is known and an
auxiliary recovery system has been installed. This auxiliary
system is intended to cleanup the contaminated aquifer or
may operate simply 10 prevent further spread of
contamination. The contaminated water is drawn away
from the drinking water well and redirected. In other
cases, the source of contamination is nOI known and the
well-head treatment system may be the only practical
allcrnative.
The system may use a variety of tools 10 move and redirect
groundwater, including ex/raction wells, injection wells, drain
intercepts, and barrier walls. Extraction wells arc designed
10 pump groundwater out of the aquifer and w redirect the
remaining water. Injection wells use the opposite method;
pumping water into an aquifer to change its flow pa11crns.
June 1992
Drain intercepts arc surface features that are designed 10
capture and redirect the groundwater flow. Barrier walls
may be installed in the cleanup area to create physical
barriers 10 groundwater flow.
Why do we want to pump groundwater?
TI1c treatment of a conta.minatcd aquifer, or "aquifer
restoration", is not the only goal of groundwater extraction
systems. Another goal is the control of contaminant
migration (movement). Groundwater pumping techniques
involve the active management of groundwater to contain
or remove contaminants. These techniques can also be
used lo adjust the groundwater level so that no migration
will occur.
The area of contaminated groundwater associated with a
site is called a plu·mc, and is the groundwater equivalent of
smoke from a fire. A water barrier may be constructed by
causing the water in an aqi.Iifcr to move in such a way as to
prevent the plume from moving toward a drinking well.
Pump-and-treat technology is used lo construct these water
barriers to prevent off-site migration of contaminants. In
most aquifer restoration systems, piume containment is
listed as secondary goal. II is usually necessary to establish
control of contaminant migration if the aquifer is 10 be
cleaned up. Exceptions to this general rule are sites where
the aquifer can restore itself naturally by discharging to
surface water hodics or through chemical or biological
degradation (breaking down) of the groundwater
contaminants to render them harmless 10 human heallh and
the environment.
Control of groundwater contamination involves one or
more of four options: (l) containment of a plume; (2)
removal of a plume after the source of contamination has
been removed; (3) reduction of groundwater flow 10
prevent clean groundwater from nowing through a source
of contamination, or 10 prevent contaminated groundwater
from moving toward ,i drinking well; and (4) prevention of
a plume by lowering the .water table beneath a source of
contamination.
Why do we use pump-and-treat?
Groundwater collection and treatment has proven effective
over a wide range of site conditions and contaminants.
Well collection systems can remove groundwater from the
great depths. In addition, the costs associated with this
technology arc generally moderate.
What pumping systems are usJit
Almost all remediation of groundwater at contaminated
sites is based on groundwater extraction by wells or drains.
This process is usually accompanied by treatment of the
extracted water prior to disposal.
Well collection systems consist of a line or circle of wells
placed around the contaminated area or in the path of the
contaminated groundwater flow. This type of well system
limits movement of the plume and collects groundwater by
pumping it from the ground faster than it can be replaced
from nearby areas. This ensures that the flow of
groundwater is toward the well area and not away. The
groundwater is pumped to the surface where it is treated to
remove the contaminants.
Drain collection systems consist of horizontal pipes with
holes. along the length that arc placed in the ground below
the groundwater level. These drains arc placed around the
contaminated area or in the path of the contamination
plume. This system uses gravity flow to collect
groundwater, or can be pumped to accelerate the flow.
What methods are used to clean up groundwater?
Once the contaminated water is collected, it can be treated
by using one or a combination of the following proven
methods:
Biological Treatment -This treatment is similar to that
used in normal sewage treatment plants using beneficial
microorganisms such as bacteria and protozoa to break
down contaminants into non-hazardous substances.
Carbon Adsorption -This treatment involves passing the
contaminated water through carbon filters. Contaminants
are adsorbed (cling to the surface) of the carbon particles
and arc removed from the water. This is the same water
treatment uscp by most household aquariums. t
Air Stripping -This treatment uses an air stream that
moves acnoss the surface of the water to capture and
remove X'OCs from the water.
Ultraviolet/Oxidation -This treatment uses high intensity
light and chemicals (ozone and peroxide) to destroy
contaminants.
What site conditions hamper pump-and-treat
technology?
Several physical features of a hazardous waste site have
been identified that can interfere with the cleanup process
of pump-and-treat,. One is that the contaminants tend
to adhere (stick to) the surface of the materials that make
up the aquifer. If this adsorption is neglected in the
planning stages, the effectiveness of the pump-and-treat
method will be over-estimated. Second, variations in the
size and pore space of the aquifer can also reduce the
effectiveness of this technology by making it difficult to
control the flow of groundwater. Third, if the contaminant
is still present, it can continue to spread hazardous waste
into the aquifer, perhaps faster than the pump-and-treat
method can remove it. Finally, if the contaminant is a
petroleum based product, it will not dissolve in the water
and will not be removed from the aquifer when the water
is pumped out.
For more information about Pump-and-Treat, you
may contact EPA at the following address:
U.S. Em•ironmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program
Communi1y Relations Coordinator
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
111c information contained in this fact sheet was compiled from Basis of Pump and Trc;itmcnt: Groundwater Remediation Tcchnology1 a publication of
the tJ.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
\ •
SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1
STE
DISCOVERY
7
)----{ LON<>-TEAII
CLEANUP
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IN 1980, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
-SUPERFUND", TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR •:.,
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT(SARA), THE ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO RESPOND TO
RaEASES OR THREATENED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR
waFARE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE 1982 SUPERFUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP), REVISED IN 1988,
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBIT PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
OF HOW A LONG-TERM SUPERFUND RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SITE IS DISCOVERED, IT IS INVESTIGATED, USUALLY BY
THE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE THEN RANKS THE SITE
USING THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS), WHICH TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT:
-POSSIBLE HEAL TH RISKS TO THE HUMAN POPULATION
·POTENTIAL HAZARDS (E.G.,FROM DIRECT CONTACT,
INHALATION, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SITE
•POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO POLLUTE
OR OTHERWISE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE PROBLEMS AT A SITE ARE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE
STATE AND THE EPA, THE SITE WILL BE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL .
PRIORITIES LIST (NPL), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES WHICH ARE alGIBLE FOR FEDERAL SUPERFUND
MONEY.
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT
TO PUBLIC HEAL TH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AT ANY TIME, EPA MAY
CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
3. NEXT, EPA USUAU Y CONDUCTS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(RI). THE RI ASSESSES HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONT AMIN ANTS ARE PRESENT, AND
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS
PART OF THE RI, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS 'AT THE SITE
AND THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SITE.
4. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE RI, EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS),
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, AND COST. THE FINDINGS ARE
PRESENTED IN A DRAFT FS REPORT.
5. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT FS REPORT, EPA
HOLDS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES. CITIZENS
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS EITHER ORAU Y AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO EPA.
6. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. EPA
RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS IN THE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WHICH
IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC CLEANUP PLAN.
7. ONCE THE DESIGN IS FINISHED. THE ACTUAL REMEDIAL
ACTIVITIES OR CLEANUP OF THE SITE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WITH EVERY SITE. iN GENERAL. AN RI/FS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP PLAN MAY TAKE
SIX MONTHS AND IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDY· THE ACTUAL
CONT Al NM ENT OR REMOVAL OF THE WASTE • MAY TAKE FROM
ONE TO THREE YEARS. IF GROUNDWATER IS INVOLVED, THE
FINAL CLEANUP MAY TAKE MANY MORE YEARS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED AND TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROUGHOUT THE SUPERFUND PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EPA-S COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES.
•
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS AND GEIGY CHEMICAL
SUPERFUND SITES
Aberdeen, North Carolina
INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA
September 7, 1995
Aberdeen Fire Department Station
800 Holly Street
Aberdeen, North Carolina
AGENDA:
Welcome, Introduction,
Purpose, Community Relations
Superfund Update
Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Operable Units 1 & 4 -Soil
Operable Units 3 & 5 -Groundwater
Geigy Chemical Site
Diane Barrett
Community Relations Specialist
John Mann
Kay Crane
Remedial Project Manager
Julie Keller
Remedial Project Manager
· Bernie Hayes
Remedial Project Manager
Question and Answer Period
Closing Remarks/ Adjournment
• NOTES •
~
_r,
.:-.../~· -; ,..__,
/ .
·-✓ t:
Yflti
$Z ~-•. ,,,-"'"""'if,;,;..,,, :,.
"' ... ~ ....... -;;~\.Ji,;. .. ~,,». ~,l,, .~'• ..... ~· ~-:~{ >
• SUPERFUND FAGeSHEET UPDATE
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION ·s·ITE . ' ...
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Caroljna
September 1995
This fact sheet is being provided as an informational ~col and is not tO be considered as a technical document.
BRIEF SITE HISTORY
The Geigy Chemical Corporation Site is approximately two
acres in size and is located just east of the city of
Aberdeen, North Carolina, on Route 211. The Geigy Site
is owned by the Aberdeen and Rocldish Railroad who
leased the property to various companies from 1947 to
1989. CIBA-Geigy operated a pesticide formulation facility
at the Site from February 1948 until December 1955.
Geigy's activities involved the blending of technical grade
pesticides such as DDT, toxaphene and
benzenehexachloride (BHC) with inert material to form a
usable product. This product was repackaged for sale to
various markets. ·
Olin Chemicals also operated a pesticide formulation,
packaging and distribution facility occupying the Site from
1956 to 1967. Subsequent operators were primarily
distributors who rebagged and distributed prepackaged or
bulk agricultural chemicals. The last occupant of the Site
abandoned the property in March 1989.
The State of North Carolina conducted a preliminary
assessment of the Site in February 1987. EPA conducted
a site inspection in March 1988 to obtain more information.
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL)
in September 1989.
THE RECORD OF DECISION
The Record of Decision signed in August 1992 stated that
the top foot of.contaminated soil exceeding clean up levels
would be excavated and sent to a RC RA-approved landfill.
The building foundations would be removed and placed in
the municipal landfill. The groundwater would be extracted
and treated on-site and discharged into the Moore County
treatment works or sent through an on-site filtration system
and released back into the ground.
CURRENT STATUS
EPA has been working with Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy
Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
(the Potentially Respon_sible Parties (PRPs)) to remediate
the Site. The PRPs have undertaken the lead in
conducting the work required as stated in the Record of
Decision.
The remediation will be performed as part of an
Administrative Order of Consent agreed upon and signed
by EPA and the PRPs in the Spring of 1993. Under this
agreement, the PRPs will undertake the remediation and
reimburse EPA for all of its past response costs, and all
future response and oversight costs at the Geigy Site.
The PRPs have nearly completed extensive soil and
groundwater sampling at and around the property. The
studies and proposed remediation design related directly to
the Site. are in the final stages of completion. Once the
remedial design has been approved by EPA, the soil
requiring excavation will be removed and construction of
the system to pump and treat the groundwater will be built.
With EPA approvals and contractor selection, remediation
of the Site should being by June 1996. Removal of soil at
the Site will take approximately 6 - 8 weeks. The ground-
water extraction and treatment portion of the remedy will
also begin at that time.
Due to finding contamination in another aquifer beneath the
Site, additional groundwater sampling has been occurring
west of the Site during the past several months to
determine the full extent of the contamination. This
sampling activity should be finalized soon and a report of
the results provided to EPA during the first quarter of 1996.
None of the residents in the sampled area are currently
drinking groundwater contaminated above drinking water
standards. Also, the area sampled is served by the
Aberdeen municipal water system.
• NEED MORE INFORMATION?
Please contact either:
Bernie Hayes, Remedial Project Manager, or
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Specialist
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GE 30365
Phone: [phone]
• REPOSITORY LOCATION
' Documents developed during the Superfund process are
located in the information 'repository located at: . . ' . -'
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Phone: [phone]
• slERFUND UPDATE
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS SITE Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
. -~·'
September 1995 This document Is not to be considered as a technical document but has been prepared In an effort to provide the public with Information concerning the Site and on-going activities.
INTRODUCTION
Below is a very brief update of activities occurring at this Site. For easier reference, the following information has been divided into Soil and Groundwater topics.
SOIL REMEDIAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES
Operable Units #1 &4
• Project Coordinator: de maximus, Inc. • Supervising Contractor: Dames & Moore Corp. • EPA Project Coordinator: Kay Crane, 1-800-435-9233 ext. 2079 • Areas Addressed: Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites, and Fairway Six areas including the stockpile at Fairway Six
• Selected Remedy: excavation of contaminated soil and treatment by thermal desorption.
Status: Characterization of contaminated soils is complete. A summary of all data gathered is documented in the 30% Remedial Design -Data Acquisition Report dated May 1995. Treatability studies (TS) have demonstrated that pesticide contaminated soils can be effectively remediated utilizing the thermal desorption technology. The TS report is dated January 12, 1995. Work has begun on the 60% remedial design and is scheduled for completion in December 1995. Contractor procurement is scheduled to begin in December 1995 and contract award in August 1996. Mobilization, set-up and construction of Remedial Design at the Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites, and Fairway Six areas is projected to begin in January 1997.
Operable Unit #1
Project Coordinator: Ciba-Geigy Corporation Supervising Contractor: Rust Environment & Infrastructure EPA Project Coordinator: Kay Crane, 1-800-435-9233 ext. 2079 Areas Addressed: Mciver Dump and Route 211
Status: Characterization of contaminated soils is complete. A summary of all data gathered is documented in the 30% Remedial Design -Data Acquisition Report dated March 1995. Treatability studies (TS) have demonstrated that pesticide contaminated soils can be effectively remediated utilizing the thermal desorption technology. The TS report is dated April 1995. Work has begun on the 60% remedial design and is scheduled for completion in November 1995. Contractor procurement is scheduled to begin in November 1995 and contract award in April 1996. Mobilization, set-up and construction of the Remedial Design at the Mciver Dump and Route 211 areas is projected to begin in September 1996.
.GROUNDW(i.TER ACTIVITIES •
Operable Unit #3 -Remedial Design
Project Coordinator: de maximus, Inc.
• Supervising Contractor: .Dames & Moore Corp.
EPA Project Coordinator: Julie Keller, 1-800-435-9233 ext. 2029
Areas Addressed: Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites, and Fairway·Six
Selected Remedy: Groundwater extraction, treatment on site by a series of technologies.
Status: Remedial Design field activities on-going. 30% design document due for submittal to EPA in March 1996.
Remedial Action schedule to begin mid-year 1_997. ·
Operable Unit #5 -Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study
• Project Coordinator: Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Supervising Contractor: Rust Environment & Infrastructure
• EPA Project Coordinator: Julie Keller, 1-800-435-9233 ext. 2029
Areas Addressed: Mciver Dump and Route 211
Status: Groundwater investigation initiated October 1994. Remedial Investigation including the Baseline Risk
Assessment near completion. Draft Feasibility Study due for submittal to EPA in late 1995. Proposed plan
public meeting middle of 1996; expect Record of Decision Fall 1996. ·
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
Please contact the corresponding project manager
assigned to each Operable Unit for specifics about
those activities.
Kay Crane -Operable Units 1 & 4 -Soil
1-800-435-9233 ext. 2079
Julie Keller -Operable Unit #3 & 5 ; Groundwater
1-800-435-9233 ext. 2029
-Diane Barrett, Community Relations
1-800-435-9233 ext. 2073
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Contact Diane Barrett at the above address if you
would like to be added to the Site's mailing list or
notify us of an address change or wish to be deleted.
· INFORMATION REPOSITORY
We encourage the public to . review· the various
documents developed during the Superfund process to
obtain a broader understanding of activities at the Site.
Because there are five different Areas within the "Site",
and several Operable Units, documents in the
repository are set up in notebooks for each Operable
Unit.
~ ~
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Phone: [phone]
I
- I I -
~Slates
PJIIP'onmont..,I Prolection
A~oncy.
Rogioo IV •
qtfico of Public Affairs
3"5 Coor1land SL NE
Atlanta. Goocgia 30365
Environmental News
EPA CLEANUP OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
IN THE SOUTHEAST THREATENED
AUGUST 1995
[phone]
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reforms
that. would make Superfund faster, fairer and more efficient· to
provide better health protection to the one in four Americans who
live near hazardous waste sites. The President's budget· request --
$7. 4 billion in fiscal year 1996 for The.Environmental Protection
Agency, which begins on October 1, · 1995, is both fiscally
responsible and protective of human health, and the environment and
· continues our reform efforts. But pending Congressional proposals
threaten EPA's efforts to protect public health and the environment
at numerous hazardous waste sites in the southeast and around the
country.
The House Appropriations bill cuts funding of hazardous wast~
site'cleanup by $560 million, including a $115 million in Superfund
enforcement --cuts that would slow the pace of cleanup and weaken
efforts to enforce the cleanup law. Congressional proposals for
reauthorization. of the Superfund program also significantly weake.n
current protections to public health under the law. The trucing
authority fqr Superfund expires on December 31, 1995. Taken
together, the budget cuts and the proposed changes to the Superfund
law would: ·
• Slow or halt cleanups in some communities. The
President's budget would allow EPA to continue performing
and overseeing cleanups. In contrast, the House
Appropriations and Superfund reauthorization proposals
would slow, halt, and even compromise tho·se cleanups.
Approximately 52 cleanup projects in the southeast alone
are threatened by the House .budget proposal. ·rn the event
that .Congress does not pass a workable reauthorization
bill, all cleanups under the Superfund program will come
to a halt at the end of this calendar year-
• Makes taxpayers pay for pollution, rather than polluters.
Congressional Superfund reauthorization proposals would
repeal polluters' liability for disposal of hazardous
materials that occurred before 1980 or 1987. Th.is would
place the responsibility for as much as $1.6 billion of
cleanups on the shoulders of taxpayers instead of
polluters.
• •
EPA's ability to ensure that all citizens are equally
protected from the risks posed by contamination of Superfund sites will be severely curtailed because the
House Appropriations bill reduces the Superfund enforcement budget by 60%. Last year, $200 million was
recovered from polluters, money that was returned to the
public Treasury on behalf of the American people.
• Impact State hazardous waste site cleanup programs. The President's budget request strengthens states' cleanup
programs by doubling funding to develop state program
capabilities. However, the Bouse Appropriations 36% cut
in hazardous waste cleanup funding will leave states unable to clean up many sites within their boundaries, deJay cleanups, and make it difficult to promptly return
contaminated property to productive economic use·. The reauthorization proposals do not establish funding for .
state run hazardous waste site cleanup programs, or ensure
national consistency of hazardous waste site cleanup standards, which may lead to less protective standards and
greater risk to public health.
• Stall efforts to protect communities' health. Pending Congr€ssional proposals for Superfund reauthorization may
result in less protective cleanups over the long term by
completely blocking the Administrations's goal of treating
the worst sites first. Some of the reauthorization ·
proposals would use c-ost when selecting site remedies to
override other important considerations such as public health protection and community acceptance. This approach could burden future generations with the cost
of cleanups by leaving waste in place, which could lead
to the spread of contamination and more expensive cleanups in the future. The Administration balances cost
with other important factors, such as risk to public health, community acceptance, long term health protection
and reliability of the remedy.
• •
Riders to House Appropriations Proposal:
Impact on Health, Safety and tile Environment
In addition to the 34% cuts in EPA's funding for protection of health, safety and the
environment, the House Appropriations bill also included a series of 18 rid= that severdy
change the nation's environmental and health protections by: I) leaving health protections
intact, but preventing e;,forcement of those protections, creating loopholes for polluta-s, 2)
blocking health protections in existiog laws, 3) exempting states or particular industries from
obeying existing protections, and 4) preventing future actions to protect public health -many
allowed under existing law -from taking place, or even from being considered as options.
Below is a list of the riders as they appear in the bill:
1} Halts action or enforcement of cleaner Great Lakes standards: This rider prohibits
carrying out or enforcing water qwility standards specifically created for the Great Lakes, which
contain 95 percent of all the fresh water.in the world and supply drinking water for 23 million
Americans.
2) Halts action or enforcement of clean water standards: This rider prohibits carrying out or
enforcing controls on stormwater pollution, paving the way for cmuamination of the rivers,
lakes and streams that serve as sources of drinking _\'{liter.
3) Prohibits enforcement to keep raw sewage off beaches and out of waterways. By limiting
enforcement of pollution controls for combined sewers and sanitary sewers, this rider creates the
possibility of untreated waste overflowing onto beaches, into rivers, and, in some cases, through
city streets, cresting public health hazm"ds thuwiU prevent fishing, swimming, and boating.
4) Prevents euforcement ac_!:ions to stop or correct illegal filling of wetlands -which help
purify other waterways by acting as natural filters -and prevents setting new, common-sense
standards for wetlands remediation, benefitting co=ercia! real estate developers.
5) Eliminates ability to set standards to prevent industrial water pollution (e.g., effluents)
that will result in 15 million pounds oftox:ic pollutants entering our nation's wateiways in 1996
alone, benefitting the pulp and paper industry, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the metal
products and machinery industry.
6) l3locks use of funds to limit urban air pollution through commuter trip reduction, barring
implementation of a provision of the Clean Air Act.
7) Allows.states to adopt unworkable plans for limiting auto emissions, defying the Clean
Air Act requirements and creating a loophole that allows states to ignore auto testing inspections,
among the most cost-clfcctive methods for reducing air emissions.
8) Curtails protection of toxic air pollutants from aJI oil refineries, creating a loophole for a
single industry by blocking public health protection for the 4.5 million Americans who live near
these facilities in states like California, Texas, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
•
813/95
-2-
9) Prohibits gathering of important heruth risk iafonnation about oil and gas releases, particularly potentially harinful releases of chemicals from the oil ruid gM exploration, production and naturai gas industries.
10) Forbids EPA to finalize any proposal for drinking water protections against radon.
11) Forbids EPA to finalize any proposal for drinking water protections against arsenic.
12) Prevents reduction of toxic pollutrutts from hazardol1$ waste faclllties, benefitting the cement kiln industry and other combusten.. Nearly 5 million tons ofhllardous waste are burned each year in the U.S., an amount which could fill enough 6,000-gallon tank truckB to cover the 2,400-rnile distance between Washington, D.C. and Los Angdes.
13) Block5 upgraded pollution controls at ind!vidual hazardous·waste facilities, benditting the_cement J..iln industry and other combusters. Nearly five million tons of~ous waste arc burned each year in 184 incinerators, 171 industrial furnaces -mcluding 34 cement kilns --and "on-site" facilities pennitted for non-ccimmercial use in the U.S.
14) Prevents Federal ability to ensure that states will meet mioimnm clean air standards. This rider would allow states to come up with unworkable plans fur meeting clean air standards and roll back the Clean Air Act guarantee that allows the Federal government to create a workable plan if the state refuses. The rider also penalizes states, citizens and industries who do work together to create viable plans, letting some states off the hook. -15) Limiu citiuns' right to know more about toxic pollution by bloc.king the next phase of expanded infonn11tion to be made public, beaefitting chemical manufacturers who currently do not repon on uses of cliemicals, just their release.
_16) Severely restricts ability to set safe levels for pesticides allowed on food, without setting comprehensive, cbild-prott:etive public health standards, thus benefitting pesticides and chemical manufacturers.
17) Limits ability to approve use of bloengi□eered plants that may serve as safer pesticides, benefitting producers of chemical pesticides. This would roll back the possibility to use some "plant pesticides" that ruive already been approved, and limit the development of others.
18) Blocks FcderaJ enforcement and $hields polluters' illegal conduct by allowing blanket use of state immunity and liability laws. By using these state laws to block Federal enforcement of poUution violations, the rider creates a major loophole that will l>cnelit the full range of ·industries that create pollutioIL
• •
ANNOUNCEM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 office in Atlanta, Georgia
announces a public meeting on the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Superfund Site
and the Geigy Chemical Superfund Site, Aberdeen, North Carolina. The meeting
will be held on September 7, 1995, in the Aberdeen Fire Department station, 800
Holly Street, Aberdeen, from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM. The purpose of this meeting
is to provide the public with an update of on-going activities for Operable Units 1
& 4 (soils) and Operable Units 3 & 5 (groundwater) at the Aberdeen Site, as well
as past and current activities at the Geigy Chemical Site located on Highway 211.
An announcement of this meeting will also appear in the The Pilot and Fayetteville
Observer News newspapers. We encourage all interested citizens to attend this
meeting. ·
For more information, please contact:
Kay Crane, Julie Keller, Bernie Hayes Remedial Project Managers
or, Diane Barrett, Community Relations Specialist
North Superlund Remedial Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone] ext. 2073
------~ ---.---• •·
---· ----------/ ~-----,-,-,E<C~t1fl1))
·--};Y JUL l 5 1992 ·
0L1N coRPoRA+1ct1,r .; j suPERruNDSET~-· : ;· · ·¥:tr
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT ...
CHARLESTON,TENNESSEE ·
-FAX NUMBER: 615/336-4505 OR 948-4505 (within Olin)
• • I •
MESSAG
IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEl\fED, OR ARE NOT LEGIBLE,
PLEASE CALL: --·
THANK YOU.-
• •
Meeting with NCDEHNR Superfund Branch
Regarding the Proposed Plan for the
Geigy Chemical Corporation Site
Raleigh, North Carolina
.April 9, 1992
1/!1 uuvuu~
-------------• •
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COSTS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
ALTERNATIVE 2: Landfilling at USPCI (UT/OK) -$1,700,000
Incineration et Rollins (TX) -$5,200,000
ALTERNATIVE 4: On-Site Thermal Desorption -$3,300,000
ALTERNATIVE 5: On-Site Incineration • $5,300,000
CAPITAL COSTS
Oireci Cap Ital C,o.,;U t1{-~;(,;f1t t~t~_i;v;;,:~~,N~J:,i:l\fi\U1·~~nt~in\ti:~il.
0.11 SAIWLECOLLECTION AND DELIVERY
OJt PERDIEY
o_ U TRE,\ TABILITY S11JDY WORK Pl.AM
lS
DAY
LS
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
tt.300.00 1111. 2 fold l<>Ch I. 15M>; 20 b; .fOOFEI) EX
1180.00 Holol a< IIO/nighl; pauliom •lft_,
'35.000.00 EOll-lr<lffl pre-olrealabll!J. 0.14 TAEATABIUTV TEST AffD REPORT LS US0.000.00 Elll.rnatod lrom p,e...,...1-abll},.
•
1 ~~:~-~-M~~ri<~i,~OB~Opi~{:_~_?' ~-Y~?::':~
1.01 EXCAVATIDNCQNTRI.CTCR
1 .OZ Tl\EATMENT CDf;TAN::TOA
I. I\ UPGAADI;'. AOCESSIBIJTY
UZ INSTALL SITE FACI LITIE6, DECON UIIIITS
1.13 IN&TAll NEW FEIICING
!.1:la REMOVED LD FEI\ICl~Cl
1.14 Q.EARING FDR lREATMENT WIIT @H!'.\J!, iiiif~,µoHlffl'.i~if!~i-3/~J~P
lS
LS
LF
l8
LF
lF
AC
1.18 DEMOLITION Sl'
t .17 DISPOSAL
1.11 TRAHSPORTATIOI!
1.19 DISNl!IA.l
1.19a WASTE CHNIAClfA!ZATION
-1.21 CIVIL WORI(
U2 ~EET PIUNO IISTALU.TJCN
1.23 REMOVE, SEGIIEGATI;. STAGEMATBIIAL
I .24 IDM> MATERIAL FOIi fflEATUEHJ
TON
LS
TON
'48,000.00 B•nd on SECO •leperilnH •• slmla, 11\el. .,.coo.coo Ba Nd' Dfl Cencnle e IUmal• (IJ..25191)
110.00 81 Nd 1:111 leCO ~adence at dmilar d•c.
110,000.00 8,audonSE'COolll)erltnc.atlf.W.rlb1.
11&.00 B■ Nd on JJC •atlraa'ID: .,.45 Mean• 11Gt: 020 550 0700
$1,l)GO.OO M_,. lffl;OZI 101-
19.DS Mrtan■ 111112;0to550 ilOO
f<I00.00 Nullcl• .. .,,at■rial @I 14/mO. la< 100 TDllor,
~■n• 11181:0to 1111170,
lt!l.00 FJB qull!e from Piedmont tadll,.
ss.,50.00 llatedonl ............ oC!lll,450•d 11,000b
oblalftlno -lo■•
8UI Bnod m Ld>ffoollim ... lCWMJ.
D ,._ __ ,equlfod ,., .. _. 1,o-nl
0 Anume■QI r~•.i:t ro, ~tlNtma,t.
D ~a nol ,lqlltrecl lor 08-&lle treatmanl.
0 AccumenoC r.-qul,ec:1 -ort~sia.11.-.enl.
r
0 Nol M40frad.
:SOD Elllaold -■he aop.
I
2.50; E"l:iQlai.dl rta111 llit9 ffllP.
1;100 Buad..,SIM ,apo,1 fa<eoll ,e..,nl.
O.G ,,_...,,.21iO'd60' ...,.,.,,d.
6511 -■lod.,omoilornap.
19 B1•d on , 1 tGNJIDld, Bmo••~anntu •••
pr.111112); oatla ... -•h llllclmon.
zoe Bnad cm I .5 ,_ por Old>lo ,.er.
I
C AIIIUllilt not ,eq"'9d,.
t,200 llaood on EPA •-el.l!,200 e,On ollal
""" O'll --for .. -..... 0
IO
to
SIi
to
t,o.-
so
P.000
110,0ot
1:17.600
'2.030
so
t&,471
17.SW
IV.Bl
f&,HO
ID
ft4,IOO
~ ...
n
ti 0 e i! f'1
,
r:» 0, ,..
"' .., ..,
0, ...
"" C
"'
()
t,' .,
"'
i, fiJ
0 0 ... -..
0
0
"'
1.15 TRANSPORT MATERIAL TO ROLLJNSINCINER
IN PORT AATlfUII. TEXAS
1.19 INSTAU, lolAINrAIJt EIIOSJON CONTROLS
r .30 BORROW Cl EAN ALI.
UI lOAD CLEAN Fill. FOR TA4NSPORT
I..U HAULCL&.N FU. TO sm;:
1.33 BACICALL, COMPACJ Cl~AN ALL
Ut BOMOWTDP sotl
l.>5 HAUL TOP SOIL
..... INSTALL TOPSOIL, FIHE BRAl>E
J.U SEB> A!m FEATII.IZE
IA3 IO'N, Ra.lEOlM. CONTR. H&S, ETC.
1.-H COHiifiUCiJOH OV£ASIGHJ
lc'.~•;tl'tlo\ o~~'Slui~11P!(~l',ij~P!;if~~\1¥iNdl\1\
WAYNDIII., OK OR TOOELE' CO .• llT
1.51 LOADING, TAUISPORTATJON 0DISPOSAL
2.10 TEST 8UANIN8, START-UP
UO THEIIIIALL Y TREAT MA TEIIIM.
UO CONFIIIIIATION IIAMPLlNG OF EXCAVA1101fS
Ul AIIIALJfCAL AND USOR
Z,40 GONARUATIDff SAMPI.INGOFTflEATM~
2.41 ANAI.TYCAI.
.l'.42 LASOFI
IDAD
lS
CV
TON
CY
CY
CY
CV
CV
SY
LS
DAV
OPINION Of PROBABLE COST
114.GOO.O0 Hanrdout ,..,,rial ol $4~oadod ri. IU••n• 181
(OM 711 t270]1 lor 1000 mile■•
flUD0.00 Baed or, GSST •1Umal1t.
SUS C-on, 1-1'2cy. Mt!1n1fDJ22JUOIO)
13.21 Buod an Lo-eotl ,.,to (CWAIJ.
$5.35 l!eMI 19111 (022U8121!Q/; 20-<ylruclr, IOlal.
trip.
15.00 BaNd on LobRct e1Urute fCWM).
ttt.OD Mll•n• t89D; 021218 7D10.
U.13 U-cw 1tuck; 2c,...aJa. ,ound llip: Mea• 1191
, U 21!UI 0560.
118.71 B1.11etf on GSST ■11....._
,0.35 8.aHd on lab•co ecliniafe~
110,61!S UH llor Uem11.41 artd 1.42'.
SS&o.00 • $!ISlh; to hidey plus sioo po, diem
,u ua From USl'CI enrm ... (ut&m ond 4l7lll2I b
c~ned eOlltl o1 S210 lol.d, tran■ (br rlllJ.
and di1p. • #.SO dlsp .... lor 19g'd ,.._.,._
""""'" ""■WiUlntlorueqolied.
LS SS0.000.GO Booed an SECl> o-lenca 01 olalllar ollo■.
TON fSOO.llCI Ba•ch.,V'IVolllaale. lileo FS. T-F.U.
LS l200,1111D.DO B-• SEC0 •-leftenlllnllar ll!ooon~
EA
LS
dloo. ,r/Clb .. G•'9r 1111• pnt,lan •-'"1>ce,
'450.00 TGd~8c<l\le■t.lorpalllci!lo-1!1151112),
lll!J)IIO e-onsa:o._....,coe1..,..,..,,.._
0
I
2,.200
2,170
122
2.NO
l,IIU
1,1113
, ... ,
9,880
I
,o
2,870
0
0
An. llcfpertkJ-(nanlu~.
BaNd'on 2 IH'Nl&nd 8-w.li 111',Pllt of tap 11:11.
Elli-lnlm ■n.--
IIH<HI .. ,oday .. -fortlla-. .,.._,.,d ·•-•lio• (l>aclcll. grd&. ~J.
0 T•IMI----■• 0 To ba CICIDllllclMI off-111•.
FILE: .,.__ ... ,
to
,,2.-
111.no
t8,.771
111154
fU,000
.. ,.s11
S3,US
$11,UI -· 110.sff
125,SOO
ID
so
'200,000
..
CS)
.... ~
' ' i
' . ' •
SlAJlotal, DI reel Caplral COSIS
Indirect Caci11,11 Cosls
Enalneerina S.........._• and Related
7.01 CONTA"-CT ,_SSISTNICE
7.02 &UIIVEVING SEIMCES
7.10 DESIGN
7.11 EXT!IACTION SYSTEM
7.12 TllEATMENT PllWTDE!llGN
7.U CML DfffQN
1.14 DfWIIAGE DITCH DESIGN
UD REGIN.ATORV ,_SSISTAPICE
BJ I PEPMIJTING
,.12 DISPOSAL FACIUTY4>EHNR
8.13 DISPOSAL F,_CIUlY«lltLA.\ITAH
I.U TAEA TUENT WORK
. 8.17 RN.IL REPORT WRITING
1.20 LICENSES
Sublalal, lrldlrecl Capkal Ccsls
TOTALCAPfTALCOSTS
lS
LS
LB
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LB
LB
LS
LS
110.873
1760.00
10 ..
17,SOO.OO
tQ.00
u.coo.oo
$3.000.AIO
IH,OD0.00
820,000,00
155,531
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
AIIWH ~ olllnct C-,1\11 Ced•.
B■-.ct on SECO•Jfl)Ulienee •t 111rllllar litaa.
Rtqlir..r tar exc•v.lloa eva1 ""' R:icA..
81tNd on SECCJ e:rp,rllnc• al amila, ■1111.
B■Hd"" SECD up,wl_. 11 tlolllar ••u.
8t9ed tn SECD &iq,erllnce al tlml• Sile•.
B•led on SEC0 hJl8ClflKIII al,._ .. , dee.
•• a10roo1 Coplb.1 eo,,; """' Pin Dolio•
on,n,,.,....inb-Cllea. E'n!lfllfffll. p. 205.
Slf,IJS Hl>al-C11>lal Car.lr.,.PI..,. Dolign
MCI Ecc,nOlllkS b Che-. Enl'!le■, .. p. 205.
$41,81111 tS..C01111nuoncro111 .. a-<1.
' I Raiqufrad ID, ... ,.-ova•on.
•
'
ttU,682
S7D,SU
'750
so ..,
Sf.SOD
IO
'3.-
t,3,000
IO
SID.000
'55,5:111
,, •. us
ftlt.◄115
...
...
IS)
< < •
.. ·' '·'
PROJECT: CIBA-GEIGY {ABERDEEN, NC) Geigy Site
NUMBER: G-1024.00
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
, ~,3-,•, , ·, -t-, ,~v ''··• ~ ,-,~,,~I'~~-.-',• ,, .AL TIRN, Incineration at Rolllns ~ Arttiilr; W ' ; ; . ,-• : · · :-'. ,;:;;;; :
• ·• 1~uiiiiinlf fiJ.~'ii~' iJ'Pi~;;,Ji'ri Li'i.dlii\ · ~~/gf if¢i!:&ff' >,
•nreA :.:c . . .......... • ............. -·•" :c:: .• :·•·"'··· .. ·.. • .-,,,,·.. '.i'.··.•_•t1_ .. N.,,.rr. ,.:.• •... \.1.;.· ~iliABffi );: ;/i::)1fo'.:ii\i.:~\~id;;~!:;f . (jrijjtg COST($)
CAPITAL COSTS
Direct capHal Costs
0.11 SAMPLE COLLECTION ANO DELIVERY
0.12 PER CIEM
0.18 TREAT AB I LITT STUDY WORK PLAN
O. 14 TREAT ABILITY TEST AND REPORT
1.01 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR
1.02 TREATMENTCONTRACTOR
1.11 UPGRADE ACCESSIBILITY
1.12 INSTALL SITE FACILmES, DEDON UNITS
1.13 INST ALL NEW FENCING
1.1:!a !IEMOVE OLD FENCING
1.14 CLEARING FOIi TREATMENT UNIT
IC iL-~;,s OEMOl.rrlONl!il~~of' CQNGREII;~/;
U8 DEMOLITTON
UT DISPOSAL
1.1B TRANSPORTATION
1.19 OISl'OSAL
1.111a WASTE CIIAFIACTERIZATIOII
: ,,ffJ'2\i .liiri; ~~sri\i/cyjiltif dff %?)ft/
1.21 CIVILWORK
1.22 SHEET PlllNG INSTALLATION
1.28 REMOVE, SEGREGATE, STAGE MATERIAL
1.24 LOAD MATERIAL FOR TREATMEHT
LB $2,300.00 An 2 field lech1@ $55/h;ll.G h; S100FEO EX
DAY $180.00 Hotel al SBClnll!ht; p,rdlom ot $100/day
LB ffl.000.00 Eallmllled from previous -blltt,.
LS $260,000.00 Eallmabld fnJm P"'"1ouU1oatablllty.
lS $40,000.00 Ba88d .., SECD a,q,erisnce al eimUar ••·
LS $1,000,000 BaA&d on C11.nonkl e11Umate(21'25192)
LF $10.00 Bawd on SECD experience a1 elmllar altaa.
LS $10,000.00 Ba88d on SECD experience at 8'm11M aite■.
lF $15.00 Baaed on JJC eltfm■te.
lF S1A5 Me!ln• 1992; 020 5501J70D
AC $1,000.00 M•an• 1982; 021 108 ocoo
SY $8.95 Mean• 1992; 020 550 1900
LOAD $400.00 Hu.ardou• malerla1 @ $Clrnlla for 100 mBes;
Mean, tD91;0207171270.
TON 145.00 FJB quote from Pi-fldlll)r.
IS $!1,350.00 Based on 3 oompoalleo@ 11.4511 ond $1,000 lo
obtaining amplaa.
LB $100,000.00 Ba88d on JJC n!lmaM for 1'11211 olle.
CY $11.00 Duedon 6ECD-'9ncealofmUanftea.
TOIi · '320 Booed m ..-U olllhnata (CWl,lj.
O Anuma not requrred for oft..«le trvelment.
o Anuma not ,equ~ed for-.. lrealrnenl.
o Aaume not ,equ!Nd 1or-.-n1.
O Aeeuma not requlred for off-eft~ treatment.
0 Not r•qufred,
300 Elllmllad lrom ei1e map.
2,500 Eeilmated from •11B map.
t,400 Based oo E11M ,-porl lor oall ,.moval.
o.o -250'l<2SD'n,quln>d,
S!lO Elllmllled from olhl map.
ta Baaed on 11 txnllftoad, Bu,aen-ManTN• MIi
(3'3.1192); ellimalli ~m:h thfclmaa■•
20II Baaed an 1.51oAsl)Bf cubic yard.
1
e Alm11111 not required.
2,200 Besedm, EPA•-"'2,200cy(ln o!lu)
-.,.. --"" -1111. ale.
2,lml AAume doneily ol I .35 -J-
FILE:
BT:
DATE:
so
so
so
so
'40,000
so
$3,000
$10,000
'37,500
$2,03D
so
'5,473
$9,281
$5,350
so
$24,:!00
tD.n,
INOOFF •• , ,
GFM
0010192
•
"' "'
,_. ,_.
"' "'
cD a, ,_.
"' c., c.,
"' ...
"' 0
"'
0 .... -'7, I "" 1;
()
t,' ..
"'
J§I
0
0 _,
' 0
0
"'
PROJECT: CIBA-GEIGY (ABERDEEN, NC) Geigy Site
HUMBER: G-1024.00
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
-~i/ijii;;;;:~,il•~~~'.~Jfi!ii#'~.#.ttilfi~];·1;l!.;:l[bli!Ifgii••tWiii)]]
Bi.illdlng Oebils iii l'ledinoiit find!iii @jinersinlle}'iiiCF ,; < ,}!\C'
1.25 TRANSPORT MAT£RIAL TO ROLLINS fNCINER LOAD
IN PORT AATH UR. TEXAS
$4,000.00 Hamrdou■ material •t-ml. [M..,,, 191l
(020 7171270)) lo< 1000 mllao.
1.29 INSTALL. MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROLS
1.30 BORROW CLEAN RLL
1.31 LOAD CLEAN Rll FOR mANSPORT
1.32 HAUL CLEAN RLL TO SITE
1.33 BACKFILL,COMPACTCLEAH Alt
1.34 BORROW TOP SOIL
1.35 HAUL TOP SOIL
1.41 INSTALL TOPSOIL. FINE GRADE
1.42 SEED AND FERT!L1ZE
1.43 30'14> AEMEDIALCONTR.. H&S,ETC.
1.44 CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT
WAYNOKA.OK ORTOOEtECO .. UT
1.51 LOADING, -mANSPORTATION.DISPOSAL
2.10 TEST DURNING, START-UP
2.20 THERMALLY TREAT MATERIAL
2.30 OONFIRMATION SAMPUNB OF EXCAVATIONS
2.31 ANAL TYCAL AND LAl!OR
Z..CO CONRIIUATION SAMPLING OF TREATMENT
2.41 ANALTYCAI.
2.42 IABOR
LS
CY
TON
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
LS
DAY
TON
$12,800.00 Baoad on QSST fitimata.
S5.35 Common, 1-112cr. Moan1(0222Hl4010)
S3.20 Baud on lA>baco et\lmota (CWM).
f5.35 Mean■ 11191 (0222281250); 21ky!fUck; 10 ml.
trtp.
$5.00 ea ... d 00 Lobeco eollmal• (CWM).
$14.00 Means 1990; D22 218 7010.
S2.13 12-c-; truck; 20-mlle round trip: Mean■ 1991
12.2 268 0560.
$19.79 Baued on GSST aellmale.
S0.35 Ba_, on l.obeco eotlm•te (CWM).
$10..595 UN to, ltema 1.41 and 1.42.
1850.00 @ IR!illl: to hhl•Y pluo 1280 pw diem
$218.50 From USPCI elllmata (1Nltl92 and 41711112) for
comhined "°"'" °' $210 load, t,..,, (br ralg,
and dl,p. + 18.50 lflsp.10 lor n,g"d wa"8.
Aau1111t no dabfflzation r«.ulrvd.
LS $50,000.00 Dae■d '"1 SECD upalenN al irlmffu olln.
TOH $000.00 ea ... 1<1nVTVolllma1I.-FS. TabloF.21.
LS l200,0llO.OO Balld m SECD •-~.,,.. at ■lmilar oltn amf
EA
LS
ditc. wlQba-Galaralbar pre'Uloueaxparfence.
$450.00 Todd --lo< pellldde """"tp12519Z1.
'20,000 Ba81d m 6Eal e_-. at llmilar olln,
122 Aa. 11 cy per 22-<r lnldt (nominal).
2,200
2,no
122
2,200
1.813
1,813
1,813
8,680
1
30
0
0
2,&70
I
An. 18 cyper 22-<:ylrucl< (namlnalj.
BallG on 2 acrea and 11-im:h d&p!h of lop 1011.
Elllmlllad 1rom ollo fflall.
Balld on 10 daro eeeh !<If clta p,ep, ne., and
•-1'"1 lbactffll, g,ade, -o!ablj.
o Tob6a-uluclr.d....,__,
0 Tobeea,--.
IIIDOFF.M.1
BT: 1,'U:M_
DATE: 114110/92
$12,800
tn.1111
$11,771 ..
$11.000
$22,587
$3,<Cae
$31.928
$3,388
$10,595
l2o.500
so
so
0 .... ....
N .... ....
"' N
... ...
"' '"'
Cl.I (II ....
"' '"' '"' (II ....
"' 0
"'
0 r-' -z ' "' 6
g .,
"'
(§1
0
0
00 ....
0
0
"'
1,.. ....• .... ·• ..
PROJECT': CIBA-GEIGY (ABERDEEN, NC) Geigy Sile
NUMBER: 8-1024.00
. . -_.,
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
-;~~~Ef~~j~t~~.Wi!~l~!~l!!Yl~Il/lll•:ii~w
(JteA/"i -:_t,:::'•
NLIMeiiRl/E
Subtotal, Direct Capital Costs
Indirect Capital Costs
Engineering Selvices alllf Related
7.01 CONTRACT ASSISTANCE
7 .02 SURVEYING SERVICES
7.10 DESlGN
7.11 EXTRACTIONSYS'TEM
7.12 TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN
7.13 CIVIL DESIQN
7 .14 DRAINAGE DITCH DESIGN
. C-:; 8.00 OTHER SERVICES i>i:-::/: ,,;L,'i·;,i0;i'> • ., ,:.,
8.10 REGULATORY ASSISTANCE
8.11 PERMITTING
B.12 DISPOSAL FACIUTYIOEHNR
B.13 DISPOSAL FACILITY/OKLA, UTAH
8.14 TREAlMENT WORK
B.17 FINAl REPORT WRfTINll
820 LICENSES
8.30 LEGAL SERVICES, INSURANCE
Subtotal, lndlreci Capttal Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSlS
LS $814.858 811118d on S'ECD experlenca at .tmlll!T 11tea.
LS $228,714 As1ums 6% ol DIRICI Cl!l)HIII Con.
LS $750.00 8al9d a11 SECD experience al tlmllsr 1lte1.
LS so
LS $0
LS $1,500.00 ffequlrad ro, excavation eYBI ne•, fb:R.
LS so.co
LS $3.000.00 Baled on SECI> axpodellOlt a.t lfmlla, 1Hes.
LS $3,000.00 Bal8d on SECD aperien~ at 1lmfler ■lrea.
LS $25,000.00 Baaed on SECD experlena=-at almRar 1itn.
LS $20,000.00 Baeed on SECOupertem:e at almna .. alte■.
LS $182,WI 4'111 ol DI-Capital Colt; from Pion! Deolgn
and £onnomtu for Chem, fnglneers. p. 205.
LS $45,743 1'111 ol Dl18dCapllll Coll: Imm Pion! Deolgn
ond £1:onomlH lorCbem. Enginff.._ p. 205.
S12B.4 t 8 2A cmlln"8nC)' of ttem1 7-8.
..
FILE:
BY:
DATE:
$914,11!18
$4,574,2711
1 $221,714
1 RequlJed fol Ille renovallon. $750
1 $0
1 Sil
$7.SOO
1 Sil
$3,000
0 so
1 SH,OOII
1 '20,000
1 $182,1171
1 $45,743
1 Sl2B,418
$1142,0W
.,
INOOFF.Vde:1'
' GFM
04/t0/92
•
0 ...
" "' ...
' "' "'
'" ...
~
"' ....
'" <,,
<,,
0) ..
'" 0
'"
(") ::,-.,
"'
l=r:~g:i$&l;;'"-;;;;'·~;;;;· -""'': r§J
0
b==d==============='==d====b=============•=='==--=====-=====d:=::;;:=-====d ~ ~~-wl:t 6
0
\ "'
. . • •
Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Public Meeting
March 31, 1992
Presented Comments
My name is Curt Richards. I work for Olin Corporation. Tonight I
appear before you to express the opinions of CIBA-GEIGY Corporation,
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, and Olin Corporation.
CIBA-GEIGY, Kaiser, and Olin have been working together to investigate
and cleanup the Geigy Site in an environmentally appropriate and safe
manner. We recently completed the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility
Study, and Risk Assessment for the Geigy Site. During this process,
the companies collected and analyzed over 300 soil samples and
installed and sampled 15 groundwater monitoring wells. Also during
this process, over 3500 tons of contaminated soil and building debris
were removed from the Site. These removals greatly reduced the volume
and concentration of contaminants remaining in the on-site soils,
thereby minimizing the potential for contaminant movement or direct
contact. The removals, the Remedial Investigation, the Feasibility
Study, and the Risk Assessment, conducted under the oversight of the
U.S.EPA, were entirely funded by the three companies at a cost
exceeding 3 million dollars.
The Feasibility Study evaluates the possible remedies that could be
used to "cleanup" the Site. The U.S.EPA has proposed a preferred
alternative of pumping and treatment for groundwater contamination and
on-site thermal desorption for soil cleanup with incineration as
an "backup" technology.
CIBA-GEIGY, Kaiser, and Olin support the EPA's preferred alternative
of pumping and treatment for the groundwater cleanup. Pesticides have
been found in the groundwater at the Site. A pump and treat system
using activated carbon is a proven technology for the removal of
pesticides from groundwater. The discharge of treated groundwater to
the Moore County sewer system would comply with pre-treatment
requirements and have no impact on the receiving facility. The pump
and treat system could be in place within 3 months after design.
However, CIBA-GEIGY, Kaiser, and Olin do not support the EPA's
proposed preferred alternative of thermal desorption for soil
cleanup with incineration as a "backup" technology. We do not support
the alternative because of the four following reasons:
Technology. First of all, thermal desorption is an
undemonstrated technology for the treatment of pesticide contaminated
soil. The EPA has stated that "the preferred remedy will involve some
testing to verify that the cleanup goals can be reached." Testing
will take time and the thermal desorption technology may not reach the
cleanup goals; further delaying the cleanup of the Site.
•
Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Public Meeting
March 31, 1992
Presented Comments
Page 2
•
Quantity. A second reason, besides being an untested technology,
is the quantity of contaminated soil involved is not large enough to
justify on-site treatment. The EPA states that "because there are no
Federal or State cleanup standards for contamination in soil, cleanup
goals are established to reduce soil contamination to within an
acceptable risk range." A Risk Assessment performed on the Geigy Site
identified approximately 650 cubic yards of contaminated soil that
should be removed from the Site based upon a reasonable health based
risk assessment. Even if the quantities are greater, quantities of
less than 10000 cubic yards would not be considered for on-site
treatment by most capable contractors.
Space. The third reason is the space needed for on-site soil
treatment. There is not enough area at the Geigy Site to perform any
on-site soil treatment. The treatment unit would have to be located
on neighboring property not involved in the cleanup of the Site.
Time. The fourth reason and perhaps the most important reason,
is the time that would be required should the EPA require us to use
on-site thermal desorption as the soil cleanup remedy. The EPA has
stated ''implementation: 2 months." We believe that that number does
not reflect the time involved for the treatability studies,
mobilization, and trial of the thermal desorption equipment, as well
as, the actual soil processing time. We estimate that this time
period will likely exceed 1 year and perhaps 2 years.
Therefore, CIBA-GEIGY, Kaiser, and Olin, all support Alternative 2:
Off-Site Disposal for the soil cleanup remedy. This alternative would
involve the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil
exceeding the cleanup goals. Contaminated soil would be taken to
either a fully approved out-of-state secure landfill or a out-of-state
incinerator if needed. This alternative would be the most community
friendly alternative because it could be completed in a far shorter
time frame, two months, than EPA proposed preferred alternative of
on-site thermal desorption. It would not involve untested technology.
It would not require the use of any surrounding property. And best of
all, it would meet all of the soil clean-up goals in the shortest
timeframe. This remedy is fully consistent with the soil removals
conducted previously at the Geigy Site. Those removals ·were completed
with very little environmental or community impact. This final action
can be handled in the same way -quickly and efficiently by selecting
the Off-Site Disposal alternative.
CIBA-GEIGY, Kaiser, and Olin have worked with the EPA in the cleanup
of the Geigy Site in an environmental appropriate and safe manner. We
wish to continue in that manner and request that the EPA use an
environmental appropriate cleanup remedy for this site based upon the
facts involved with this site.
• •
Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Public Meeting
March 31, 1992
Presented Comments
Page 3
I would encourage the citizens of Aberdeen to voice their support for
this alternative of off-site treatment and disposal. And I would
encourage the EPA to listen.
Thank you for your attention.
We will be submitting additional written comments to the U.S.EPA
within the comment period.
UNITED STATES • OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -LA~AM,> 1 ~SIPP!
ENVIROt;<MENTAL PROTECT! ON 345 COURTLAND ST. N.E. 6~~~&1 sa::m:; CAROW NA
_A~N~ -· _:lE~O~IV _ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365. KE~ITUO<"f TE?--N:~10LINA
~ ENVIRONMENT AL NEWS
H. Michael Henderson
(404) 347 -3931
PRESS ADVISORY December 26, 1990
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA -The u. s. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Region IV will hold a public informational
meeting on Wednesday, January 9, 1991 at the Crestline Fire
Department on North Carolina 211 Highway East approximately
one mile outside of the City of Aberdeen, NC.
The purpose of the meeting is to address citizen concerns
regarding EPA activities at the Route 211 Contaminated Well Site
located in Aberdeen. The meeting is scheduled from 7:00 p.m.
until 9: 00 p. m.
Drinking water samples from private wells have been
analyzed by the EPA laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Analysis
indicates significant levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) and
lead (Pb) along with trace levels of pesticides are present in
the groundwater. Provisions for an alternative potable water
supply is considered to be the most cost-effective long-term
method available to supply water to affected residents.
The Route 211 Contaminated Well Site is a rural residential
neighborhood in Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina.
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the .
public informational meeting to assure that EPA addresses
community concerns. Persons desiring to express their
concerns prior to the Janaury 9, 1991 meeting should write:
Willliam Klutz, On-Scene Coordinator
Emergency Response and Removal Branch u. s. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
-30 -
• • -
ENVIRON M ENT~.L P~2TEC!ION AGENCY
OPEN HOUSE · ·· , ·-· .. : ·· ·. _:c\:-_-;'.::·
The United States Environmentaf Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will
sponsor an Open House at the Aberdeen Fire Station on Monday,
June 18, 1990 between 3:00 -5:00 PM and 7:00 -9:00 PM. The
purpose of the Open House is to give interested residents, business
owners, and citizens groups an opportunity to ask· U.S. EPA staff
questio11s concerning the G~igy Chemical Corporation site.
This site is located on the right-of-way of the Aberdeen and Rockfish
Railroad and Route 211 just outside the city limits of Aberdeen. The
Geigy site was placed on the U.S. EPA National Priorities List in
September of 1989, making it eligible for federal cleanup funds. Some
hazardous materials have been removed and disposed of in approved•
landfills.
A remedial investigation and feasibility study to determine the nature
and extent of the site contamination and possible cleanup techniques
will be performed. Please plan to come to the Aberdeen Fire Station
on June 18th to talk with us about the site, its cleanup and other
concerns yqu may have. .
-
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
OFFIC!AL BUS[NESS
PENALlY FOR PRIVATE USE
$300
•
__ ,;;a~·
• ~. i::;i..;!1:1, !il:1'l• -.
;~R.,,CL,iVCU
JUN 1 :1 E:J90
SUPERFUND SECTION
ABEROJ60
JACK BUTLER
SUPERFUND SECTION
DIV. OF SOLID WASTE MGMT.
NC DEPT./ENV, llEALTH & NATURAL RESOURC!
P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC 27602
I,, \1 II 111 \1\111\1111, 1 \1\111\,I
., ...