NCD981927502_20031201_Geigy Chemical Corporation_FRBCERLA SPD_Fact Sheets 1990 - 2003-OCR

Region 4
l c,cJ::::'
\J
FIVE YEAR REVIEW FACT SHEET
GEIGY CHEMI1G~L:CORP. SITE I I 1.1; r "~--:::: .. .!cc ... '._ "
Aberdeen, Moore C~
1
qpty,_ North c.~~~lina
:' L: Nuv -4 2003 1·:1J'1 ----i.0' '/. ,2,93031-.... .,
October 2003 c : . . ,-, ;-;-;;.--~::~--~-! ,,,;li,'~ ,..,_ ,._..c,
Where is the Geigy Chemical Site located? · · '' · · '1 • ':·i?! V 0-;;-1e6 \~
The Geigy Chemical Corporation Site is located just east of the corporate limits of Aberdeer~c; 7r::,G' ·,;
No11h Carolina in southeast.cm Moore County. The one acre Site is bounded on the n_C!.~h by ,f ~s\~ 1,. ,'. ,
State Highway 211 and on the east by Domino Drive. The Aberdeen & Rockfish Railro'~d cuts -~~'l>'l,~I<'~ /)
through the Site where the former pesticide blending/mixing/bagging buildings stood. Th:C, 'Ii'' _,1'.
property forms an elongated triangle with the highway and railroad forming the apex. ·' ~,-. og1c;··
Site Background
The Site operated as a pesticide blcndi~1g and formulation facility by various operators from
approximately 1947 to 1967, and by retail distributors of agricultural chemicals from 1967 until
1989. The pesticides DDT, toxaphenc, and BHC were received in bulk at the Site, blended with
clay and other inert materials, repackaged, and sold. Pesticides were not manufactured at the Site
but were formulated by dry mixing into a product suitable for local consumer use. EPA
conducted an initial site investigation in March 1987. The Site was proposed for listing on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988, and was officially placed on the NPL as of October
-i, 19S9. The Record of Decision was issued in l 992 selecting a pump-and-treatment system to
remove pesticide contaminants from groundwater, and the contaminated soil was excavated and
structures and their foundations were torn down and taken to an approved landfill. The previous
owners took action to removed approximately 3,300 tons of contaminated soil and debris, and
EPA removed approximately 6,935 tons of soil and dcb1is. The contaminants of concern arc;
aidrin, BHC isomers, dieldrin, cndrin, toxaphenc:, DOD, DDE, DDT and chlordane isomers. The
Site was covered with clean soil and revegetated with native grass, plants and trees. The soil
clean up actions were completed as of February 1997. The groundwater treatment system began
operating in January 1997 and has currently treated approximately 30 million gallons of extracted
groundwater from both the surficial and Upper Black Creek aquifers. Monitoring and sampling
of groundwater has continued in order to characterize the migration pattern of the water in the
Upper and Lower Black Creek aquifers.
What is the purpose of a Five-year Review?
The purpose of the review is to determine whether the remedy selected at a site is or remains
protective of human health and the environment, identify issues/problems and recommend
corrective action, if necessary.
Why and wizen should a Five-year Review be conducted?
As required by the Superfund law, when a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited
I
use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every
five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. [40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii)]
•
Since a groundwater treatment system was installed to treat contaminates in groimdwater, a five
year review is required because contaminants are still being detected in the groundwater at the
Site. The next five-year review should occur by September 2008. These five-year reviews will
continue until the levels of contaminants drop to concentrations that allow unlimited use.
Who conducts tlie review at a fund-financed or enforcement lead site?
EPA has the responsibility of either conducting the review or hiring a contractor or other
agencies (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to perfo1m studies, conduct investigations, and/or
develop draft Five-Year Review reports.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers out of Wilmington, NC conducted the review for this Site
between January 2003 through September 2003. The final report was completed, approved and
signed in September 2003. The Corps was used to provide an unbiased assessment of the Site.
In general, how was the assessment of the protectiveness of the remedy
conducted?
► • All relevant data, monitoring/sampling results of groundwater, Operation & Maintenance
reports, Record of Decision, monthly discharge monitoring results, and other _documents were
.reviewed.
· ► Since the clean up action of soil and debris was completed in 1997, based on a final
insp·ection of the Site by EPA and the State of North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources in 1998, the soil contaminant level goals estnblisl:d in the Record of
Decision and Remedial Design have been met and no further soil remediation is required: ·
► Conducted a performance evaluation of the groundwater and treatment sys.terns to determine
if the groundwater remedy is functioning as intended, if the exposure assumptions, toxicity
data, clean up levels and remedial action objectives are still valid, and if other information
has come to light that could question the protectiveness of the remedy.
► Prepared a written Five-Year Review document
What did the assessment reveal about the remedies?
Based upon data from the past five years of operation, review of monitoring information, and
general site conditions, the remedy implemented remains protective of human health and the
environment because the on-going groundwater treatment clean up actions continue to remove
contaminants of concern from the impacted areas. There have been no changes to the physical
conditions of the Site or the adjacent !and use that would affect the remedy. The review of
documents, Applicable or Relevant & Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), risk assumptions,
groundwater and monitoring well data, and the results of the Site inspection indicate, overall, that
the groundwater remedy has functioned to this point as intended. No significant issues were
noted during the five-year review of the remedial action components.
What were the recommendations of the Five-Year Review?
l. Fee,:ing and signing of the Site as proposed in the documents of record have not been
• •
installed. Since the soil has already been cleaned up, this recommendation is no longer
applicable. EPA should issue an ESD to eliminate this requirement.
2. The Site Groundwater Remediation Permit will expire in June 2004. Wording needs to be
changed to reflect that the treatment facility consists of seven recovery wells rather than five
since the permit only covered five wells.
3. There is evidence that a plume of trichloroethene (TCE) from another source is starting to
encroach into the Site treatment area. This situation will continue to be monitored in order to
recognize any impact from the TCE plume.
How should the commwiity be informed and involved?
Activities should include notifying the pu!)lic that the Five-Year Review will be conducted,
contact citizens for their input, notify the public that the Review has been completed, and
place a copy of the Review in the Site Information Repo?itory. •. ··
A display ad was placed in the local newspaper to notify the public that the Five-Year Review
was being conducted. A number of citizens were interviewed by telephone during the review
period. No one expressed any major concerns regarding the remedial action and its operations
over the years at the Site. A copy of the completed questionnaires were placed in the back of the
review document. A copy of the Five-Year Review was placed in the Information Repository
located in the Aberdeen Town Hail, I 15 i'-i. f'oplar Street, Aberdeen, NC making it available to
the public. This fact sheet was prepared summaiizing information in the 2003 Five-Y car Review
and mailed to people on the Site mailing list. A display ad was placed in the local newspaper to
notify the public that a copy of the Five-Year Review had been completed and is available for
reading in the repository.
Have questions?
If you have technical questions about the Five--Year Review document, please contact Jon
Bornholm, EPA Remedial Project Manager at l-800-435-9233, ext. 28820 or 404-542-8820. If
you want copies of Site fact sheets or general Site information, please contact Diane Barrett,
Community Involvement Coordinators at 1-800-435-9233, ext. 28489 or 404-562-8489.
Want to read documents about the Site'?
Copies of_all documents developed during the investigation and remediation of this Site have
beeri placed in the Site Information Repository located in the:
Aberdeen Town Hall
I 15 N. Poplar Street
Aberdeen, NC 28315
(9 IO) 944-1115
and the:
EPA Record Center, 11 th Floor
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
[phone]
•
Silte Mailing List
If you want to change/correcUdelete your name from the Geigy Chemical Corp. Site mailing list, please complete the
fo1m below and return to Diane Barrett, Community Involvement Coordinator, USEPA, Waste Management
Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 10th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303.
Name
Addres1:
City, State, Zip Code
Chltnge D . CcHTeclion □ .Deletion D
--. -
■-,--------------------------------·--------..,~---
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Waste Management Divisio
Diane Barrett, Community l
Jon Bornholm, Site Remed Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Geigy Chemical Site ,_, ____ .i. ____________________ ...,.
Official Business
Penal!'{ for Private Use $300
S/F
DEXTER MATTHEWS
WASTE MGMT. DIVISION
GEIG 10
NC DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1601
HASLER $0.37
OCT212003
US POSTAGE
CORRECTION
MAILED FROM 30303
• • ~•r.,,~
• • REMEDIAL DESIGN FACT SHEET -!2 ',' -•,• •,• ~
-~ Geigy. Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Aberdeen,-Moore County; North Carolina
March 1996
This fact sheer is not to be considered a technical documenJ bUl has been prepflred in order lo provide rhe public wiJh a better understanding of the process and acrivities that will be undertaken al the Site in the near fuJure. For more lechnical information, please review documents in the In[ormationRepository at the Aberdeen Town Hall.
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. The 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 activated carbon. Treated groundwater 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 to blend and produce crop protection
products. From 1968 to 1989, the facility was used
for retail sales and distribution of agricultural
products. 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.
In 1989 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.
In 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 former blending facility Site.
APRIL 17, 1996
AVAILABILITY SESSION
TIME 2:00 -6:00 pm
PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 -9:00 pm
WHERE: ABERDEEN FIRE
STATION
• SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION
Schedule of planned actiyities: . . . ,. , . ~ .
May 1996.
August 1996
October 1996
November 1996
Remedial action. contractor will
be selected. .
Remedial action scheduled to
begin
Soil remediation scheduled to
be completed.
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 is 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
landfill. 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 excavated is approximately 3,000 cubic
yards.
The soil will be removed from the facility site area
and from a small piece of partially wooded property
across Highway 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. The 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 Nat~ral 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 characteristic hazardous
waste will be sent to an approved off-site
treatment facility. Excavated soil that'is noCa
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 verify 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 precfabrii::ated
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 receiving treated
groundwater to recharge the aquifer. This
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.
• Operate and maintain the groundwater
treatment system, including periodic monitoring.
3
•
For additional information:
EPA Regional Office l-800-435-9233
· Bernie Hayes, Project Manager ( ext. 2048)
Diane Barrett, Community Relations .
(ext. 2073)
Geigy Site Infoline l-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
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, N,C. 28315
;Pho~e::(~10)-944-1115
LEGEND
fr\i'} APPROXIMATE EXCAVATION BOUNDARY
D CONCRETE SLABS/FILL
x--x EXISTING FENCING TO BE REMOVED
NORTH
•
a:
•
FIGURE 1
SOIL REMOVAL AND EXCAVATION AREAS
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
' .
LEGEND
♦ EXISTING EXTRACTION WELL (PW-1S)
'-PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL {PW-2S, PW-2D,
PW-3S, AND PW-4S)
____,... fENCE .. DIRECTION Of EXTRACTED GROUNDWATER fLOW
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
EXISTING SIT£ CONSTRUCT! N
TRAIL~; BE REMOVED . / /;' .
-" / '
0 ')," //, '>-
/ / '
/ / '
/ ' "" / "'h //
TEMPORARY FACILITY AREA
NORTH
•
X
'a_ ~ PROPOSED INFILTRATION GALLERY ·o. / >/
FIGURE 2.
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT
SYSTEM LAYOUT
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA
• •
SITE HISTORY March 1996
Geigy Chemical Corporation Super;fund 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 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 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 the facility were used for many
. .
years to protect and fertilize tobacco, cotton and other crops in North Carolina and
throughout the Southeast.
. Site History
1989
1990
1991
1992
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.
•
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.
I 996 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.
ln March, EPA also approves Data Summary Report for downgradient study
area. Discussions begin regarding additional 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)
.µ.: ,; Geigy.·Site Infolincl:800-424-2447
, Laura_Tew, Oli.n Corporation
;' -:;Mary·Ann;G'iills; pbasGeigy Corporation . ..:r~•.··;,1.,:.:, ·l•J~', · .,,.. ·_· ' ,. " Liz Simon, Kaiser··Aluminum & Chemical Corporation . '•' ;.. . ' .
2
I • \
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
SUPERFUND SITE
Ab~rdeen, Moore, County, ·North Carolina
FACT SHEET: DOWNGRADIENT STUDIES
March, 1996
Introduction
fn 1995, Olin Corporation, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Kaiser Aluminum & 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 L The sampling was to determine the
physical nature of the groundwater flow and test for 21 pesticide related chemical compounds. The
need for this study was determined based on earlier groundwater investigations which indicated 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 & Rockfish Railroad and Trough Branch on the-no1'.h 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
well 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:
• Groundwater flow in the area is very complex. There are multiple aquifers, each flowing in
varying 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
migration of contaminated groundwater.
Levels of pesticide-related chemicals detected in the study area are elevated to the point that the
aquifers in the.study area should not be used for drinking water supply without treatment.
Lindane is preserit at concentrations above the state drinking water standard.
The water being consumed by resident~ in the study area, however, is well within all State
drinking water standards, including those for lindane. The water supplied by the Town of
Aberdeen Public Water Systeh1 meets all drinking water standards.
./ •
• -· I • The test of Municipal Well #2 confirmed earlier test results as required by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources that the 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 (ext. 2048)
Diane Barrett, Community Relations (ex. 2073)
Geigy Site Infoline 1-800-424-2447
Laura Tew, Olin Corporation
Mary Ann Gillis, Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Liz Simon, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
•
-;ft~-----------------------------~-------•u"'!.s•·_ '!!'O'!!'F,'!!'.,c'!!'l•AL __ M_/;_IL-''i/"~/1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency North Superfund Remedial Branch A. I--A i'v >' us rns,AGE
-~ 345 Courtland Street, N.E. Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coord. '<' '? PENALTY -k
F:eglon, Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Bernie Hayes, Remedial Project Manager · I-IAR 18'96 , ~~~;·i~o Q OJ Z *
-------------,Ff"""E""!clll!!"'B•,-,-,-c:---D __________ ... ~_G_A_~ ..... ::::::::H::~:i-·'f.--ls_? ... _~---~
Official Business V c,
Penalty for Private Use $300 111,4R
2 67995
SUpERFuNo
SEcr,ON _;__ __ r;; ;~ . ~-----. _ ArsRD3_1 7,
'1 PUBLIC •INFO ASST• . , ' f
I SUPER.FUND SE~TION . _ ·, ' (
' NC DEPT• OF _ENVIRONMl;:N~' \-i_EALTH,,,
'& -~ATURAL RESOURCE~
: p. 0~ 'Bo'X 27687 -NC ';i76Dl-76_~7. ,· · -RALEIGH , .
l __ ----------
' I
, I '
.. I
. "'~. • . SUPERFUN[9ACT SHEET UPDATE
~J GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
Region 4 Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
On April 27, 1993, the Potentially Responsible Parties:
Ciba-Geigy, Olin Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum signed
a Consent Decree stating that they would agree to perform
the selected remedy described in the Record of Decision
and would also reimburse EPA for all of ns past response
costs, and all future response and oversight costs at the
Site. The Consent Decree was officially entered by the
Court on July 15, 1993. This Consent Decree applies to
the Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Sne located
approximately 3 miles east of Highway 1 on Route 211
outside of the Aberdeen cny limns.
As set forth in the Consent Decree, the Potentially
Responsible Parties prepared a Remedial Design Work
Plan. This Work Plan describes all of the activnies that will
be conducted as part of the design stage of the process.
The Design activnies are divided into two parts: the field
investigation activnies, and the design of the selected
remedy.
The main purpose of the field investigation activities is to
collect data that will help in the design of the groundwater
and soil remedies. The field investigation activnies include
the collection of addnional data to:
1. better define the extent of the contamination in the
uppermost and second uppermost aquifers;
2. characterize the hydraulic properties of the uppermost
an,:J second uppermost aquifers;
3. refine the lateral extent of the uppermost one-foot of
soils requiring excavation;
4. obtain sne-specific infiltration data.
These field activnies started in December 1993 and are
scheduled to be finished in March 1994. After all of the
data collected during the field activnies have been
analyzed, the design of all aspects of the selected remedy
for groundwater and soil will be prepared. The design is
scheduled to be finished by February of 1995. Once the
design has been approved by EPA, the soil requiring
excavation will be removed and the construction of the
machinery to pump and treat the groundwater will be built.
February 1994
Example of a punp-and-treat system
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ACTIVITIES AT THIS
SITE: please contact enher -
Luis E. Flores, Project Manager
or
Diane Barrett, Communny Relations Specialist
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
Documents covering activnies that have occurred at this
Site are located in the information reposnory located at:
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberde~n, NC 28315
Phone: (~19) 944-1115
[This fact sheet has been produced as a method of providing
information concerning on-going activities at the Site, not as a
technical document.]
Raglon 4
• IIAILING LIST
H you know of someone that would like to be added to this Site's mailing list, or you need to notify us of a
change of address, or you would like your name removed from this Site's list, please complete this form and
return to Diane Barrett at the address featured above.
Name: ________________________________ _
Address: ____________________________ _
City, State, Zip Code: __________________________ _
Add Name ___ _ Delete Name ___ _ Change Address ___ _
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Stree~ N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
North Superfund'Remedlal~fi i(·. G'
Diane Barrett, Community llitionsreoJ .
Luis E. Flores, Remedial P ject Manager'§
\ : MIIR
I:
' ,.
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
/
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENc~ft:.f/,;(E.IJV!i-,n n
REGION IV M/.jy l!::,y
345 COURTLAND STREET.NE 1 ( )!:J~}J
May 11, 1993 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
SUf'fRfllruoss;noru
In an effort to keep citizens informed, this announcement is to advise of the formal lodging of a proposed
Consent Decree on April 27, 1993, with the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. An official notice appeared in the Federal Register on May 11, 1993, announcing that the
Department of Justice will receive comments for a period of 30 days from this date of publication
concerning the proposed Consent Decree agreed to between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Olin Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum to perform the selected remedy for
the Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site in Aberdeen, North Carolina.
A copy of the proposed Consent Decree is available for public viewing in the following locations:
U.S. Attorney for the Middle
District of North Carolina
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
Region 4 Library
Consent Decree Library
L. R. Preyer Federal Bldg. 345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
324 West Market Street
Greensboro, NC
Copies of the proposed Consent Decree with attachments may be obtained by mail from the Consent
Decree Library, address noted above, at a cost of $62.25 ($.25/page to reproduce). Please make checks
payable to "Consent Decree Library." For copies of only the proposed Consent Decree, mail a check for
$19.75.
Citizens wanting to comment on this issue _should mail their comments prior to June 10, 1993 to:
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Reference: United States versus Ciba-Geigy Corporation
D.J. Ref. 90·11·3-1058
The Potentially Responsible Parties have ag,,c,c,d ::: the proproed Consent Decree to: (1) perform the
selected remedy outlined in the Record of Decision signed in August 1992 for the Site at a total estimated
cost ranging from $2.8 to $4.7 million, and (2) reimburse the United States for all of its past response costs
incurred at the Site ($369,890.75 plus interest), and all of its future response and oversight costs at the
Site. The Record of Decision selected extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and off site
disposal of contaminated soils.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact EPA at either the letterhead address or by
phoning 1-800-435·9233.
Sincerely,
Diane F. Barrett
Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Printed on Recycled Paper
RECO OF DECISION FACT SHEET
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
Aberdeeni Moore Countyi North Carolina
Region IV
On August 27, 1992, the Regional Administrator of the
Region IV Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed
the Record of Decision (ROD) which selected the cleanup
remedy for the Geigy Chemical Corporation Supertund Site
on which the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resouces conditionally concurred.
The selected remedy addresses the future unacceptable
risks posed by the Site to human health and the
environment from use of contaminated groundwater and
contact with contaminated soils. The pesticide contaminants
in the soil that percolate downward into the groundwater will
be excavated and taken ott-si:c to either an incinerator or
placed in an approved hazardous waste landfill. The
groundwater will be treated on-site through a carbon
adsorption treatment process to remove pesticides and
irichloroethene.
GROUNDWATER
Alternative 3: Groundwater Recovery and Treatment to
Attain Remediation Levels will penmanently remove and
destory contamination in both groundwater aquifers through
on-site extraction and an above-ground treatment system.
Activities involved in this remedy include:
The extraction system would involve the installation of
approximately nine recovery wells placed within and
along the periphery of the plume; seven in the upper
aquifer and two in the second level aquifer.
Groundwater would be pumped from the two aquifers to
an on-site above-ground activated carbon adsorption ·
treatment system.
Adsorption takes place in three steps:
1. The contaminants move/spread over the external
surtace of the carbon granule filters.
2. The contaminants then adsorb into the porous carbon
filters.
3. A physical or chemical bond fonms between the
contaminants and the internal carbon surtace removing
the contaminants from the water which is cycled through
the process.
September 1992
,...... ...... h---,-ic=::i--~.::: ,. ,_ .. ,
1•01w ..
,._
1---·-·
The treated water exits out of the carbon adsorption
system ready for discharge into 1he Moore County
publicly owned treatment works or sent through an on-
site filtration system which allows the water to seep back
into the ground.
-,. The selected remedy's pertormance will be co.re!ully
monitored during the estimated 30 years of operation on
a regular basis to maintain a constant ettective process.
The estimated cost of this selected treatment process is
$2,210,000.00
The goal of this selection is to restore groundwater to its
beneficial use as a drinking water source. Both the US EPA
and the State of North Carolina believe that 1his remedy will
achieve this goal.
SOILS
Alternative 2: Off-site Disposal will penmanently remove
contamination of the soil at the Site. Activities involved with
this remedy include:
The top foot of soil exceeding the established
remediation levels will be excavated and stock-piled on-
site to enable testing/analysis of soils for toxicity.
Based on the results of testing, the soils will either be
taken to a secure landfill or sent to a fixed-base
incinerator. [Soils that fail the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure test (TCLP) will be considered
hazardous and then incinerated; soils passing the test
and considered non-hazardous will be sent to a RCRA-
approved landfill.
The excavated areas will then be covered with clean fill,
graded and revegetated with grass.
• Building foundations will be demolished and the concrete
debris will be disposed of in the municipal landfill.
The Geigy Site will be fenced and proper warning signs
posted in visible locations in order to notify the public not
to enter the area.
It is estimated that the soil remedial alternative will take
approximately one year or less to complete.
The estimated cost of this alternative involves two possible
disposal methods: landfilling of non-hazardous waste is
estimated at $600,000.00, and incineration of hazardous
waste is estimated at $2,440,000.00.
The determining factor in selecting off-site versus on-site
treatment on soils is based on the estimated quantity of only
1,000 cubic yards requiring treatment. This reduction in
quantity would not be cost effective for on-site treatment
Both the US EPA and the State of North Carolina believe
that the selected remedies are protective of human health
and the environment, comply with federal and state
requirer;,3nts that are is;/ly applicable or relevanl Jnd
appropriate, are cost effective and meet the other six criteria
utilized for evaluating remedial alternatives.
A review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
PROJECTED FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The Environmental Protection Agency will mail a Special
Notice Letter to the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
in late September/early October. A 60-day formal
negotiations period automatically begins upon receipt of the
Notice Letter by the PRPs. EPA will negotiate with the
PRPs to determine if the PRPs are willing to pertorm and
pay for the remaining phases of the Supertund process. If
the PRPs are cooperative and present a good faith proposal,
another 60-day moratorium ·period occurs to decide the
procedures to be followed during the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action and Operation and Maintenance
phases of the process. A Consent Decree is drawn up and
signed by both the PRPs and EPA stating what activities
were agreed to be pertormed. If no settlement is reached
within the specified time period, EPA will issue a Remedial
Design Work Assignment to an EPA contractor to begin the
work. The EPA will implement litigation against the PRPs to
recover costs incurred to complete the cleanup process.
• The Remedial Design phase usually takes approximately
one year to complete. During this time period, additional
field work (sampling) will occur to further confirm findings of
the Remedial Investigation, and establish parameters of the
grounctwater plume and extent of soil contamination.
Once the Remedial Design has been approved, actual
construction can begin on Site.
For further information about Site activities, please contact:
Giezelle Bennett, Remedial Project Manager, or
Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: [phone]
To review the Administrative Record containing the Record
of Decision and other legal documents, they are housed in
the information repository located at:
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Phone: [phone]
Hours: 8:00 am -5:00 pm Weekdays
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NORTH SUPERFlH> DflfDIJL BRANCH
S/F
JACK bU-fLtk, ~~U0tCT ~iui<•
SUP~RFU~U S[CTlDrl
DIV. OF SOLlU hAS-rl ~1GMT.
•
i•JC Gt: P ·1 • / c i\l V, H l:,\L TH t~ N 1\. TU ij,;\L :~: !:S [jUk Ct::
87 P.U. uvA ~-fc,i_·,7
KALE l i.:ih
I
• •
06/01/92 14:22 '5'613 3:16·4505
OLIN CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
CHARLESTON, TENNESSEE
~ Oil !./OD2
FAX NUMBER: 615/336-4505 OR 948-4505 {within Olin)
p/,/~ q I<; 73 3 -z.. 8 o/
rA'i< 111 733 fill/
MESSAGE: FlCI-.
G~ &,>'. S' 1Te:;' ---:,.......,V.-<1 fr 4 -r=-0-)._ __
FROM: ~ J/1-7 • )1,,i~ t/s--JJt.-'fJ.PJ
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (including this page) 3 J.,_
DATE: __ r,,.J.../.J...1/_'I~ _____________ _
IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, OR ARE NOT LEGIBLE,
PLEASE CALL:
THANK YOU.
026
l
U00RI; COIJMT"Y CITIZEN Nl:WS-~ECOR 1 • l'lQt I tl1U"1Q.". 10 J 1, 1111
A MlCSSAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF ABERDEEN
REGARD [NG THE GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
SUPERFUND SITE
Olin, CIBA-GEIGY and I< aiscr Aluminum & Chemical Cof1Jnration have spent over three million dollars s1udylnc th¢ Gciay
Chemkal Corporation Sui erfund Site and rcrr.oving rnost of th~ comaminaccd sail. The one acre sice is located an Roule 21 'i
east of the City of Aberde ,n. One March 31, 1992, the United Srates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held t public
infonnation meeting durin.; which it pr~senred the E.PA's preferred method for handling contaminated sail and groundwater still
remaining at the Sice. To ta :e care of comam!r.ated groundw~ttr. EPA has recommended groundwat~r cxcrnction (removal). w~
agree with EPA and stand ·eady to adopt this proposal. ·
With regard to treating con aminatcd soil. EPA has suggested thermal desorption, a soil ueatrnentpro:ess similar to indncration.
· Should thermal desorptio1 nor work. EPA h«s chosen to incinc:·ate the soil at the Site. We oppose either of these proposed
remedie, and have sugges id anorher altemarive tc handie the co11tnmiria1ed sail: off-site treatment and dispornl (Alternative
#2). We propose to exca\ lie the contarninaied soi! and tran,port it to either Oklahoma, Utah or Texas for landfllling er
incineration al a facility s; :citically designed nnd p~rmitted to handie this t~'Jl" of was re material.
WHY IS THE Pl '.OPOSAL FOR HANDLING CONTAMINATED SOIL OFF-SITE
BE rTER THAN ON-SITE THERMAL TREATMENT?
..
•
.., ... ,
\, i1:ao\lid IGUil,;rao;i, i1C • UC) 0 l 0M11 S~I I~ C,J' I 71'1
I Pn;an!.l.l'W'>alldl'G(,O:' f. 1~1
"4, n.,_..,.,_pi.;ot(li);l,'J'¥:J11
, T""1-, ,..t 11,0,;»1 !IO'• aaa') ♦ I. ,,.1&1~_,llllr'1,1CJ
-
). Ill■ ~.al llCWIIJl!?I' 1 lU'J
I ,,_..,_i.C,Jlt'J
1 c:t,n11Ql~l!CJIOI
10 l'illll(QjM 1 ::I)
P• 'S ~-=b 0
~ ... lo,
-
·t·I
... .,,.,
f'nlpt-'ty
51911~-... ,
Layo1 :t of a Typical Thermal Trea1menr System at the Geigy Site
UNDER EIA'S PROPOSAL
An on-site thermal tre :tmem unir will no, ElI on the
Geigy Site and mus! 1,e located on adjacent pri,atc
properry. On -site rhe1 nal desorption will adv~rsel)'
impac[ nearby rcsirle its, businesse!:, end trnffic ir.
the Aberdeen area. Noise levels will increase
significantly above tr,, ir cum:nt le,el •· 1wemy-fou;
hours a day.
Groundwater treatme H will be delayed for three
years or more ( 1996) rntil soil has been treaced.
UNDER OUR PROPOSAL
There will be minimal impact on nearby residen:s
and the community. All excavation and loading will
be done on-;iJe during nonnal business hou,s. We
?i.ivc previous!y carried out rw,, sim!iill soi! rem-c-v:;!s
in chis fashion, including the removal of the old or.-
sic~ warch~use, with little or -;10 d\srurbance to the
community.
Com~minated soil cJJn be e,;cavared and removed
from the site withir, six months of EPA approval.
This means groundwa1er cr~atment can begin AT
LEAST TB REE YEARS EARLIER than proposed
by EPA.
• ,1,&00A! CO;Jr<,1Tl" CITll.t?M M~S-RECORP fij,Jfttl)ti,, .,., JJ, IPU
YOU, THE CIT'IZENS OF ABERDEEN, HAVE A SAY IN THIS MATTER. TllE SlJPERFUND LAW REQUIRES EPA TO CONSIDER YO UR COMMENTS REGARDING 'fHE PROPOSED CLEANUP PL1lN. IF YOU SUPPORT OUR PROPOSAL FOR SOIL(OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL)ATTHE GEIGY . CHEMICAL C1 JRPORATION SITE, PLEASE CUT OUT THE COUPON BELC)W AND FORWAR.D IT TO EPA. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR !,ETTER IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MIDNIGHT, M.lY 25, 1992, AND MAIL TO:
DIANNE BARRETT
N.C. COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR N1 )RTH SUPERFUND REMEDIAL BRANCH WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION UNT.TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
Should you desire ft rther infonnation from any of our companies, please contact Don Paulson at (800) 334-948 I, extension 2174.
Paid for by Olin Ca :poration, CIBA -GEIGY Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MS. DIAN1'.7E BARR ~TI
N.C. COMMUNITY ){ELATIONS COORDINATOR NORTH SUPERFUN) REMEDIAL BRANCH WASTE MANAGEMENT DNISION
UNITED STATES E:!'i VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 345 COURTLAND S'. :REET, N.E.
A1LANTA, GEORGI\ 30365
Dear Ms. Barrett:
As a member of the Aben een community, l supportAlrernative#2 (off-site treatment nnd disposal) for the . Geigy Chemical Corporati( n Superfund Site. Soil from the Geigy Sice should be excav~ted and removed co a permitted landfill or trea ed off-site as proposed by Olin Corporntion. CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, and Kaiser Aluminum & Chem cal Corporation. This would provide minimal disruption ro our community and would allow groundwater, lc:anup to begin three years sooner 11lan orginally planned by EPA.
-• I • ' • ~..,. • • ._ ' • \• , ' • ' • •' " • •• ' 1 ,_. • • ,.. i ••'
~,.,,_;,:,
•·:'"-"'."i:-:o::.-·.
.. .:...::
PERFUND PROPOSE LAN FACT SHEET
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
·REGt.lVED
MAR 2 ti 1992
•. SUPERFUND SECTION
INTRODUCTION
, This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred options
· for cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater
at the Geigy Chemical Corporation Site (Geigy Site)
in Aberdeen, North Carolina. This document is
being issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the lead agency for site activities, and
the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR), the
support agency. While three Potentially Respon-
sible Parties (Olin Corporation, Ciba Geigy Cor-
. poration, and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation) conducted the Remedial lnvestlga-
. .. tlon (RI) and Feas/b/1/ty Study (FS), EPA was
responsible for overseeing and reviewing all studies
and wori<. performed. EPA, !n consL!tt2ti0n with NC
DEHNR, will select a remedy for the Geigy Site only
after the public comment period has ended and all
information submitted to EPA during this time has
been reviewed and considered.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of Its public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of
the Comprehensive Erivlronmental Response,
Compensation and Lla1Jlllty Act (CERCLA) also
known as Supertund. Terms in bold face print are
defined in a glossary located at the end of this
publication.
This document summarizes information that is ex-
plained in greater detail in the Remedial Investiga-
tion and Feasibility Study(RI/FS) reports and other
documents contained in the Information
Aberdeen, Moore County,
North Carolina
March 1992
repository/administrative record tor this Site.
EPA and the State encourage the public to review
· these other documents to better understand the Site
and the Supertund activities that have been con-
ducted. The administrative record is available for
public review locally at the Aberdeen Town Hall on
Poplar Street in Aberdeen, North Carolina.
EPA, in consultation with NC DEHNR, may modify
the preferred alternative or select another response
action presented in this Plan and the RI/FS Reports
based on new information or public comments .
Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and
comment on all alternatives identified here .
This Proposed Plan:
1. Includes a brief history of the Site and the
principal findings of Site investigations;
2. Presents the alternatives for the Site con-
sidered by EPA;
3. Outlines the criteria used by EPA to recom-
mend an alternative for use at the Site;
4. Provides a summary of the analysis of alter-
natives;
5. Presents EPA's rationale for Its preliminary
selection of the preferred alternative; and
6. Explains the opportunities for the public to
comment on the remedial alternatives.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
DATE: March 31, 1992
TIME: ··7;00 pm -9:00 pm
WHERE: American Legion Hall
209 East Main Street
. Aberdeen, NC
SITE BACKGROUND
The Geigy Chemical Corporation Site is ap-
proximately one acre in size and is located just east
of the city of Aberdeen, in Moore County, North
Carolina. It is located on a railroad right-of-way on
Route 211. The partially-fenced Site is currently
vacant and consists of partial concrete foundations
· from two former warehouses, an office building, and
a concrete tank pad (Figure 1 ) .. ' ·• ,,.
The Geigy Site is owned by the Aberdeen and Rock-
fish Railroad and had been leased to various com-
. panies which operated at the Site from 1947 to 1989.
CIBA-GEIGY (formerly Geigy Chemical Company)
operated a pesticide formulation facility at the Site
from February 1948 to December 1955. Geigy's
activities involved the blending of technical grade
pesticides such as DDT, toxaphene and ben-
zenehexachloride (BHC) with inert material to form
a usable product. This product was repackaged for
sale to various markets.
wooos
•
Olin Chemicals (formerly Olin Mathieson) also
operated a pesticide formulation, packaging. and
distribution facility and occupied the Site from 1956
to 1967 .-Subsequent operators were primarily dis-
tributors, who rebagged and distributed prepack-
aged or bulk agricultural chemicals. ·
. The North Carolina Department of Human Resour-
ces completed a preliminary assessment of the
. . Geigy Site in February 1987, and completed a site
inspection in March 1987. A site inspection was
completed by EPA in March 1988 to obtain informa-
tion on the current contamination present at the Site.
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in September 1989. The NPL is EPA's list of
nationwide priority hazardous waste sites which are
eligible for federal cleanup monies from the Super-
fund Trust Fund.
n••-•"' ----0: .-'53~--~ r,::..~:." I
·,ooos
-. 2 -.
' ,,
r \I· " I\ ,, ,,
I I
'' \, ,,
I' ,' ,:
11
" I!
. . :~t:~~ ~-....,·.;.,,._,. ·::~:;:::,, •:, •a.'~\~;•:',-
'·. 'c:'t'f"?l""
from the ingestion of groundwater contaminated wtth
pesticides .and trichloroethane. ,This is not a current RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION · risk because no one is·currently living on Site drink-
Two removals were_ conducted at the Stte _during the __ .... ing the _contaminated _grciundwater .. :However, tt a
RI. These actions removed debris and·soil heavily hypothetical future resident. were to use the con-
contaminated wtth pesticides. All of the excavated taminated groundwater as· a ·source -of drinking
contaminated soils were disposed off-stte in a haz-water, there would be long-term risks to human
ardous waste landfill or incinerator. health .
Pesticides detected in the soil after the completion
of the removals includa toxaphene, DDT, and ben-• •·
zenehexachloride. Sur1ace soils (0 - 1 ft) contained
total pesticide levels ranging from 0.35 mg/kg to
192.32 mg/kg. Pesticide contamination was also
•detected in some samples down to a depth of 10 ft.
The results of the groundwater study indicate that
pesticides are present in the groundwater at the Site.
Contaminants include benzenehexachloride,
endrin, ketone, toxaphene, aldrin, dieldrin, DOE, and
trichloroethene. Pesticides were detected in both
the upper and lower groundwater aquifers at levels
above the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the4RI/FS, EPA analyzed and estimated the
human health or environmental problems that could
result if the soil and groundwater contamination at
the Geigy Stte is not cleaned up. This analysis is
called a baseline risk assessment. In conducting
this assessment, EPA focused on the human health
effects that could result from long-term (30 years)
daily, direct exposure as a result of ingestion, inhala-
tion, or dermal contact wtth soil, groundwater and air
which are contaminated wtth_ carcinogenic (cancer
causing) chemicals. The baseline risk assessment
also focused on the adverse health effects that could
result from long-term (30 years) and short-term (5
years) exposure to non-carcinogenic chemicals.
In calculating risks to a population tt no remedial
action is taken, EPA evaluates the reasonable max-
imum exposure levels for current and future ex-
posure scenarios to Site contaminants. Scenarios
were developed for residents (children and adults)
living on the Stte (worse case) and adults wor1<ing on
the Stte. EPA considers a long-term resident begin-
ning as a young child being exposed daily for 30
years to be the worst possible scenario for future
exposure to the Geigy Site.
EPA has concluded that the major risk to human
health and the environment at the Stte would result
For more information about the risks posed by the
contamination at the Geigy Site:•please refer to the
· Baseline Risk Assessment Report and other docu-
ments available for review at the information
repository in the Aberdeen Town Hall in Aberdeen,
North Carolina.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OBJECTIVES
Remedial response objectives were developed
based on the results of the Risk Assessment and
examination of potential Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Action-
location-, and chemical-specttic ARARs were ex-
amined. Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater
include MCLs and North Carolina Groundwater
Standards.
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. Cleanup goals at
the Geigy Stte will be established at stringent health
based levels. Cleanup goals were also established
to prevent any further degradation of the
groundwater. All state and federal ARARs will be
met. The contaminant specttic cleanup levels for
each of the site's environmental media are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The majority of waste materials disposed of at the
Stte and soil contamination were removed du ring the
two removal cleanup operations.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the
alternatives developed in the FS Report and other
documents for groundwater and soil remediation.
The primary objective of the FS was to determine
and evaluate alternatives for cleaning up the Site.
Descriptions of the clean-up alternatives are sum-
marized below. The FS Report and other docu-
- 3 -
ALDRIN 14 0.113:,,,,.
ALPHA-BHC 21 0.28
BETA-BHC.' 4. 1 L15
DELTA-BHC 1. 9 ' NC
GAMMA-BHC 3.2 1.5
DIELDRIN 9.7 0.13
ENDRIN KETONE 0.28 -NC
TOXAPHENE 450 2. 0
DDD 28 7.6
DDE 11 5.5
DDT 54 4.75
GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.049 1. 43
ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.045 1.4
TABLE 1
ALDRIN 0.1 0.05
36 0.05
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC 25 0.05
DELTA-BHC 29 0.05
GAMMA-BHC 30 0.05
DIELDRIN 2 0.1
ENDRIN KETONE 4 0.1
TOXAPHENE 10 1.0
TRICHLOROETHENE 200 2. 8
TABLE 2
- 4 -
•
ments contain a more detailed evaluation/descrip-
tion of each alternative, and is available for review in
the information repository.
The cost information provided below for each alter-
native represents estimated capital cost, annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) and present
worth. Capltal cost includes construction, engineer-
ing and design, equipment, and Site development.
Operating costs were calculated for activities that
continue after completion of construction, such as
routine operation and maintenance of treatment
equipment, and groundwater monitoring. The
present worth (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 inltial construction costs and
future expenditures, including O&M and future re-
placement of capltal equipment.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
The groundwater alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1A: NO ACTION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
'Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
0
$140,000
$140,000
None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action· alternative be
evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison. No further activities would be con-
ducted with site groundwater under this alternative.
Because this alternative does not entail contaminant
removal, a review of remedy would be conducted
every five years in a=rdance with the requirements
of CERCLA. Operating costs are based on this five
year review. There would be no maintenance costs.
ALTERNATIVE 18: LONG-TERM MONITORING
OF SITE GROUNDWATER
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 130,000
$1,500,000
$1,630,000
1 month
This alternative requires the long-term monitoring of
Site groundwater based upon 30 years of monitor-
ing. Four addltional monitoring wells would be con-
structed. Deed restrictions on Mure uses of the
property would also be required. Sampling would be
twice a year for pesticides and trichloroethane. The
five year review CERCLA requirement would apply
to this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 2: SLURRY WALL AND CAP
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 8,400,000
$ 1,800,000
$10,200,000
8 months
This alternative would involve construction of an
interconnected slurry wall and cap system to con-
tain Site groundwater. The slurry wall would be
installed down to a depth of approximately 70 feet.
The cap would consist of a 60-mil High Density
Polyethylene Liner, drainage net, filter fabric, soil
cover and vegetation. The cap would be con-
structed solely for the purpose of restricting infiltra-
tion within the slurry wall to minimize the amount of
groundwater collected. The area of the cap would
be approximately 3 acres. Extraction wells would be
located outside of the slurry wall to recover con-
taminated groundwater in the sec.end uppermost
aqutter. Treatment of this groundwater would be by
activated carbon. A security fence would be con-
structed along the perimeter of the cap to deter
unauthorized access. This alternative also involves
the installation of addltional groundwater monitoring
wells in the second uppermost aquifer to further
define p/umecharacterization.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUNDWATER RECOVERY
& TREATMENT TO ATTAIN REMEDIATION
LEVELS
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 710,000
$1,500,000
$2,210,000
3 months
All Site groundwater currently exceeding the
remediation levels would be recovered using extrac-
tion wells, treated by activated carbon, and dis-
charged either to the Moore County sewer system
or to an on-site infiltration gallery. Compounds re-
quiring treatment in groundwater are pesticides and
trichloroethene. The extraction system would in-
volve the installation of approximately nine recovery
wells. This alternative also involves the installation
- 5 -
•
of additional groundwater monitoring· wells in the
second uppermost aquffer to provide further plume
characierization.· Costs are ·based ori discharge to··
the POTW, which'•are higher than -th·e '.cost ,of an a
infiltration gallery; and operation ·of the system for 3Cf
years. · · ··· ·
REMEDIAL ·ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS SOIL CONTAMINA-·· TION ·, ,,,. ;-· · .. , ·
The soil alternatives are:
. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Capital Costs:
PW,O&M Costs:·
Total PW Costs:
0 .·
$140,000
$140,000
Implementation: None
This alternative for soil contamination is the same as
Alternative 1 A for groundwater contamination. No
further activities would be conducted on Site soils.
ALTERNATIVE 2: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
TOTAL TOTAL
Capital Costs: $1,170,000 $5,000,000
PW O&M Costs: 0 0
Total PW Costs: $1,170,000 $5,000,000
Implementation: 2 months
This alternative would involve the excavation and
off-site disposal of Site soils exceeding the remedia-
tion goals. Soils would be taken to either a secure
landfill or a fixed base incinerator. Soils failing the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) test for gamma-BHC or toxaphene would be
considered hazardous by characieristic and in-
cinerated to satisfy land disposal .restrictions
(LOR). Soils passing the TCLP test would be sent
to a RC RA-approved landfill. This alternative would
also involve removal of the concrete foundation to
access contaminated soils underneath the concrete.
The concrete debris would be taken to a municipal
landfill for proper disposal. To provide the greatest
allowance for potential remediation costs, it was
assumed that all soils went either to a secure landfill
(lowest cost) or to an incinerator (highest cost) .. , ,:--
•
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs: ·
··.":Implementation:
'·$ 95:000
$180,000
·$275,000.
2 months
This alternative. consists .of the. construction of a
non-woven polypropylene geomembrane impreg-
nated and sealed with an asphalt overlay .. The entire
area would be. fenced. to prevent further human
contaci with contaminated soils. Demolition of the
building foundation would be required to gain access
to underlying soils. · ·
ALTERNATIVE 4: ON-SITE THERMAL DESORP-
TION
Capital Costs: $1,200,000
PW O&M Costs: .. $ 0
Total PW Costs: .... $1,200,000 .
Implementation: 2 months · ·
This alternative consists of excavating contaminated
· soil and treating it by thermal desorption. Treatment
will consist of volatilizing the organic contaminants
at temperatures usually between 300 degrees F and
1000 degrees F, with the off-gases being treated to
prevent the release of contaminants. Treatment will
continue until the soil can meet the remediation
levels and pass the TCLP test for toxaphene and
gamma-BHC. The waste stream will be treated or
disposed of off-site. Demolition of the building foun-
dation would be required to gain access to underly-
ing soils.
ALTERNATIVE 5: ON-SITE INCINERATION
Capital Costs: ·
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$3,100,000
$ 0
$3,100,000
2 months
Under this alternative, a mobile incinerator would be
used to burn contaminated soils at extremely high
temperatures upto 2200 degrees F. EPA's incinera-
tion standards require that the incineration remove
99.99% of the contaminants. After confirming
through sampling and analysis that the incinerator
ash is non-hazardous (pass the TCLP test for
toxaphene and lindane), the ash would be disposed
on-site in the area where the soil originated. The ash
-6 -
•
would be covered wtth clean fill and revegetated. Air
pollution control wastes or sludges and excess water
will be reinjected Into the incinerator for treatment.
Demolition of the building foundation would be re-
quired to gain access to underlying soils.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup atternative
for the Geigy Stte, as described in this Proposed
Plan, is the result of a comprehensive evaluation and
screening process. The Feasibiltty Study (FS) for
the Site was conducted to idenMy and analyze the
alternatives considered for addressing contamina-
tion. The FS Report and other documents for the
Geigy ~ite describe, in detail, the atternatives con-
sidered, as well as the process and crtteria EPA used
to narrow the list to potential remedial alternatives to
address the Site contamination.
EPA always uses the following nine criteria to
evaluate alternatives identttied in the FS. While
overall protection of human health and the environ-
ment is the primary objective of the remedial action,
the remedial alternative selected for the Stte must
achieve the best balance among the evaluation
criteria considering the scope and relative degree of
the contamination at the Site.
1. overall orotect;on of human health and the en-
vironment: EPA assesses the degree to which each
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to
public health and the environment through treat-
ment, engineering methods or institutional controls.
2. Compliance wHh Applicable or Relevant and Ap-
propriate Recwirements (ABABs): The alternatives
are evaluated for compliance with all state and
federal environmental and public health laws and
requirements that apply or are relevant and ap-
propriate to the site conditions.
3. QQ.st The benefits of implementing a particular
remedial alternative are weighed against the cost of
implementation. Costs include the capital (up-front)
cost of implementing an alternative over the long
term, and the net present worth of both capital and
operation and maintenance costs.
4. Jmplemerrtability: EPA considers the tech"nlca1
feasibility (e.g., how dHficult the alternative is· to
construct and operate) and administrative ease
•
(e.g., the amount of coordination with other govern-
ment agencies that is needed) of a remedy, including
the availability of necessary materials and services.
5. Short-term effectiveness: The length of time
needed to implement each alternative is considered,
and EPA assesses the risks that may be posed to
workers and nearby residents during construction
and implementation.
6. Long-term effectiveness· The alternatives are
evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable
protection of public health and the environment over
time once the cleanup goals have been met.
7. Reduction of contaminant toxictlv, rnobilitv, and
volume· EPA evaluates each alternative based on
how it reduces ( 1) the harmful nature of the con-
taminants, (2) their ability to move through the en-
vironment, and (3) the volume or amount of
contamination at the site.
8. State acceptance: EPA requests state com-
ments on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study reports, as well as the Proposed Plan, and
must take into consideration whether the state con-
curs 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.
EPA'S PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
After conducting a detailed analysis of all the feasible
cleanup attematives based on the criteria described
in the preceding section, EPA is proposing a com-
prehensive, multi-component cleanup plan to ad-
dress groundwater and soil contamination at the
Site. The EPA preferred alternatives are:
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Alternative 3 -Groundwater extraction to attain
remediation goals; carbon adsorption
$2,210,000
-

7

-
•
SOIL REMEDIATION
Alternative 4 . On.Site Thermal Desorption
$1,200,000
TOTAL $3,410,000
On-Stte Incineration, Alternative 5 for Soil Re media·
tion ($3,100,000) has been chosen as a contingency
alternative. The preferred re~edy for soil remedia·
tion (On-Stte Thermal Desorption) will involve some
testing to verify that the cleanup goals can be
reached. If the cleanup goals cannot be met, and/or
the remedy is determined not to be cost effective in
relation to on-stte incineration, then the more con-
ventional incineration technology would be utilized.
Based on current information, these alternatives ap-
pear to provide the best balance of trade-offs wtth
respect to the nine crtteria that EPA uses to evaluate
alternatives. EPA believes the preferred alternative
will satisfy the statutory requirements of Section
121(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(b), which
provides that the selected alternative be protective
of human health and the environment, comply wtth
ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and treatments to the maximum extent
practicable. The selection of the above alternatives
is preliminary and could change in response to public
comments.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following summary profiles the performance of
the preferred alternatives in terms of the nine evalua-
tion crtteria noting how tt compares to the other
alternatives under consideration.
The following comparative analysis is provided for
the groundwater remediation alternatives and the
soil remediation alternatives.
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for migration control:
Alternatlve 1 A: No Action
Alternative 1 B: Long-term monttoring_\J!
Grau ndwater · -
•
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Slurry Wall and Cap
Groundwater Recovery to Attain
Remediation Goals
Overall Protection. Groundwater poses no risks to
human health and the environment under current
condttions. The no action alternatives (1 A and 1 B)
would not address contaminant levels in
groundwater and therefore would not be protective
of human health under potential future condttions.
Alternative 2 would prevent the migration of con·
laminated groundwater in the uppermost aqutter and
recover groundwater in the second uppermost
aqutter to meet remediation goals. Alternative 3
would recover all contaminated groundwater to meet
remediation goals. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3
would be protective of human health and the en-
vironment.
Compliance Wtth ARARs. MC Ls are ARARs for Site
groundwater. Alternatives 1 A and 1 B would not
comply with ARARs. Alternative 2 would meet
ARARs outside of the slurry wall. Alternative 3
would attain ARARs throughout the entire site.
There are no location-specific ARARs. Construction
of the groundwater recovery, treatment and dis-
charge systems for Alternatives 2 and 3 would satis-
fy action-specttic ARARs.
Long-term Ettectiveness and Permanence. Under
Alternative 1, groundwater contamination would
continue to migrate off-stte; therefore tt is not con·
sidered to be a permanent or effective remedial
solution. The long-term effectiveness of Alternative
2 is questionable, because the competence of the
slurry wall would have to be verttied over time.
Contaminant concentrations would be permanently
reduced through groundwater recovery for Alterna-
tive 3. Carbon adsorption is considered Best Avail·
able Treatment for pesticides and volatlle organic
compounds in groundwater.
Reduction of Toxictty Mobiltty or Volume. The no
action alternative wou Id not signtticantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants in
groundwater. Alternative 2 would reduce the
mobiltty of contaminants in the uppermost aquifer
through containment and reduce the volume of pes-
ticides in the second uppermost aqutter through
recovery. Alternative 3 would reduce the volume of
pesticides in both aqutters through recovery and
treatment and comply wtth the statutory preference
for alternatives involving treatment.
- 8 -
' .
,. ,,, ~) . .
···~-f:"c
•
Short-term Effectjyeness. All of the alternatives can
be implemented without signtticant risk to the com-.
munity or on-site workers and without adverse. :en-
vironmental imp;ict_ .-~_-_: ___ · ._:_._:_::_·_• •. •·.-'.~_:_·._·_:._:·_ .. .' ~i. .. ·;, ·, ~:.. i: ,,: .. -" ... .._. · ··' :.; .'.;:. f:.:; ;_'..-;,,'
•
· and applicable land disposal ·restrictions. (LDRs) .. :
Consolidation· of .Site soils· and;capping in'place ·:::
· would not-trigger any RCRA requirements (Alterna-,,t
:tive··3,:,::_'Altematives ,4 and '5 will :comply:•With ·.a\l.,;;_ -
applicable ,4.f:IARs, includi~g LDRs/ ;, ;, ' '\"/ :''' t'':'
!mp!ementabmtv. Alternatives 1 A, 1 B, and 3 would
pose no signtticant concerns regarding implementa-Long-term Ettectjyeness and Permanence. Altema~
tion. Construction of the slurry wall for Alternative 2 · tive 1 would not be effective in reducing contaminant ·
would approach the limits of technical feasibility due.··:·. levels.': ·Alternatives 2, 4 .and 5 would result in .a -
to the required depths (up to 70 feet). Design of the .. · permanent reduction in :Site risks. Alternative 3
treatment systems could not be. conducteduntil dis: 1.:;. · co_uld be'.,effective i11 the .long term through regular
charge requirements were defined. · maintenance of the cap, but a review of remedy
-.G.o.st. Total present worth costs for ttie groundwater ·
· remediation alternatives are presented bel_ow: ..
Alternative 1 A:
Alternative 1 B:
Alternative 2:• ·.
Alternative 3:
$ 140,000
$ 1,630,000
$10,200,000
$ 2,210,000
would be required every five.years since a cap is not
-considered to be a permanent remedy. ·· ·
Reduction ·01 Toxicity Mobiltty' and Volume. Pes-
ticide levels would remain unchanged for Alternative
1. Alternatives 2 ; 4 and 5 would reduce pesticide
levels signtticantly. Alternative 3 would not reduce
the volume, but would reduce the mobility and effec-
tive toxicity of the pesticides.
Short-term Effectjyeness. All of the alternatives can
:<:,, · SOIL REMEDIATION
· be implemented without signtticant risks to on-site
· •• workers or the community and without adverse en-
.·· · ·vironmental impacts. ,-,:,·.,· ·· ....
-The following alternatives were developed for Site
soils and were subjected to detailed analysis:
Alternative 1 :
'Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
No Action
Off-Site Disposal
Capping
lmplemeriiabj!jty. No implementation is needed for
the no action alternative. Off-site disposal to a
RCRA-approved landfill and incinerator have been
conducted successfully in the past at the Geigy Site.
. Construction of the cap would pose no signtticant
· difficulties. Implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5
may depend on the availability of ·mobile thermal
desorption equipment and mobile incineration
equipment, respectively.
Alternative 4: On-Site Thermal Desorption .c.o.st. Total present worth costs for the soil altema-
. · tives are presented below:
Alternative 5: On-Site Incineration
Overall Protection. Potential risks due to Site soils
· under current conditions and under potential future
.:.conditions (residential scenario) are within the ac-·
· ceptable range of risk specttied by the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). Alternatives 2, 3 4, and
5 would mitigate any further degradation of the
groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs. There are no Federal or
· .State ARARs for pesticides in soils. There are'no
action-specttic ARARs for the no action alternative.
Alternative 2 would comply with EPA's off-site policy
- 9 -
Alternative 1 :
Alternative 2:
.. Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
$140,000
$1,170,000 (Landfilling)
$5,000,000(lncineration)
$275,000
$1,200,000 ·
$3,100,000
• •
State Acceptance. The NCDEHNR has reviewed and
provided EPA with comments on the reports and data
from the RI and the FS. The NCDEHNR also reviewed
this proposed plan and EPA's preferred alternative and
concur with EPA's selection ..
Community Acceptance. Community acceptance of the
preferred alternative will be. evaluated after the public
comment period ends and a response to each comment
will be included in a Responsiveness Summary which
will be a part of the Record of Decision (ROD) tor the
Site. .
'
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated by Congress under Supertund to respond to
;citizen's concerns and needs for information, and to enable residents and public officials to participate in the
decision-making process. Public involvement activities undertaken at Supertund sites are 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 March 26, 1992 to April 24, 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 March 31, 1992, at the American Legion Hall in
Aberdeen, North Carolina, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at which EPA will present the Remedial lnvestigatiorvFeasibility
Study and Proposed Plan describing the preferred alternative for treatment of the contamination at the Geigy
Chemical Corporation Site and to answer 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
information repository for a more detailed explanation.
During this 30-day period, the public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the information
repository located at the Aberdeen Town Hall, and offer comments to EPA either orally at the public meeting which
will be recorded by a court reporter or in written form during this time period. The actual remedial action could be
different from the preferred alternative, depending upon new information or arguments EPA may receive as a result
of public comments. If you prefer to submit written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight
April 24, 1992 to: ·
Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Supertund Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
All comments will be reviewed and a response prepared in making the final determination of the most appropriate
•··.· alternative for cleanu~reatment 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 (also located at the Aberdeen Town Hall) which contains all documents used by EPA in
making a final determination of the best cleanup/treatment for the Site. Once the ROD has been approved, EPA
once again begins negotiations with the Potentially Reponsible Parties (PRPs) to allow them the opportunity to
design and implement the remedy determin(!d in the ROD in accordance with EPA guidance and protocol. If
negotiations do not result in a settlement, EPA'-rnay 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
-10 -
• • ,. . .....
agreement has been reached, the design of the selected remedy will be developed and implementation of the
remedy can begin.
·.·~~it~::·:~--~·::\,:·,:.·;~.-..,,:.,,::_. ·~1 .-: .. :·~:-:.~.~.:,'•,;:,:, ,i! .. ·-; .·.·.·· ,
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides affected communities by a SUperfund site with the oppoitu.nity
to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG): This grant of up to $50:000 is awarded to only.one community
group per.slte·-.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: ... · · · .
.,::·1-
,,... . . ' '• ,. . . ... ' . , "':. ., .-, ••, ,._. ' ' . -~•.,.-, ·'•"'': ... ,,._ . ..,,,,_,. "'• . . ". . . ' ' ... •, ~-., ............ . . Ms. Rosemary Patton; Coordinator.
• .. · NC Technical Asslstance,Grarits ...
. · ·.: , Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
· 345 COur11and Street, NE
:Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Ms. Glezelle Bennett, Remedla_l 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]
,:)-
-11 -
• •
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or
. group of formations, containing useable amounts of
groundwater thafca_n supply wells and springs.
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 cleanup/treat contamination at a Super-
fund site. This file is located in the information
reposttory for public review.
· Appl/cable or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
ments (ARARs): The federal and state require-
ments that a selected remedy must attain. These
requirements may vary among sites and various
alternatives.
Base//ne Risk Assessment A means of estimat-
ing the amount of damage a Superfund site could
cause to human health and the environment. Objec-
tives of a risk assessment are to: help determine the
need for action; help determine the levels of chemi-
cals that can remain on the site alter 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, Com-
pensation and Llabl/lty Act (CERCLA): A federal
law passed in 1980 and modijied in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 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 Super-
fund. These Acts give EPA the authority to inves-
tigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites u1ilizing money from the Su-
perfund Trust or by taking legal action to force parties
responsible for the contamination to pay for and
clean up the site.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's
surface that fills pores between materials such as
sand, soil, or gravel (usually in aquifers) which is
often used for supplying wells and springs. Be9tJse
groundwater is a major source of drinking wafer
there is growing concern over areas where agricul
'' •• I
tural and industrial pollutants or substances are get-
ting into groundwater. · · .... ·
Information Repository: A file containing accurate
up-to-date information, technical reports, reference
documents, inform&tion about the Technical Assis-
tance Grant, and any other materials pertinent 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.
Land Disposal Restriction (LDRs): Any place-
ment of hazardous waste in a landfill, suriace im-
poundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, underground mine,
cave and concrete bunker or vault.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): The max-
imum ·permissible level of a contaminant in water
delivered to any user of a public water system.
MCLs are enforceable standards.
National OIi and Hazardous Substances Contin-
gency Plan (NCP): The federal regulation that
guides determination of the sites to be corrected
under the Superfund program and the program to
prevent or control spills into surface waters or other
portions of the environment.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the
most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL
to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial
action. The list is based primarily on the score a site
receives from the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a
year.
Plume: A visible or measurable discharge of a
contaminant from a given point of origin into either
air or water.
Potentially Responsible Pan/es (PRPs): Any in-
dividual 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 they have con-
taminated.
-12 -
.:,,.,-:-,.
;"'/:;::,'
•
Remedial Jnvestlgat/on/Feaslblllty Study (RJ/FS):
The Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive
sampling and analytical study to gather data neces-
sary to determine the nature and extent of con-
tamination at a Superfund site; to establish criteria
for cleaning up the site; a description and analysis of
the potential cleanup alternatives for remedial ac-
tions; and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The Feasibility study also usually
recommends selection of a cost-effective alterna-
tive.
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.
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 of Decision.
•
Slurry Wall: This method consists of digging a
trench approximately 18 inches wide down to a
depth below the contamination to a solid barrier that
water cannot migrate through. The trench is filled
with a substance, such as clay, concrete or grout,
that will stop the movement of liquid beyond the
trench. This method creates a dam effect stopping
migration of liquid substances.
Thermal Treatment: The treatment of hazardous
waste in a device which uses elevated temperatures
as the primary means to change the chemical, physi-
cal, or biological character or composition of.the
hazardous waste.
Vo/at/le Organic Compounds (VOCs): Any or-
ganic compound that evaporates readily into the air
at room temperature.
-13 -
•
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.··
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365 ·
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NQRTH.SlJPERRN)~BRANCH
.... -..• !
i/F ALl~R0160
JACK ~UTLcR, ?~□J~CT M~k.
SUPC1~~:ut~J s::C1 lOi\/
..
'
87 ~C Ll~~iT~/~NV, HEALTH & l~~TlJRAL RESOURCE
P • U ,. ~; ~J X L 7 0 C ·1
~AL~Ib~ NC 27602
. ·• '~ •.•~-~ •. ,-,.~••'"Y ••• •••t"""
. ,.-,
'""''·'"'·.
··:':"~t:·.,:.
.. ;):,/•f"''· ?ij."i• .
• •
~~g) sr~,-~19 Ht(;tfVfOOUPERFUND UPDATE
-• ll'fA ·. • DEC 12 1991 -FACT SHEET { ~·/1 J'PERRlNDSECTfoN -
"~··"" ¾(PR~~{)~ GEIGY CHEMICAL CORP .
EPA Region IV
Aberdeen, Moore County,
North Carolina
December 1991
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has implemented a Remedial Investiga-
tion and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Geigy
Chemical Corporation Site in Aberdeen, North
Carolina. While three potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) are responsible for conducting the
actual RI/FS, EPA oversees and reviews all stud-
ies and work performed. A PRP is an individual
or company potentially responsible for, or con-
tributing to, contamination problems at a
Superfund Site. Under this process, the RI has
been completed for the Geigy Site and the FS has
begun. This fact sheet explains what activities
were undertaken to determine the extent of the
contamination at the site, what recommendations -
were made as a result of the findings, and what
"next steps" must be taken in order to choose the
best cleanup remedy for the site.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The Geigy Chemical Corporation Site is approx-
imately one acre in size and is located just east
of the city of Aberdeen, in Moore County, North
c~olina (Figure 1). It is located on a railroad
right-of-way on Route 211. The partially-fenced
site is currently vacant and consists of partial
concrete foundations from two former ware-
houses, an office building, and a concrete tank
pad.
The Geigy Site is owned by the Aberdeen and
Rockfish Railroad and had been leased to various
companies which operated at the site from 1947
to 1989. CIBA-GEIGY (formerly Geigy Chem-
ical Company) operated a pesticide formulation
-' -J
~-~'l ,.,,
1 <.;
f Fi ure 1 ,., r---"------'~=--=------~
6 ICAU.:l'B'T
'I ,ocr o •oo· 1200· 2000·
ll
wuous
&
(D
N
_..cs-02-2
,i-~W-IS
Pl-I ....
M
K[Y
illilliU
SU/lVLY WIil GlOLOGICAL
MUNIIOnlNG W[ll
L WI 11 PIWOUCIION ZON
WOOIJS
~-tn<-IJD
2 FIC:lll:E
0
•
-" -
•
J . •
facility at the site from February 1948 to Decem-
ber 1955. Geigy's activities involved the blend-
ing 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 (formerly Olin Mathieson) also
operated a pesticide formulation; packaging and
distribution facility and occupied the site from
1956 to 1967. Subsequent operators were pri-
marily distributors, who rebagged and distrib-
uted prepackaged or bulk agricultural chemicals.
The site was placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in September 1989. The NPL is
EPA's list of nationwide priority hazardous
waste sites which are eligible for federal cleanup
monies from the Superfund Trust Fund.
THE GEIGY REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
The objectives of the remedial investigation (RI)
performed at the Geigy Site included:
• Characterizing and quantifying contamina-
tion at the Geigy Site in groundwater,
soils, and sediments.
• Defining the geology and hydrology in the
vicinity of the site. This part of the study ..
focused on problems of contaminant trans-
port through soil and surface/groundwater. _
Three removals were conducted at the site during
the RI. These actions removed debris and hun-
dreds of tons of soil heavily contaminated with
pesticides from the site. All of the excavated
contaminated soils and debris were disposed
off-site in a hazardous waste landfill or inciner-
ator.
• Soil samples collected ilfl.cr the removals re-
vealed additional pesticide contamination .
. · Therefore, a major recommendation of the RI is
that a feasibility study (FS) be conducted for.the
· remaining contamination. The FS,will establish
cleanup levelsfor the pesticides,in th_e soil and
present various::a1ternatives for ·removing or
treating the contaminants.
• The results ·of'the · groundwater study indicate
that pesticides are present in the groundwater at
the site .. As shown on Figure 2, contaminants
include benzene hexachloride; endrin ketone,
toxaphene, aldrin, dieldrin, DDE, and
trichloroethene.
NEXT STEPS
The next step in assessing the appropriate
method and level of cleanup involves perform-
ing a feasibility study and a risk assessment (RA)
which will take approximately a month or two
to complete since we already have much of the
data available. A feasibility study consists of
descriptions and · analysis of the potential
cleanup/treatment alternatives for the specific
contaminants at the site, and recommends selec-
tion of the most cost-effective, efficient alterna-
tive. A risk assessment consists of an
evaluation of the contaminants at a site and the
risk or potential risk posed to human health
and/or the environment when coming into con-
tact with specific pollutants through external
exposure or ingestion. As a result of the findings
of the FS and the RA, an appropriate remedy for
cleanup will be chosen.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS:
..
During the period while the feasibility study and
risk assessment are underway, we normally pro-
vide the public with results of these activities
through fact sheets, such as this one, news re-
leases, progress reports and informal meetings,
as well as providing the repository with copies
Page 3
•
of these documents: Once all of the data has
been compiled and analyzed a proposed plan
. outlining the various alternatives will be pre-
pared and mailed to you,-'.A-30°day public com-
: menf period will begin once, we mail this
proposed···plan for your·consideration .. The
Agency will hold a public' ·meeting during this
· 30-day period to present,and explain the pro-· ··
posed methods of treating the contaminated
.osoils and waters so that yo·u can provide us with
your comments on all-of the proposed alterna-
.tives.·. ·.You can also present any feasible
cleanup/treatrnent·alternatives which is better
suited for the community if you feel that those
the Agency proposes are not adequate. A 30-
day extension can be given to the public com-
ment period if requested. A transcript will be
made of the proceedings of the meeting .and
. p\aced in the repository for your information.
•
The Agency will prepare a .written response to
all oral and written comments_:received during
the meeting and public comment period .. This
.'. document is· called :a-responsiveness summary
which will be made available to the public.: This
summary also becomes.part of the Record of
Decision which announces the final remedy ac-
tion plan selected by the Agency. We will place
an ad in _the local newspaper. advertising this
selection as well as mailing each of you a fact
. sheet with detailed information.
Keeping citizens informed and involved is an
integral part of the Superfund process. If at any
time you have questions or concerns, or want to
report an incident at the site, please feel free to
contact us either by phone or in writing• we will
respond .
Ms. Giezelle S. Bennett, Remedial Project Manager or
Ms. Diane Barrett, Community Reiatious Coor<iinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
.. .. 345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365 Tel: [phone]
INFORMATION REPOSITORY LOCATIONS: ..
Page Memorial Library
100 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen,:Nortti:Carolina·2s315
[phone]
Hours: 2:00 -6:00 PM Weekdays
Aberdeen Town Hall
115 North Poplar Street
Aberdeen, North.Carolina 28315
[phone] ·
Hours: 8:00 -5:00 PM Weekdays
Page 4
• • MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to be placed on the mailing list for the
Geigy Chemical Corporation Site, please complete this form and mail to:
NAME
ADDRESS
Diane Barrett ·
Community Relations Coordinator:
North Superfund Remedial_Branch···· · ·•
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
----------------------------
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE ___________________ _
PHONE NUMBER --------------------------
· AFFILL\ TION ---------------------------
Page 5
•
.. UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NORTH SUPERRmRQl!ffflM &RANaf
' SI F
,J>.CK ,'iUTLER
SUPE~FUND SECTIJN
..: .:.; ::.:• -
. . . . .. -··•·-·-········-~---
ADER0160
87
DIV. 0~ SOLID WASTE ~GMT.
NC D~PT./Ef4V, ~lEALTH C NATURAL RESOURCE.
P.O. :-J'."JX 27(;37
i;, I, 11.,, I, II,, II,,., ,1, I,, 11,1
• •
Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Fact Sheet
·t<ECt:.IVED Geigy Chemical Corporation Site
· Aberdeen, North Carolina MAY 2 2 1890
SUPERFUND SECTION
Region IV
Introduction
Thia fact sheet on the Geigy Chemi-
cal Corporation site in Aberdeen,
North carol'ina has been prepa,;ed by
the Region IV Office of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Terms in bold face
print are defined in a glossary
located at the . end of th.is
publication.
EPA and the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) are over-
seeing activities at the Geigy Chemi-
cal· Corporation site under the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act o!
1980 (CERCLA), as a.mended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1986 (SARA), The purpcse
of this fact sheet is to inform in-
terested citizen■ and local officials
of the natuxo ■nd status o! activi-
ties at the ■.ite. Specifically, this
fact .sheet providea a brief back-
ground and history of the site.
Finally, opportunitia■ !or public
involvement are discuaaed.
Site Description and History
The Geigy Chemical Corpcration site
is located approximately .3 miles
May 1990
\
-------------
Figure l
east o! SR 2063. The site is on a
railroad .. right-of-way on Route 211
outside the city limits of Aberdeen
in Moore County. The Geigy Chemical
Corpcration site covers approximately
l acre. An office building and two
• ware~cuses oc=~;y :~e s~:e. ~~e si:e
Ls bour.deC o~ :~er.or:~ ~y Route 2:!,
to the east by a dir~ road, and south
and west by woods.
• from t:1.e Super:"L:.r.d Trust Fund.
In
tially
December 1988,
responsible
three
parties
poten-
(PRPe)
The Geigy Chemical Corporation si.te .. .., sign.ec;f. 1 •. an Administrative Order on
is owned by the Aberdeen and Rockf~~~~j t.c!:,2,~E:.~fil _,_frn which the parties agreed Railroad-· and had been leased to vari-to undertake the actions necessary to oue companies which operated at th~_t:'.i_;_tidentifYl and define the horizontal site from 1947 to 1989. CIBA-GEIGY and vertical extent of contamination
( formerly Geigy Chemical Compan~p;j;Jj?-.t;:.:J;\~~~~~/)_~ite. Work conducted by the operated a pesticide formulation PRPB will be closely monitored by facility at the site from February EPA.
1948 to December 1955. Geigy's
activities involved the blending of
technical grade pesticides such as
DDT, toxaphene and benzenehexa-
chloride (BBC) with inert materials
to form a usable product. Thie prod-
uct was repackaged for sale to the
cotton and tobacco-growing markets.
Olin Chemicals (formerly Olin
Mathieson) also operated~ pesticide
formulation, packaging and distribu-
tion facility and occupied the site
from 1956 to 1967. Subsequent opera-
tors were primarily distributors, who
rebagged and distributed prepackaged
or bulk agricultural chemicals.
Lebanon Chemic.:1.l Corporation, the
last occupant at the site, abandoned
the site in March 1989.
EPA conducted an investigation in
March 1987 and detected pesticides,
including toxaphene, DDT, and BHC in
surface and subsurface soils on the
site. The Sandhille Aquifer iB
potentially 'threatened due to the
high permeability of the unsatu-
rated zone. NCDEHNR and EPA sampling
and analysis of the aquifer has
revealeC. low concentrations of BHC in
the groundwater. In June of 1988,
the Geigy Chemical Corporation site
was proposed tor inclusion on EPA'a
National Priorities List (NPL) at
the request of the State of North
Carolina because of the threat of
contamination at the site. The site
was placed on the NPL in September
1989 with a score of 33.02. The NPL
is EPA'e list of priority hazardous
waste sites nationwide which are
In
work
January 1990,
plan prepared
EPA
by
approved a
the PRPs for
conducting the investigation. Field
projected to begin the activities,
week of May
collection of
samples and
installation
wells, and
14, 1990, will include:
approximately 106 soil
28 sediment samples,
of 10
collection
monitoring
of 10
groundwater samples.
The PRPs have conducted two remOVal
actions at the site in order to
remove visually contaminated soils.
During February 23, 1989 through
Fe~ruary 2e, 1989, ~ to~al of 462
tons of contaminated soil and debris
were removed from the site. The
second removal action occurred from
October 23, 1989 to October 24, 1989
which resulted in the removal of 227
tone of contaminated soil. All of
the excavated contaminated soils were
disposed off-site in a hazardous
waste landfill.
What is a Remedial Investigation?
A Remedial Investigation (RI) is
an intensive study of a ·superfund
site. It is carried out by a team of
health and· environmental specialists
such as hydrogeologists, engineers,
and biologists to determine the exact
nature of the hazardous .wastes, the
nature of threat, if any, that may be
posed to human health or the environ-
ment, and the boundaries or extent of
contamination present at a site.
Page 2
':'ypical:y, :.:":e • report. •.,,:i2...!. des-
cribe :.~e type anC extent. of onsite
and offsite contamination, effects of
contamination on surface water and
groundwater, and the degree of con-
tamination in the sediment and soil.
To ·achieve these findings, EPA
personne~ or the PRPs' cont~actor,
supervised by EPA, will take samples
of the soil and surface water at
various locations at the site.
Monitoring wells are installed and
the groundwater is sampled. The aver-
age ·1ength of time for a remedial
investigation is one year.
Samples will be sent to EPA-
approved laboratories to be analyzed
for various contaminants. The area
will be studied to determine whether
the c6'ntaminants are moving from the
contaminated area, where they might
be migrating, and what sensitive
areas they might reach. Based on
this information, a risk assessment
will be made, estimating the
contaminants' potential impact on
human health and the environment.
What is a Feasibility Study?
information gathered during an
used to develop a companion
called a Feasibility Study
The FS is the portion of the
during which environmental
engineers and other technical staff
The
RI is
study
(FS).
process
consider, describe, and evaluate·
options for cleaning up the site.
As required by the Superfund pro-
gram, the FS team designs cleanup
alternatives so that certain criteria
are met by at least one of the alter-
natives. Thaae criteria include:
-Overall protCDCtion of human health
and the environment: adequate
elimination, reduction, or control
of all current and potential risks
posed by the site;
-Compliance with appl.icable and/or
relevant and appropriate Federal or
State public health or env~ron-
:r,ent.a.!.
warranted
ensured;
where :..a
-Long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence;
-Reduction of the
ness), mobility
dency to move),
toxicity (harmful-
{potential or ten-
or voltime of haz-
ardous substances or contaminants;
-Short-term effectiveness, or the
impacts a remedy might have. on the
community, workers, or the environ-
ment during the course of ~mple-
menting the remedy;
Implementability, that is the ad-
ministrative or technical capac-
ity to carry out the alternative;
-Cost-effectiveness, considering the
cost of construction, operation,
and maintenance of the alternative
over the life of the project,
including remedial costs should it
fail;
-Acceptance by the State; and
-Acceptance by the community.
These nine criteria
an alternative will
tance depending on
conditions.
for selecting
vary in impor-
site-specific
The FS presents. the remedial
alternatives and how they rate
according to these and other cri-
teria. In some cases, the FS will
recommend that no action iA neces-
sary. An evaluation of the no-action
alternative is required _and · Will
assess the ri·sk to public health and
the environment if no action is taken
to cleanup the.site. The FS may also
recommend a single alternative or a
combination of several alternatives
as the best solution. The average
length of time to complete the FS is
six montha.
Page 3
• Public Comment Period
Once the FS is complete, a copy of
the report is placed in the Informa-
tion ReposJ.tory and is discussed
during a public meeting. A public
comment period (not less than 30
days) is held to allow citizens to
comment on the remedial alternatives
considered in the study. During the
meeting,·-EPA presents a summary of
the RI/FS process (including the
results of the FS) and explains the
proposed remedies for the site. The
public' meeting is recorded to ensure
a com~lete record is made of public
comments and questions. A Respon-
siveness Summary is compiled after
the official comment period ends.
Following the Responsiveness Summary,
a formal decision document, called a
Record of Decision (ROD), is pre-
pared to summarize the decision
process and the selected remedies.
The ROD _is submitted to the EPA
Regional Administrator for approval.
At this point, the design of the
remedy is developed and the implemen-
tation of the remedy begins.
Further Opportunities for Public
Involvement
EPA has developed a community rela-
tions program under Superfund to
respond to citizens' concerns and
needs for information as well as to
enable residents and officials of a
community to participate in decision
making. EPA · st·aff or contractors
will prepare a Community Relations
Plan (CRP) based upcn discussions in
the cor,1rnunity with local leaders and
private citizens. Upcn identifying
interested partiaa and the concerns
and question■ existing in the area,
the CRP ia prapued'. The plan
identifies techniques to be used to
communicate effactivaly with the
community during the Super fund
process. The communicatiOn efforts
often include telephone contacts,
small informal meetings or formal
public meetings,
correspondence, and
news
fact
releases,
sheets. A
• CR? ~s =~==e~~~y jei~; ~e~e~~~e~
will be made available for :ev~a~
comment. EPA has established an
information repository where reports
and other documents are made avail-
able to citizens. For information
regarding the documents available,
contact the Aberdeen Town Hall at the
address and telephone number listed
in this fact sheet.
Technical Assistance Grants
EPA is providing communities with
the opportunity to apply for Tech-
nical Assistance Grants (TAGs).
These grants of up to $50,000 (per
site) are designed to enable commu-
nity groups to hire a technical
advisor or consultant to assist them
in interpreting and commenting on
site findings and the planned
cleanup. There is a limit of one TAG
per -site. Citizens who are inter-
ested in the TAG program may obtain
an application package by calling the
EPA Community Relations Coordinator
listed below.
Fc'7 P--...:.rthe.r I::iforma..tic~--, Conta:..:t:
Ms. Kay Crane
EPA Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Mr. Jack Butler
State Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environ-
ment, Health and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Ms. Suzanne Durham
EPA Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Page 4
Information Reposi./:
Aberdeen Town Hall
105 South Sandhille Blvd,
Aberdeen, NC
[phone]
Glossary,.
Administrative Order on consent: An
order issued pursuant
provided under CERCLA
administrative
to authorities
for response
order which
actions. This is an
is consented to by the
receipient in writing.
Aquifer: An underground ro~:_.forma-
tion composed of materials such as
sand, soil, or gravel that can store.
and supply groundwater to wells and
springs.
Benzenehexachloride (BHC): Aleo
known as lindane, is an insecticide
used on fruit and vegetable crops.
Lindane is also used as a therapeutic
scabicide/pesticide in humans and
animals.
Information Repository: A file
containing · cur'rent information, teC:h-
nical reports and reference documents
regarding a Superfund site. The
information repository is usually
located in a public building that is
convenient for local residents, such
as a public school, city hall, or
local library,
Monitoring Wells:Welle that are
installed in the ground at various
depths to study the hydrogeology of
the area and define the extent of
groundwater contamination.
National Priorities List (NPL):
EPA's list of the top priority haz-
ardous wasto aitea in the country
that are eligible to receive federal
money for response under Superfund.
Permeability: The ability of a geo-
logic formation to allow movement of
water.
Potentiall, Responsible ?art,es
(PRPs): An i~d,.:._.,,.:._cua2.. --.:::-:-.:;::i~.:_,·
potentially responsible for, or con-
tributing to contamination problems
at a Superfund site.
Record of Decision: A public docu-
ment that.explains which cleanup
alternatives will be used at National
Priorities List sites.
Remedial Investigation and. Feasi-
bility Study (RI/FS): A cwo-part
study which is completed before
cleanup can begin. The first part is
the RI, which studies the nature and
extent of the problem. The second
part is the· FS which evaluates dif-
ferent methods of dealing with the
problem and
method that
public health
selection of a preferred
will effectively protect
and the environment.
Responeiveneee Summary: A summary
of significant questions, concerns,
and comments about the RI/FS and
possible final remedial actions
raised by nearby residents, local and
state officials, and other interested
citizens. The responsivenet~ summary
is incorporated into the Record of
Decision.
Trust
CERLCA
Fund:
to
A
help
fund
pay
0et up under
for cleanup of
hazardous waste sites and to take
legal action to force those respon-
sible for the sites to clean them
up. The fund is financed through a
tax on the chemical and petroleum
industries.
Unsaturated Zone: The zone between
the land surface and the water
table in which the soil voids are
filled with water, air and atmos-
pheric gases. This zone is saturated
during rainf~ll events.
Water Table: The upper surface of
groundwatr,r. This surface represents
the top/ of the saturated zone in
which a:'ll void spaces are filled witi1
water. : '
Page 5
• •
KAILIHG LIST ADDITIONS To be placed on the mailing list for the Geigy Chemical Corporation Site, please complete this form and mail to: Suzanne Durham Community Rela~ions Coordinator, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA
Region IV
30365
Name---------------------------------------
Address
Affiliation
Phone No. (
United States. Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency Atlanta, .GA 30365 345 Courtland Street, NE
Official Business,,·
Penalty for Private Use
S300
JACK BlJTL~P
SLIPERFUl!D SECTION
OJV. GF SOLIO WASTE MG~T.
Ai3::ROl60
NC D~PT./ENV, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOIJRCI ?.O. P.CJX 276 1J7
••
Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-----
Fact Sheet le,,,_ Cf.p,,.,_/,..J (o,/tv"-1,·,,,, >'µ.
• SheAvood ~4edical Industries Site
ft · DcLan d,-Fl-e-F-ida 0 EP.~ 16;;-clee,11 tl(o,H, t~t'.i,....
//~ 1110 Region IV----------JZ. .4Wfat./¥tJ{i)
Introduction
Thie fact sheet on the Geigy Chemi-
cal Corporation site in Aberdeen,
North Carolina has been prepared by
the Region IV Office of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Terms in bold race
print are defined in a glossary
located at the end of this
publication.
EPA and the North Carolina Depart-
ment or Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR} are over-
seeing activities at the Geigy
Cherr1ica1 Corporation site unde~ the
Comprehensive KnvLl:'onmeotal
Renponse, Compensation, o.nd Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
The purpose of this fact sheet ia to
inform interested citizens and local
officials of the nature and etatus of
activities at the oite. Specifi-
cally, thie !act sheet provides a
brief background and history of the
oite. Finally, opportunities for
public involvement are discussed.
Site Description and History
The Geigy Chemical Corporation eite
is located approximate:y ,3 miles
tt~'~
✓
'!
\
"=
~--. ---
Figure l
east of SR 2063. The eite is on a
railroad right-of-way on Route 211
outside the city limits of Aberdeen
in Moore County. The Geigy Chemical
Corporation site covers approximately
l acre. An office building and .t~o
: ;_. ;_ . ----. ._ ....
warehouses occtAthAte. The sits
is bounded on t"!!!l'no1'!ff-by Rou~e 211,
to the east by a dirt road, a~d eouth
and west by woods.
The Geigy Chemical Corporation aite
ia owned by the Aberdeen and Rockfieh
Railroad and had been leased to vari-
ous companies which operated at the
site from 1947 to 1989. CIBA-GE!GY
(formerly Geigy Chemical Company)
operated a pesticide formulation
facility at the site from February
1948 to December 1955. Geigy's
activities involved the blending of
technical grade pesticides such as
DDT, toxaphene and benzenehexa ...
chloride (BHC) with inert materials
to form a usable product. This
product was repackaged for aale to
the· cotton and tobacco-growing
markets. Olin Chemicals (formerly
Olin Mathiason) also operated a
pesticide formulation, packaging and
distribution facility and occupied
the site • .from 1956 to 1967.
Subsequent opera-tors were primarily
distributors, who r&bagged and
distributed prepackaged or bulk
agricultural chemicals. Lebanon
Ch~micAl corporation, who wag thQ
last occupant at the site, abandoned
the eite in March 1989.
EPA conducted an investigation in
March 1987 and detected pesticides,
including toxaphene, DDT, and BHC in
eurface and subsurface soils on the
oite. In June of 1988, the Geigy
Chemical Corporation eite was pro-
posed for inclusion on EPA's National
Priorities List (NP~) at the request
of the State of North Carolina
because
tion at
placed
The NPL
of the threat of contamina-
the site. The site was
on
is
the NPL in Se,itember 1989.
EPA'e list o! priority
hazardous waste sites nationwide
which are eligible for Federal
cleanup funds from the Superfund
Trust Fund.
In December 1988, three of the
responsible parties eigned an
Administrative Order on Con$ent in
. -·... "._-. ---·-
which t.ApaAs agreed to undertake
the actWs Xssary to identify and
define the horizontal and vertical
extent of contamination at the site.
The Sandhills Aquifer is poten-
tially threatened due to ite sandy
nature and low permeability.
NCDEHNR and EPA sampling and analysis
of the aquifer has revealed low
concentrations of BHC in the
groundwater. In January of 1990, EPA
approved a plan, _prepared by the
responsible parties, for conducting
tha investigation. Field activities
are projected to · begin the wee}; of
May 14, 1990.
The responsible parties have con-
ducted two· removal actiona at the
site in order to remove the visually
contaminated soils. During February
23, 1989 through February 28, 1989, a
total of 462 tons of contaminated
soil and debris were removed from the
site. The second removal action
occurred from October 23, 1989 to
October 24, 1989 which resulted in
the removal of 227 tone of contami-
nated soil. All of the excavated
contaminated eoila were disposed
off-site in a hazardous waste land-
fill.
What ie a Remedial Investigation?
2.
A Remedial Investigation
an intensive study of n
site. It is carried out by
(RI} is
Super fund
a team of
health and environmental specialists
such as hydrogeo log i st e, engineers,·
and biologists to determine the exact
nature of the hazardous wastee, the
naturi. of threat, if a.ny, that may be
posod to human health or the environ-
ment, and the boundaries or extent of
contamination pre·sent at a site.
Typically, the R! report will des-
cribe the typM and extent of onsite
And orfsite contamination, effects at
contamination
groundwater,
tamination in
To achieve
personnel or
on surface water and
and the degree of con-
the sediment and soil.
these findings, EPA
the potentially respon-
' -,_ -, ---, -' ....,
11ible partiea&on6tor supervised
by EPA will -e s'!ll!!t'les of the aoil and
tiona
will
surface water
at the site.
be installed
sampled,
at various locd-
Monitoring wells
and groundwater
samples will be sent to EPA-approved laboratories to be analyzed for various contarninanta. The area will be studied to determine whether the contaminants are moving from the contaminated area, where they might be migrating·, and what sensitive
areas they might reach, Based on this intormation, a riek assessment
will be made, estimating the contaminanta' .potential impact on human health and the anvironment.
~hat is a Feasibility Study?
The information gathered during an RI is used to develop a companion study called a Feasibility Study (PS). The FS iB the portion of the process during which environmental
engineers and other technical staff consider, describe, and evaluate
options for cleaning up the site.
As required by the Superfund pro-
gram, thQ FS team designs cleanup alter~atives so that certain criteria are met by at least one of the alter-natives. These criteria include:
• Overall protection of human health and the anvironment: adequate elimination, reduction, or control of all current and potential risks posed by tha site:
• Compliance with applicable and/or
relevant and appropriate Federal or State public health or environ-
mental standa~de unless a waive~ ia warranted where protection is ensured;
• Long-term
permanence;
effectiveness and
• Reduction of the
(harmfulness), mobility
toxicity
(po•;ential
I ' :. :)
or A1enO to move),
haza~s substances
nants,
or volwne of
or contami-
o Short-te.rm effectivanese, or the impacts a remedy might have on the community, workers, or the environ-
ment during the course ot imple-menting the remedy;
• Implementability, that ia the administrativa 1or tachnicdl capac-
ity to carry out the alternative;
• Cost-effectiveness, considering the cost of construction, operation.,
and maintenance of the alternative
over the life ot the project,
including remedial coats should it
!ail1
• Acceptance by the State; and
• Acceptance by the community.
an
These nine criteria
alternative will
tance depending
conditions.
on
for selecting
vary in impor-
aite-spec if ic
The FS presents the remedial alternatives and how they rate according to these and other cri-teria. l:n some cases, the Fs will recommend that no action is neces-sary. An evaluat.ion of the no-action
is necessary. An evaluatio,, of the no-action
risk to
alternative will assese the
public health and the envi-ronment if no action ia taken to cleanup the site. The FS may also recommend a single alternative or a combination of. several alternatives as the best solution,
public Comment Pc,r lod
Once the FS is complete, a copy of the report is placed in the Informa-tion Repository and is discussed
during a public meeting. A public comment period (not less than 30 days) is held to allow citizens to comment on
considered
the reinedial alternatives
in the study. During·the
meeting, EPA -AenA a summary of
the RI/FS p;Jll!ll!!tes"llll!"including the
results of the FS) and explaine the
propoaed remedies for the site. The
public meeting is recorded to ens~re
a complete record is made of public
co:nmente and questions. A Reepon-
sivenees Swnmary is compiled after
the official comment period ends.
Following the Responsiveness Summary,
a formal decision document, called a
Record of Decision (ROD), is pre-
pared to summarize the decision
process and the selected remedies.
The ROD ia submitted to the EPA
Regional Administrator for approval.
At this point, the design of the
remedy is developed and the implemen-
tation of the remedy begins.
Further Opportunities for Public
Involvement
EPA has developed a community rela-
tions program under Superfund to
respond to citizens• concerns and
needs for information as well as to
enable residents and officials of a
oite community to participate in
decision making. EPA staff or con~
tractors will prepa~e a Corr~unity
Relatione Plan (CRP) based upon
discu9aione in the community with
local leaders and private citizens.
Upon identifying interested parties
and the cc,ncerns and questions
existing in the area, the CRF is
prepared. The plan identifies
technique3 to be used to cornrnunicate
affectively with the com.~unity during
the Superfund process. The communi-
cation Qfforto o!ten include tele-
phone contacts, small informal
meetings or formal public meetings,
news releases, correspondence, and
!act eheets. A CRP i9 currently
being developed and will be make
available for review and comment.
EPA has established an information
repository where reports and other
documents are made available to
citiiens. For information regarding
th0 documentg available, contact th~
Aberdeen Town Hall at the address and
telepho.nu.
sheet.
listed in thia !act
Technical Assistance Grants
EPA ia providing communities with
the opportunity to apply for Tech-
nical Assistance Grants ('.I'.AGB).
These grants of up to $50,000 (per
oite) are designed to.enable commu-
nity groupe to hire a technical
advisor or consµltant to assist them
in interpreting and commenting on
site findings and the planned
cleanup. There is a limit o! one TAG
per site. Citizens who are inter-
ested in the TAG program may obtain
an application package by calling the
EPA Community Relations Coordinator
listed below.
For Further Information, Contact:
Ma. Kay Crane
EPA Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland st., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Mr. Jack Butler
State Project Manager
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural
Resources
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Ms. Suzanne Durham
EPA Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St,, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
Information Repository,
Aberdeen Town Hall
Aberdeen, NC
[phone]
\ ••
SUPERFUNO BAAi/CH
FACSIMILE TRANSHITTAL SHEET
SUPEru'UND BRANCH OFFICE FAX NUMBER
l"TS 257-4464
COMMERCIAL NUHBER [phone]
NUMBER OF PAGES _{ INCLUDJ:NG COVER SHEET) 1
FAX MESSAGE TO: Jae/ /4,_/1/e-1..
TELEPHONE NUMBER: il'l-7J J-z,fo I
FAX MACHINE NUMBER : __ 'f,___./'----'-2-· __,7:...,...f .,__J_-___,__1/'_.{'---'/--'/'--------
CONTACT PERSON & TELEPHONE N1J1,\BER:
MESSAGE FROH:
TELEPl!l::>NE NUMBER: ~O 1/-J'( 7-7 7 9 /
sPECIAL rnsTRucTroNs, :7.. :I · ""-l w< cl✓ cw~1-M /, j ?u.
(,,/ (,\ /etc.( -54<'c./ cY/ /J_p_ /4 ~7' a,.;,1/rJ s,'ft' I
IF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS
uvf /21 , ,r1a.., f',
/
RECEIVED POORLY OR INCOHPLETE, PLEASE NOTIFY-
______________ ,AT OFFICE NUHBER __________ _
THANJ(.S AND HAVE A NICE DAYI
71' J'1• ) C, ,1 f'
K/1(),.) 6;;. t'Otl
~r.s,,J/e
tl '17 (: _,..,,,,; ("/~/2 //4, '"-·V'.
~'NI O I' /'OJ CV' Ju oYi l'J-t
/41-1•7f'
1/
National Priorities L. • Superfur\d hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act ICERCLA) as amended in 1986
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORP. (ABERDEEN PLANT)
Aberdeen, North Carolina
The Geigy Chemical Corp. Site covers 1 acre in eastern Moore county, North Carolina. It is on a ~ailroad right-of-way on Route 211 just east of the corporate·city 1imits of Aberdeen. Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad CMnS the land, but it has been occupied by various chemical companies since 1947. Four aboveground storage tanks, an office building, and warehouses now occupy the site.
During 1949-55, Geigy Chemical Corp. formulated technical-grade solid and liquid pesticides at the site.· DDT was blended, along with other chlorinated pesticides such as lindane and toxaphene.
In 1985, while investigating pesticide disposal sites in Aberdeen, the North Carolina Division of Health Services found pesticide bags <labeled Geigy Chemical on the site. In 1987, EPA detected pesticides, including toxaphene, DDT, and lindane, in surface and subsurface·soils on the site.
Ground water contamination is possible for the State has found low concen-trations of lindane in private and municipal wells. The Sandhill AqUifer underlying the site supplies all drinking water for Moore County. At the .site, a layer of sand and clay overlies the aquifer, resulting in moderate permeability. The Aberdeen Public water Supply System and numerous private wells within 3 miles of the site serve an estimated 7,400 people.
surface water drains southwest toward Aberdeen Creek. in several unnamed tributaries that partially feed Aberdeen used for recreational activities.
Drainage collects
Creek, which is
The site is unfenced, making it possible for people and animals to come into direct contact with hazardous substances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program