NCD991278540_20070207_Weyerhaeuser Company_FRBCERCLA RA_Remedial Design Remedial Action Consent Decree 2003 - 2007-OCR

r
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing"
February 7, 2007
Mr. Nile Testerman
State Project Coordinator
40 I Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh NC 27605
Law Department
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Air Express:
33663 Weyerhaeuser Way S
@ -. ---~----:--,~d~ Way, WA 98003 5 @ /.::. /I 1v1 ii;! ;=:;,.,. 1 : r-:.-:----.T,J_IJ_S_3 J W4t2 .. ~03 L Fax: [phone]
SUPE::~is;Jo~
Re: United States of America v. Weyerhaeuser Company
U_S_ District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-77-FL(l)
Consent Decree
CORRECTED CASE NUMBER
Dear Mr. Testerman:
By letter dated January 31, 2007, we provided notice that Weyerhaeuser Company intends
to convey its interests in the facility covered by the above-referenced matter and consent
decree to Domtar Paper Company, LLC. Unfortunately, however, the caption of the civil
matter in the U_S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina given in the
January 31'1 letter was incorrect. The correct caption is provided above_ A copy of the
cover page of the consent decree with the caption is attached for confirmation.
This notice is provided in accord with Section V.9.b. of the consent decree_ We expect the
transfer to occur during the first quarter of 2007.
If you have any questions, please call me at 253.924.2803.
Very truly yours, ~&4J~re
Charles K. Douthwaite
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Mr. Guy Boucher
;--·-• •
INTIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DMSION
UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA
Plaintiffs,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMP ANY~
Defendant
CONSENT DECREE FOR RD/RA FOR OU-3
~um
SE? -1 2G'.l4 j
-.J I
!
, -~------~-~---
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing'
February 7, 2007
Mr. Nile Testerman
State Project Coordinator
40 I Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh NC 27605
law Department
PO Box 9777
__ --~---____ Federal Way WA 98063-9777 '(BJ(-~.~~ :_:~w-~ n/~{~.;i;,:::,haeuserWayS lrJ ~ / (ederal Way, WA 98003
FF:R I 2 2007 T,l)lti 924-2803 -. -·~ .. '.~~-···---.... ~--Fax: { 53)928-2184
SUPfJUui1Ju SECTION
Re: United States of America v. Weyerhaeuser Company
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-90-H(3)
Consent Decree
CORRECTED CASE NUMBER
Dear Mr. Testerman:
By letter dated January 31, 2007, we provided notice that Weyerhaeuser Company intends
to convey its interests in the facility covered by the above-referenced matter and consent
decree to Domtar Paper Company, LLC. Unfortunately, however, the caption of the civil
matter in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina given in the
January 31 st letter was incorrect. The correct caption is provided above. A copy of the
cover page of the consent decree with the caption is attached for confirmation.
This notice is provided in accord with Section V.9.b. of the consent decree. We expect the
transfer to occur during the first quarter of 2007.
lfyou have any questions, please call me at 253.924.2803.
Very truly yours,
~1i0~
Charles K. Douthwaite
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Mr. Guy Boucher
' . ,,. •.· • •
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COlJRT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA . EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. i/: 03-C V-'1t:) ~ 1/(3) v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendant. .I
CONSENT DECREE FOR RD/RA FOR OU!
• •
(9 C
_ _., l--------1 I----~-
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing'
Law Department
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Air Express:
33663 Weyerhaeuser Way S
f f"i /s' --::-, , _ Federal Way, WA 98003 U. -·t
January 31, 2007
Mr. Nile Testem1an
State Project Coordinator
40 l Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh NC 27605
F,:-q
f: ;,. --.
-:1, ~1 ·---..,;<t-• ,) ' -,
Re: United States of America v. Weyerhaeuser Company
u_s_ District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
Civil Action No_ 4:03-CF-90-H(3)
Consent Decree
Dear Mr. Testerman:
Please take notice that Weyerhaeuser Company intends to convey its interests in the
facility covered by the above-referenced matter and Consent Decree to Domtar Paper
Company, LLC.
This notice is provided in accord with Section V_9_b_ of the Consent Decree. We expect
the transfer to occur during the first quarter of 2007.
If you have any questions, please call me at 253_924_2803_
Very truly yours, _
~,~1
Charles K. Douthwaite
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Mr. Guy Boucher
(:,C ----cl•------------t·l------~
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing"
January 31, 2007
Mr. Nile Testerman
State Project Coordinator
40 I Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh NC 27605
Re: United States of America v. Weyerhaeuser Company
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
Civil Action No. 4:04-CF-77-FL( I)
Consent Decree
Dear Mr. Testcnnan:
law Department
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Air Express:
33663 Weyerhaeuser Way S
Federal Way, WA 98003
Tel [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Please take notice that Weyerhaeuser Company intends to convey its interests in the
facility covered by the above-referenced matter and Consent Decree to Domtar Paper
Company, LLC.
This notice is provided in accord with Section V.9.b. of the Consent Decree. We expect
the transfer to occur during the first quarter of 2007.
If you have any questions, please call me at 253.924.2803.
Very truly yours,
~~
Charles K. Douthwaite
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Mr. Guy Boucher
11!11 Integrate.
Enl!inmn ti
Solutions -
February 24, 2005
Mr. Randy Bryant
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
North Site Management Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Subject: Weyerhaeuser Company
Former Chlorine Plant, OU-3
Plymouth, North Carolina
RA Workplan
Dear Mr. Bryant:
• 744 Heartland Tr:iil 53717-1934
P.O. Box 8923 53708-8923
Madison, W!
Telephone: [phone]
Fsxc 608-831-3334
www.rmtinc.com
In accordance with Section VJ, paragraphs 11 and 12, of the Consent Decree for Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA) for OU-3, enclosed for your review and comment are three copies of the draft Remedial Action
Workplan for the Former Chlorine Plant area. Please note that the Remedial Design is an attachment lo the RA
Workplan, and is provided in a separate binder. A copy of the RA Workplan has been submitted directly to
Mr. Nile Testerman of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Upon receipt of
review comments on the draft documents, a final RA Workplan will be prepared for the site.
[f you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
th Carolina, Jnc.
~~~
K -· opher D. Krause
Senior Project Manager
cc: Nile Testerman -NCDENR
Melody Sydow -Weyerhaeuser Company
Bill Morris -Weyerhaeuser Company
Jim Bragg -Weyerhaeuser Company
Kathy 1-!uibrcgtse -RMT, Inc.
Jack Anderson, P.E. -RMT, Inc.
I;\ Wl'MSN \l'JT\OQ.05100\69\ L000510069-021.DOC
•
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\RIL!Etl'
Plaintiffs,
CIVlLACTIONNO. f/_'~4'-t!Y-77 -\{ ')
V.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE FOR RD/RA FOR OU-3
SEP - 1 20.J4 i i
. J; 1'
. . . . . . -... --·--(
I.
Il.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VIl.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
xrr.
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
XVI.
XVIl.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXIl.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI..
XXVII.
XXV!Il.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
xxxrr.
XXXIII.
XXXIV.
XXXV.
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ........................................•.............. I
JURISDICTION ....................................................... 2
PARTIES BOUND .. , .................................................. 2
DEFINITIONS ........................................................ 3
GENERAL PROVISIONS ................ , ................................ 5
PERFORMANCE OF THEW ORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANT ..................... 7
REMEDY REVIEW .................................................... IO
QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS .................... IO
ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ................................. 1 I
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 15
EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS ....................... 16
PROJECT COORDINATORS ............................................. 17
ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK ............................. 18
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION ........................................ 19
EMERGENCYRESPONSE ............................................... 19
PAYMENTS FOR RESPONSE COSTS .................... : .................. 20
lNDEMNIFICATION.AND INSURANCE ..................................... 22
FORCE MAJEURE .................................................... 23
DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................ 25
STIPULATED PENALTIES ................•............................. 27
COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY PLAINTIFF .................................. 30
COVENANTS BY SITrLINGDEFENDANT .................................. 31
EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION ...................... 32
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ............................................. 33
RETENTION OF RECORDS .............................................. 34
NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS ........................................... 34
EFFECTIVE DATE .................................................... 35
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION .......................................... 36
APPENDICES .................... : .................................. 36
COMMUNITY RELATIONS .............................................. 36
MODIFICATION ..................................................... 36
LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ........................ 37
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES FOR SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE ................ 37
SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................... 38
FINAL JUDGMENT ................................................... 39
• •
I. BACKGROUND
A. The United States of America (''United States"), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), filed a complaint in this matter pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607.
B. . The United States in its complaint seeks, inter alia: (1) reimbursement of costs incurred by EPA and the Department of Justice for response actions at the Weyerhaeuser
Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in Martin County, North Carolina, together with accrued interest; and (2) performance of studies and response work by the defendant at OU-3 consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (as amended) ("NCP").
C. In accordance with the NCP and Section 12l(f)(l)(F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(f)(l)(F), EPA notified the State of North Carolina (the "State") on November 7, 2003, of negotiations with the potentially responsible party regarding the implementation of the remedial design and remedial action for the Former Chlorine Plant, and EPA has provided the State with an opportunity to participate in such negotiations and be a party to this Consent Decree.
D. In accordance with Section 122(j)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(j)(l), EPA notified the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and the National Oceanic and· .Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on November 7, 2003, of negotiations with the potentially responsible party regarding the release of hazardous substances that may have resulted in injury to the natural resources under Federal trusteeship and encouraged the trustees to participate in the negotiation of this Consent Decree: .
E. The defendant that has entered into this Consent Decree ("Settling Defendant") does not admit any legal conclusions, fault or liability to the Plaintiff or to any other person or entity arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the complaint, nor does it acknowledge that the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from OU-3 constitutes an imminent or substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. As to others who are not parties, nothing contained in this Consent Decree shall constitute an admission by Settling Defendant of the facts and conclusions contained herein, and entry into this Consent Decree shall not constitute an admission by Settling Defendant of liability or a waiver of any right, cause of action or defense otherwise available to it. Except as specifically provided otherwise herein, Settling Defendant expressly reserves all rights, causes of action, and defenses available to it.
F. In response to a release or a substantial threat of a release of a hazardous
substance(s) at or from the Site, the Settling Defendant; commenced on March 24, 1998, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RIIFS") for the Site pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.430. This RI/FS encompassed three source areas, including: (1) the Former Landfill No. 1, and the soils, groundwater, and surface water impacted by the Former Landfill No. 1, (2) the Former Chlorine Plant, and soils, sediments and groundwater impacted by that plant, and (3) the sediments and surface water contained in Welch Creek and associated wetlands. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, these three source areas will be considered three Operable Units ("OUs"), and the Former Chlorine Plant and the soils, sediments, and groundwater impacted by the Former Chlorine Plant, which is the subject of this Consent Decree, is termed "OU-3".
• •
G. The Settling Defendant completed the Remedial Investigation ("Rf') Report and the Feasibility Study ("FS") for OU-3 on June 24, 2003.
H. Pursuant to Section 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9617, EPA published notice of the completion of the FS and of the proposed plan for remedial action for OU-3 on July 12, 2003, in a major local newspaper of general circulation. EPA provided an opportunity for written and oral comments from the public on the proposed plan for remedial action .. A copy of the transcript of the public meeting is available to the public as part of the administrative record upon which the Regional Administrator based the selection of the response action.
I. The decision by EPA on the remedial action to be implemented for OU-3 is embodied in a final Record of Decision ("ROD"), executed on September 29, 2003, on which the State has given its concurrence. The ROD includes a responsiveness summary to the public
comments. Notice of the final plan was published in accordance with Section 117(b) of
CERCLA.
J. Based on the information presently available to EPA, EPA believes that the Work wili be properly and promptly conducted by the Settling Defendant if conducted in accordance with the requirements of this Consent Decree and its appendices.
K. Solely for the purposes of Section 113(j) of CERCLA, the Remedial Action selected by the ROD and the Work to be performed by the Settling Defendant shall constitute a response action taken or ordered by the President.
L. The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and implementation of this Consent Decree will expedite the cleanup of OU-3 and will avoid prolonged and complicated litigation between the Parties, and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:
II . .JURISDICTION ·
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607, and 9613(b). This Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Settling Defendant. Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree and the underlying complaint, Settling Defendant waives all objections and defenses that it may have to jurisdiction of the Court or to venue in this District. Settling Defendant shall not challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court's jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree.
III. PARTIES BOUND
2. This Consent Decree applies to and is binding upon the United States and upon
Settling Defendant and its successors and assigns. Any change in ownership or corporate status of Settling Defendant including, but not limi.ted to, any transfer of assets or real or personal
property, shall in no way alter Settling Defendant's responsibilities under this Consent Decree.
3. Settling Defendant shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree to each contractor hired to perform the Work (as defined below) required by this Consent Decree and to each person
2
• •
representing Settling Defendant with respect to OU-3 or the Work and shall condition all
contracts entered into hereunder upon performance of the Work in conformity with the terms of
this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant or its contractors shall provide written notice of the
Consent Decree to all subcontractors hired to perform any portion of the Work required by this
Consent Decree. Settling Defendant shall nonetheless be responsible for ensuring that its
contractors and subcontractors perform the Work contemplated herein _in accordance with this
. Consent Decree. With regard to the activities undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree, eic!ch
contractor and subcontractor shall be deemed to be in a contractual relationship with the Settling
Defendant within the meaning of Section 107(b)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b)(3).
IV. DEFINITIONS
4. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Consent Decree
· which are defined in CERCLA or in regulations promulgated under CERCLA shall have the
meaning assigned to them in CERCLA or in such regulations. Whenever terms listed below are
used in this Consent Decree or in the appendices attached hereto and incorporated hereunder, the
following definitions shall apply:
"CERCLA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.
"Consent Decree" shall mean this Decree and all appendices attached hereto (listed in
Section XXIX). In the event of conflict between this Decree and any appendix, this Decree shall
control.
"Day" shall mean a calendar day unless expressly stated to be a working day. "Working
day" shall mean a day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. In computing any
period of time under this Consent Decree, where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday,
or Federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next working day.
"Effective Date" shall be the effective date of this Consent Decree as provided in
Paragraph 99.
"EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency and any successor
departments or agencies of the United States.
"NCDENR" shall mean the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and any successor departments or agencies of the State.
"Future Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including, but not limited to, direct and
indirect costs, that the United States incurs in reviewing or developing plans, reports and other
items pursuant to this Consent Decree, verifying the Work, or otherwise implementing,
overseeing, or enforcing this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, payroll costs,
contractor costs, travel costs, laboratory costs, the costs incurred pursuant to Sections Vll, IX
(including, but not limited to, the cost of attorney time and any monies .paid to secure access
and/or to secure or implement institutional controls including, but not limited to, the amount of
just compensation), XV, and Paragraph 82 of Section XX!.
"Interim Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including direct and indirect costs,
(a) paid by the United States in connection with OU-3 between June 24, 2003, and the Effective
3
• •
Date, or (b) incurred prior to the Effective Date but paid after that date.
"Interest," shall mean interest at the rate specified for interest on invesiments of the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfundestablished by 26 U.S.C. § 9507, compounded annually on
October 1 of each year, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). _The applicable rate of interest
shall be the rate in effect at the time the interest accrues. The rate of interest is subject to change
on October 1 of each year.
"National Contingency Plan" or "NCP" shall mean the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan promulgated pursuant to Section I 05 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9605, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and any amendments thereto.
"Operation and Maintenance" or "O & M" shall mean all activities required to maintain
the effectiveness of the Remedial Action as required under the Performance Standard
Verification and Operation and Maintenance Plan approved or developed by EPA pursuant to
this Consent Decree and the Statement of Work (SOW).
"Operable Unit 3" or "OU-3" shall mean the Former Chlorine Plant, which is an area
about three acres in size, located adjacent to the Roanoke River in an active manufacturing area
of the Weyerhaeuser Company property, located on State Road 1565, near the Town of Plymouth
in Martin County, North Carolina, and the soils, sediments, and groundwater impacted by the
Former Chlorine Plant, which is depicted generally on the map attached as Appendix C.
"Paragraph" shall mear:i a portion of this Consent Decree identified by an arabic numeral
or an upper case letter._
"Parties" shall mean the United States and the Settling Defendant.
"Performance Standards" shall mean the cleanup levels and other measures of
achievement of the goals of the Remedial Action Objectives, set forth in Sections J and M of the
ROD and Section III_ofthe SOW.
"Performance Standard Verification and Operation and Maintenance Plan (PSV/OM
Plan)" shall mean the plan providing a mechanism to ensure that both short and long term
Performance Standards for the Remedial Action are met and documenting procedures for proper
operation, troubleshooting and maintenance of the components of the Remedial Action.
"Plaintiff' shall mean the United States.
"RCRA" shall mean the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et
seq. (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) .
. "Record of Decision" or "ROD" shall mean the EPA Record of Decision relating to OU-3
signed on September 29, 2003, by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, or his delegate,
and all attachments thereto. The ROD is attached as Appendix A.
"Remedial Action" shall mean those activities, except for Operation and Maintenance, to
be undertaken by the Settling Defendant to implement the ROD, in accordance with the SOW
and the final Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plans and other plans approved by
EPA.
"Remedial Action Work Plan" shall mean the document developed pursuant to
4
• •
Paragraph 12 of this Consent Decree and approved by EPA, and any amendments thereto.
"Remedial Design" shall mean those activities to be undertaken by tht, Settling Defendant
to develop the plans and specifications for the Remedial Action.
"Response Costs" shall mean costs incurred by EPA in accordance with CERCLA 42
U.S.C. § 9601, et. seq., as amended.
"Section" shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by a Roman numeral.
"Settling Defendant" shall mean Weyerhaeuser Company.
"Site" shall mean the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site.
"State" shall mean the State of North Carolina.
"Statement of Work" or "SOW" shall mean the statement of work for implementation of
the Remedial Design, Remedial Action, and Operation and Maintenance at OU-3, as set forth in
Appendix B to this Consent Decree and any modifications made in accordance with this Consent
Decree.
"Supervising Contractor" shall mean the principal contractor retained by the Settling
Defendant to supervise and direct the implementation of the Work under this Consent Decree.
"United States" shall mean the United States of America.
"Waste Material" shall mean (1) any "hazardous substance" under Section 101(14) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14); (2) any pollutant or contaminant under Section 101(33), 42
U.S.C. § 9601(33); (3) any "solid waste" under Section 1004(27) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 6903(27).
"Work" shall mean all activities Settling Defendant is required to perform under this
Consent Decree, except those required by Section XXV (Retention of Records).
V. GENERALPROVISIONS
5. Objectives of the Parties. The objectives of the Parties in entering into this
Consent Decree are to protect public health or welfare or the environment at the Site by the
design and implementation of response actions at OU-3 by the Settling Defendant, to reimburse
response costs of the Plaintiff, and to resolve the claims of Plaintiff against Settling Defendant as
provided in this Consent Decree.
6. Commitments by Settling Defendant. Settling Defendant shall finance and
perform the Work in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD, the SOW, and all work
. plans and other plans, standards, specifications, and schedules set forth herein or developed by
Settling Defendant and approved by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant
shall also reimburse the United States for Interim Response Costs and Future Response Costs as
provided in this Consent Decree.
7. Compliance With Applicable Law. All activities undertaken by Settling
Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Settling Defendant must
also comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of all Federal and state
5
.. • •
environmental laws as set forth in the ROD and the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by EPA, shall be considered to be consistent with the NCP.
8. Permits.
a. As provided in Section 12l(e) of CERCLA and Section 300.400(e) of the
NCP, no permit shall be required for any portion of the Work conducted entirely on-site (i.e.,
within the areal extent of contamination or in very close proximity to the contamination and
necessary for implementation of the Work). Where any portion of the Work that is not on-site
requires a federal or state permit or approval, Settling Defendant shall submit timely and
complete applications and take all other actions ·necessary to obtain all such permits or approvals.
b. The Settling Defendant may seek relief under the provisions of Section
XVIII (Force Majeure) of this Consent Decree for any delay in the performance of the Work
resulting from a failure to obtain, or a delay in obtaining, any permit required for the Work.
c. This Consent Decree is not, and shall not be construed to be, a permit
issued pursuant to any federal or state statute or regulation.
9. Notice to Successors-in-Title.
a. Within 30 days after the entry of this Consent Decree, the Settling
Defendant shall submit to EPA for review and approval a notice to be filed with the office of the
Register of Deeds, Martin County, State of North Carolina, which shall provide notice to all
successors-in-title that OU-3 is part of the property, that EPA selected a remedy for OU-3 on
September 29, 2003, and that the potentially responsible party has entered into a Consent Decree
requiring implementation of the remedy. Such notice(s) shall identify the United States District
Court in which the Consent Decree was filed, the name and ci vi! action number of this case, and
the date the Consent Decree was entered by the Court. The Settling Defendant shall record the
notice(s) within 30 days of EPA's approval of the notice(s). The Settling Defendant shall provide
EPA with a certified copy of the recorded notice(s) within 20 days of recording such notice(s).
b. At least 30 days prior to the conveyance of any interest in property located
within OU-3 including, but not limited to, fee interests, leasehold interests, and mortgage
interests, the Settling Defendant shall give the grantee written notice of (i) this Consent Decree,
(ii) any instrument by which an interest in real property has been conveyed that confers a right of
access to OU-3 (hereinafter referred to as "access easements") pursuant to Section IX (Access
and Institutional Controls), and (iii) any instrument by which an interest in real property has been
conveyed that confers a right to enforce restrictions on the use of such property (hereinafter
referred to as "restrictive easements") pursuant to Section IX (Access and Institutional Controls).
At least 30 days prior to such conveyance, the Settling Defendant shall also' give written notice to
EPA and the State of the proposed conveyance, including the name and address of the grantee,
and the date on which notice of the Consent Decree, access easements, and/or restrictive
easements was given to the grantee.
c. In the event of any such conveyance, the Settling Defendant's obligations
under this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, its obligation to provide or secure access
and institutional controls, as well as to abide by such institutional controls, pursuant to Section
IX (Access and Institutional Controls) of this Consent Decree, shall continue to be met by the
Settling Defendant. In no event shall the conveyance release or otherwise affect the liability of
6
•
the Settling Defendant to comply with all provisions of this Consent Decree, absent the prior
written consent of EPA. If the United States approves, the grantee may perform some or all of
the Work under this Consent Decree.
VJ. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANT
10. Selection of Supervising Contractor.
a. All aspects of the Work to be performed by Settling Defendant pursuant to
Sections VI (Performance of the Work by Settling Defendant), VII (Remedy Review), VIII
· (Quality Assurance, Sampling and Data Analysis), and XV (Emergency Response) of this
Co~sent Decree shall be under the direction and supervision of the Supervising Contractor, the
selection of which shall be subject to disapproval by EPA. Within 10 days after the lodging of
this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall notify EPA in writing of the name, title, and
qualifications of any contractor proposed to be the Supervising Contractor. With respect to any
contractor proposed to be Supervising Contractor, Settling Defendant shall demonstrate that the
proposed contractor has a quality system that complies with ANSl/ASQC E4-1994,
"Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and
Environmental Technology Programs," (American National Standard, January 5, 1995), by
submitting a copy of the proposed contractor's Quality Management Plan (QMP). The QMP
should be prepared in accordance with "EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans
(QA/R-2)" (EPN240/B-Ol/002, March 2001) or equivalent documentation as determined by
EPA. EPA will issue a notice of disapproval or an authorization to proceed. If at any time
thereafter, Settling Defendant proposes to change a Supervising Contractor, Settling Defendant
shall give such notice to EPA and must obtain an authorization to proceed from EPA before the
new Supervising Contractor performs, directs, or supervises any Work under this Consent
Decree.
b. IfEPA disapproves a proposed Supervising Contractor, EPA will notify ·
Settling Defendant in writing. Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA a list of contractors,
including the qualifications of each contractor, that would be acceptable to them within 30 days
of receipt ofEPA's disapproval of the contractor previously proposed. EPA will provide written
notice of the names of any contractor(s) that it disapproves and an authorization to proceed with
respect to any of the other contractors. Settling Defendant may select any contractor from that
list that is not disapproved and shall notify EPA of the name of the contractor selected within 30
days of EPA's authorization to proceed.
c. If EPA fails·to provide written notice of its authorization to proceed or
disapproval as provided in this Paragraph and this failure prevents the Settling Defendant from
meeting one or more deadlines in a plan approved by the EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree,
Settling Defendant may seek relief under the provisions of Section XVIII (Force Majeure) hereof.
11. Remedial Design_
a. The Remedial Design shall be for the remedy set forth in the ROD, in
accordance with the SOW and for achievement of the Performance Standards and other
requirements set forth in the ROD, this Consent Decree and/or the SOW. \Vithin 30 days after
receipt of notice of authorization to proceed pursuant to Paragraph 10, Settling Defendant shall
initiate design activities for the remedy set forth in the ROD. The completed Remedial Design
7
•
shall be attached to the Remedial.Action Work Plan, for EPA' s review and approval.
b. The Remedial Design submittal shall include, at a minimum, the
following: (1) Results of Data Acquisition Activities; 2) Plan for Satisfying Permitting
Requirements; 3) Plans and Specifications; (4) Construction Schedule; and (5) Complete Design
Analyses. Any value engineering proposals must be identified and evaluated during this review.
The Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP), which shall detail the approach to
quality assurance during construction activities at OU-3, shall specify a quality assurance official
("QA Official"), independent of the Supervising Contractor, to conduct a quality assurance
program during the construction phase of the project.
12. Remedial Action.
a. \Vithinl80 days of receipt of notice of authorization to proceed, Settling
Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State a draft work plan for the performance of the
Remedial Action at OU-3 ("Remedial Action Work Plan"). The Remedial Action Work Plan
shall include as an attachment the Remedial Design, and shall provide for construction and
implementation of the remedy set forth in the ROD and achievement of the Performance
Standards, in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD, the SOW, and the Remedial
Design. Upon its approval by EPA, the Remedial Action Work Plan shall be incorporated into
and become enforceable under this Consent Decree. At the same time as it submits the Remedial
Action Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State a Health and Safety
Plan for field activities required by the Remedial Action Work Plan which conforms to the
applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA requirements including, but
not limited to, 29C.F.R. § 1910.120.
b. The Remedial Action Work Plan shall include the following: (I)
description of tasks and deliverables with a schedule for completion of the Remedial Action; (2)
strategy for project delivery; (3) construction management plan, including the project
management team; (4) a construction quality assurance plan; and (5) the Remedial Design
(paragraph l lb.). The Remedial Action Work Plan also shall include the methodology for
implementation of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan· and a schedule for implementation
of all Remedial Action tasks identified in the final design submittal and shall identify the initial
formulation of the Settling Defendant's Remedial Action Project Team (including, but not
limited to, the Supervising Contractor). Additional details are included in the Statement of
Work.
c. Within 30 days of EPA approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan,
Settling D"efendant shall submit to EPA and the State a Performance Standard Verification and
Operation and Maintenance Plan. Details are included in the Statement of Work.
d. Upon approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan by EPA, after a
reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, Settling Defendant shall implement
the activities required under the Remedial Action Work Plan. The Settling Defendant shall
submit to EPA and the State all plans, submittals, or other deliverables required under the
approved Remedial Action Work Plan in accordance with the approved schedule for review and
approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Unless
·otherwise directed by EPA, Settling Defendant shall not commence physical Remedial Action
activities at OU-3 prior to approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan.
8
• •
13. The Settling Defendant shall continue to implement the Remedial Action and
O&M until the Performance Standards are achieved and for so long thereafter as is otherwise
required under this Consent Decree.
14. Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans.
a. If EPA determines that modification to th~ work specified in the SOW
and/or in work plans developed pursuant to the SOW is necessary to achieve and maintain the
Performance Standards or to carry out and maintain the effectiveness of the remedy set forth in
the ROD, EPA may require that such modification be incorporated in the SOW and/or such work
plans, provided, however, that a modification may only be required pursuant to this Paragraph to
the extent that it is consistent with the "scope of the remedy selected in the ROD".
b. For the purposes of this Paragraph 14 and Paragraph 47 only, the "scope of
the remedy selected in the ROD" is: the containment of contaminated soils within the footprint of
the Former Chlorine Plant using a barrier system, a surface cap containment system, shallow
target area excavations, groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
c. If Settling Defendant objects to any modification determined by EPA to be
necessary pursuant to this Paragraph, it may seek dispute resolution pursuant to Section XIX
(Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 65 (record review). The SOW and/or related work plans shall
be modified in accordance with final resolution of the dispute.
d. Settling Defendant shall implement any work required by any
modifications incorporated in the SOW and/or in work plans developed pursuant to the SOW in
accordance with this Paragraph.
e. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed to limit EPA's authority to
require performance of further response actions as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree.
15. Settling Defendant acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Consent Decree,
the SOW, the Remedial Design submittal, or the Remedial Action Work Plan constitutes a
warranty or representation of any kind by Plaintiff that compliance with the work requirements
set forth in the SOW and the Work Plans will achieve the Performance Standards.
16. a. Settling Defendant shall, prior to any off-site shipment of Waste Material
from OU-3 to an out-of-state waste management facility, provide written notification to the
appropriate state environmental official in the receiving facility's state and to the EPA Project
Coo-rdinator of such shipment of Waste Material. However, this notification requirement shall
not apply to any such off-site shipments when the total volume of all such shipments will not
exceed 10 cubic yards.
(1) The Settling Defendant shall include in the written notification the
following information, where available: (1) the name and location of the facility to which the
Waste Material is to be shipped; (2) the type and quantity of the Waste Material to be shipped;
(3) the expected schedule for the shipment of the Waste Material; and (4) the method of
transportation. The Settling Defendant shall notify the state in which the planned receiving
facility is located of major changes in the shipment plan, such as a decision to ship the Waste
Material to another facility within the same state, or to a facility in another state.
(2) The identity of the receiving facility and state will be determined
9
• •
by the Settling Defendant following the award of the contract for Remedial Action construction.
The Settling Defendant shall provide the information required by Paragraph 16.a as soon as
practicable after the award of the contract and before the Waste Material is actually shipped.
b. Before shipping any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
from OU-3 to an off-site location, Settling Defendant shall _obtain EPA's certification that the
. proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the requirements of CERCLA Section
12l(d)(3) and 40 C.F.R. 300.440. Settling Defendant shall only send hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants from OU-3 to an off-site facility that complies with the requirements
of the statutory provision and regulations cited in the preceding sentence.
VII. REMEDY REVIEW
17. Periodic Review. Settling Defendant shall conduct any studies and investigations
as requested by EPA, in order to permit EPA to conduct reviews of whether the Remedial Action
is protective of human health and the environment at least every five years as required by Section
12l(c) of CERCLA and any applicable regulations.
-18. EPA Selection of Further Response Actions. In accordance with Section 12l(c)
of CERCLA, if EPA determines, at any time, that the Remedial Action is not protective of
human health and the environment, EPA may select further response actions for OU-3 in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP.
19. Opportunity To Comment. Settling Defendant and, if required by Sections
l 13(k)(2) or 117 of CERCLA, the public, will be provided with an opportunity to comment on
any further response actions proposed by EPA as a result of the review conducted pursuant to
Section 12l(c) of CERCLAand to submit written comments for the record during the comment
period.
VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING. AND DATA ANALYSIS
20. Settling Defendant shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain of
custody procedures for an design, compliance and monitoring samples in accordance with "EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/RS)" (EPN240/B-0l/003, March 2001)
"Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QNG-5)" (EPN600/R-98/018, February 1998),
and subsequent amendments to such guidelines upon notification by EPA to Settling Defendant
of such amendment. Amended guidelines shall apply only to procedures conducted after such
notification. Prior to the commencement of any monitoring project under this Consent Decree,
Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA for approval, after a reasonable opportunity for review
and comment by the State, a Quality Assurance Project Plan ("QAPP") that is consistent with the
SOW, the NCP and with the Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. If relevant to the proceeding, the Parties agree that
validated sampling data generated in accordance with the QAPP(s) and reviewed and approved
by EPA shall be admissible as evidence, without objection, in any proceeding under this Decree.
Settling Defendant shall ensure that EPA personnel and its authorized representatives are allowed
access at reasonable times to all laboratories utilized by Settling Defendant in implementing this
Consent Decree. In addition, Settling Defendant shall ensure·that such laboratories shall analyze
all samples _submitted by EPA pursuant to the QAPP for quality assurance monitoring. Settling
Defendant shall ensure that the laboratories it utilizes for the analysis of samples taken pursuant
10
• •
to this Decree perform all analyses according to accepted EPA methods. Accepted EPA methods consist of those methods which are documented in the "Contract Lab Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis" and the "Contract Lab Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis," dated February 1988, and any amendments made thereto during the course of the implementation of this Decree; however, upon approval by EPA, after opportunity for review and comment by the State, the Settling Defendant may use other analytical methods which are as stringent as or more stringent than the CLP-approved methods. Settling Defendant shall ensure that all laboratories it uses for analysis of samples taken pursuant to this Consent Decree participate in an EPA or EPA-equivalent QNQC program. Settling Defendant shail only use laboratories that have a documented Quality System which complies with ANSI/ASQC E4-1994, "Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs," (American National Standard, January 5, 1995), and "EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (QNR-2)/' (EPN240/B-0l/002, March 2001) or equivalent documentation as detennined by EPA. EPA may consider laboratories accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditati_on Program (NELAP) as meeting the Quality System requirements. Settling Defendant shall ensure that all field methodologies utilized in collecting samples for subsequent analysis pursuant to this Decree will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the QAPP approved by EPA.
21. Upon request, the Settling Defendant shall allow split or duplicate samples to be taken by EPA or its authorized representatives. Settling Defendant shall notify EPA not less than 21 days in advance of any sample collection activity unless shorter notice is agreed to by EPA. In addition, EPA shall have the right to take any additional samples that EPA deems necessary and EPA will endeavor to provide seven (7) days notice to Settling Defendant in advance of any such sample collection activity. Upon request, EPA shall allow the Settling Defendant to take split or duplicate samples of any samples it takes as part of the Plaintiffs oversight of the Settling Defendant's implementation of the Work. EPA will make available to Settling Defendant a copy of the validated results of any analysis made of such samples and the associated data validation package.
22. Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA one (1) copy of the results of all validated analytical data generated by the Settling Defendant with respect to the implementation of this Consent Decree unless EPA agrees otherwise, and shall submit these results quarterly as provided in Section X.
23. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States hereby retains all of its information gathering and inspection authorities and rights, including
enforcement actions related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any other applicable statutes or regulations. ·
IX. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
24. If OU-3, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are needed to implement this Consent Decree, is owned or controlled by the Settling Defendant, Settling Defendant shall:
a. commencing on the date of lodging of this Consent Decree, provide access to the United States and its representatives, including EPA and its contractors, each endeavoring to provide five (5) days notice to Settling Defendant, and with the presence of representatives of
11
•
Settling Defendant, and which representatives shall be made available at EPA' s request at all reasonable times to OU-3, or such other property, for the purpose of conducting any activity related to.this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, the following activities:
(1) Monitoring the Work;
(2) Verifying any data or information submitted to the United States;
(3) Conducting investigations relating to contamination at or near OU-3· '
(4) Obtaining samples;
(5) Assessing the need for, planning, or implementing additional
response actions at or near OU-3;
(6) Assessing implementation of quality assurance and quality control practices as defined in the approved Quality Assurance Project Plans;
(7) Implementing the Work pursuant to the conditions set forth in Paragraph 82 of this Consent Decree;
_ (8) Inspecting and copying records, operating logs, contracts, or other documents maintained or generated by Settling Defendant or its agents, consistent with Section XXIV (Access to Information);
(9) Assessing Settling Defendant's compliance with this Consent Decree; and
(10) Determining whether OU-3 or other property is being used in a manner that is prohibited or restricted, or that may need to be prohibited or restricted, by or pursuant to this Consent Decree;
b. commencing on the date of lodging of this Consent Decree, refrain from using OU-3 or such other property, in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the implementation·, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed pursuant to this Consent Decree. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to: prohibition against the use of the groundwater on or near the Former Chlorine Plant as a potable drinking water source; limitation of the Former Chlorine Plant area to industrial use; no disturbance of soil, including for installation of utilities, without prior notification to and approval from DENR or its successor in function, and subject to any sampling required by DENR, and submittal to DENR or its successor in function of analyses of such sampling, along with plans and procedures to protect human health and the environment during the proposed activities. Additionally, the owner of OU-3 must annually submit a notarized Land Use Restrictions Update that certifies that the Land Use Restrictions Document remains recorded at the office of the Register of Deeds in its original form and place, and that the land use restrictions contained therein are being complied with; and
c. Settling Defendant shall execute and record in the office of the Register of Deeds of Martin County, State of North Carolina, an easement, running with the land, that (i) grants a right of access for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree, and
12
• •
(ii) gran.ts the right to enforce the land/water use restrictions listed in Paragraph 24.b of this Consent Decree, or other restrictions that EPA determines are necessary to implement, ensure non-interlerence with, or ensure the protectiveness of the remedial measures to be perlormed pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant shall grant the access rights and the rights to enforce the land/water use restrictions to (i) the United States, on behalf of EPA, and its representatives, (ii) the State and its representatives, (iii) one or more of the following grantees, as determined by EPA: USFWS and NOAA. Settling Defendant shall, within 60 days ofEPA's request, submit to EPA for review and approval with respect to such property:
(1) a draft easement, in substantially the form to be provided by EPA, that is enforceable under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
(2) a current title insurance commitment or some other evidence of title acceptable to EPA, which shows title to the land described in the easement to be free and clear of all prior liens and encumbrances (except wh~n those liens or encumbrances are approved by EPA or when, despite best efforts, Settling Defendant is unable to obtain release or subordination of such prior liens or encumbrances).
Within 30 days of EPA's approval and acceptance of the easement and the title evidence, Settling Defendant shall update the title search and, if it is determined that nothing has occurred since the effective date of the commitment to affect the title adversely, record the easement with the office of the Register of Deeds of Martin County. Wiihin 30 days. ofrecording the easement, such Settling Defendant shall provide EPA with a final title insurance policy, or either final evidence of title acceptable to EPA, and a certified copy of the original recorded easement showing the clerk's recording stamps. The easement and title evidence (including final title evidence) shall be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Department of Justice Title Standards 2001, and approval of the sufficiency of title must be obtained as required by 40 U.S.C. § 255.
25. If OU-3, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are needed to implement this Consent Decree, is owned or controlled by persons other than the Settling Defendant, Settling Defendant shall use best efforts to secure from such persons:
a. an agreement to provide access thereto for Settling Defendant, as well as for the United States on behalf of EPA, and the State, as well as their representatives (including contractors), for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree;·
b. an agreement, enforceable by the Settling Defendant and the United States, to refrain from using OU-3, or such other property, in any manner that would interlere with or adversely affect the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be perlormed pursuant to this Consent Decree. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to: prohibition against the use of the groundwater on or near the Former Chlorine Plant as a potable drinking water source; limitation of the Former Chlorine Plant area to industrial use; no disturbance of soil, including for installation of utilities, without prior notification to and approval from DENR or its successor in function, and subject to any sampling required by DENR, and submittal to DENR or its successor in function of analyses of such sampling, along with plans and procedures to protect human health and the e·nvironment during the proposed activities. Additionally, the owner of OU-3 must annually submit a notarized Land Use Restrictions Update that certifies that the Land Use Restrictions Document remains recorded at
13
• •
the office of the Register of Deeds in its original form and place,. and that the land use restrictions contained therein are being complied with; and
c. the execution and recordation in the office of the Register of Deeds of Martin County, State of North Carolina, of an easement, running with the land, that (i) grants a right of access for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree, and (ii) grants the right to enforce the land/water use restrictions listed in Paragraph 24.b of this Consent Decree, or other restrictions that EPA determines are necessary to implement, ensure non-interference with, or ensure the protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed pursuant to this Consent Decree. The access rights and/or rights to enforce land/water use restrictions shall be granted to (i) the United States, on behalf of EPA, and its representatives, (ii) the State and.its representatives, (iii) one or more of the following grantees, as determined by EPA USFWS and NOAA. Within 60 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA for review and approval with respect to such property:
(1) a draft easement, in substantially the form to be provided by EPA, that is enforceable under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
(2) a current title insurance commitment, or some other evidence of title acceptable to EPA, which shows title to the land described in the easement to be free and clear of all prior liens and encumbrances (except when those liens or encumbrances are approved by EPA or when, despite best efforts, Settling Defendant is unable to obtain release or subordination of such prior liens or encumbrances)
Within 30 days ofEPA's approval and acceptance of the easement and the title evidence, Settling Defendant shall update the title search and, if it is determined tha_t nothing has occurred since the effective date of the commitment to affect the title adversely, the easement shall be recorded with the office of the Register of Deeds of Martin County. Within 30 days of the recording of the easement, Settling Defendant shall provide EPA with a final title insurance policy, or other final evidence of title acceptable to EPA, and a certified copy of the original recorded easement showing the clerk's recording stamps. The easement and title evidence (including final title evidence) shall be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Department of Justice Title Standards 2001, and approval of the sufficiency of title must be obtained as required by 40 U.S,C. § 255.
26. For purposes of Paragraphs 24 and 25 of this Consent Decree, "best efforts" includes the payment of reasonable sums of money in consideration of access, access easements: land/water use restrictions, restrictive easements, and/or an agreement to release or subordinate a prior lien or encumbrance. If (a) any access or land/water use restriction agreements required by Paragraphs 25.a or 25.b of this Consent Decree are not obtained within 60 days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, (b) any access easements or restrictive easements required by Paragraph 25.c of this Consent Decree are not submitted to EPA in draft form within 60 days of the date ofEPA's request, or (c) Settling Defendant is unable to obtain an agreement pursuant to Paragraph 24.c.(1) or Paragraph 25.c.(l) from the holder of a prior lien or encumbrance to release or subordinate such lien or encumbrance to the easement being created pursuant to this consent decree within 60 days of the date of entry of this consent decree, Settling Defendant shall promptly notify the United States in writing, and shall include in that notification a summary of the steps that Settling Defendant has taken to attempt to comply with Paragraph 24 or 25 of this
14
• •
Consent Decree: The United States may, as it deems appropriate, assist Settling Defendant in obtaining access or land/water use restrictions, either in the form of contractual agreements or in the form of easements running with the land, or in obtaining the release or subordination of a prior lien or encumbrance. Settling Defendant shall reimburse the United States_ in accordance with the procedures in Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs), for all costs incurred, direct or indirect, by the United States in obtaining such access, land/water use restrictions, and/or the release/subordination of prior liens or encumbrances including, but not limited to, the cost of attorney time and the amount of monetary consideration paid or just ·compensation.
27. If EPA determines that land/water use restrictions in the form of state or local Jaws, regulations, ordinances or other governmental controls are needed to implement the remedy selected in the ROD, ensure the integrity and protectiveness thereof, or ensure non-interference therewith, Settling Defendant shall cooperate with EPA's and the State's efforts to secure such governmental controls.
28. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States retains all of its access authorities and rights, as well as all of its rights to require land/water use restrictions, including enforcement authorities related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any other applicable statute or regulation.
X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
29. In addition to any other requirement of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA 1 (one) copy of written quarterly progress reports that: (a) describe the actions which have been taken toward achieving compliance with this Consent Decree during the previous quarter; (b) include a summary of all results of sampling and tests and all other validated data received or generated by Settling Defendant or its contractors or agents in the previous quarter; (c) identify all work plans, plans and other deliverables required by this Consent Decree completed and submitted during the previous quarter; (d) describe all actions, including, but not limited to, data collection and implementation of work plans, which are scheduled for the next 3 months and provide other information relating to the progress of construction, including, but not limited to, critical path diagrams, Gantt charts and Pert charts; (e) include information regarding percentage of completion, unresolved delays encountered or anticipated that may affect the future schedule for implementation of the Work, and a description of efforts made to mitigate those delays or anticipated delays; (f) include any modifications to the work plans or other schedules that Settling Defendant has proposed to EPA or that have been approved by EPA; and (g) describe ail activities undertaken in support of the Community
Relations Plan during the previous quarter and those to be undertaken in the next 3 months. Settling Defendant shall submit these progress reports to EPA and the State by the fifteenth day of the next quarter following the lodging of this Consent Decree until EPA notifies the Settling Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 47 of Section XIV (Certification of Completion) or until EPA notifies Settling Defendant that less frequent reporting is appropriate. If requested by EPA, Settling Defendant shall also provide briefings for EPA to discuss the progress of the Work.
30. The Settling Defendant shall notify EPA of any change in the schedule described in the quarterly progress report for the performance of any activity, including, but not limited to, data collection and implementation of work pl~s, no later than seven days prior to the performance of the activity. ·
15
_____ __._
• •
31. Upon the occurrence of any event during performance of, and related to, the Work that Settling Defendant is required to report pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA or Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA), Setfling Defendant
· shall within 24 hours of the onset of such event orally notify the EPA Project Coordinator or the Alternate EPA Project Coordinator (in the event of the unavailability of the EPA Project
Coordinator), or, in the event that neither the EPA Project Coordinator or Alternate EPA Project
Coordinator is available, the Emergency Response Section, Region 4, United States
Environmental Protection Agency. These reporting requirements are in addition to the reporting
required by CERCLA Section 103 or EPCRA Section 304.
32. Within 30 days of the onset of such an event, Settling Defendant shall furnish to
Plaintiff a written report, signed by the Settling Defendant's Project Coordinator, setting forth the events which occurred and the measures taken, and to be taken, in response thereto. Within 45 days of the conclusion of such an event, Settling Defendant shall submit a report setting forth all
actions taken in response thereto.
33. Settling Defendant shall submit 3 copies of all plans, reports, and data required by the SOW, the.Remedial Action Work Plan, or any other approved plans to EPA in accordance
with the schedules set forth in such plans. Settling Defendant shall simultaneously submit 1 copy of all such plans, reports and data to the State. Upon request by EPA Settling Defendant shall submit in electronic form all portions of any report or other deliverable Settling Defendant is
required to submit pursuant to the provisions of this Consent Decree.
34. All reports and other documents submitted by Settling Defendant to EPA ( other than the quarterly progress reports referred to above) which purport to document Settling
Defendant's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree shall be signed by an authorized
representative of the Settling Defendant.
XI. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS
35. After review of any plan, report or other item which is required to be submitted for approval pursuant to this Consent Decree, EPA, after reasonable opportunity for review and
. comment by the State, shall: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; {b) approve the submission upon specified conditions after verbal notification of such conditions to Settling
Defendant; (c) modify the submission to cure the deficiencies; (d) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, directing that the Settling Defendant modify the submission; or (e) any combination of the above. However, EPA shall not modify a submission without first providing
Settling Defendant at least one notice of deficiency and an opportunity to resolve or cure within 60 days, except where to do so would cause serious disruption to the Work or where previous
submission(s) have been disapproved due to material defects and the deficiencies in the
submission under consideration indicate a bad faith lack of effort to submit an acceptable
deliverable.
36. In the event of approval, approval upon conditions, or modification by EPA,
pursuant to Paragraph 35(a), (b), or (c), Settling Defendant shall proceed to take any action
required by the plan, report, or other item, as approved or modified by EPA subject only to its
right to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution)
with respect to the modifications or conditions made by EPA. In the event that EPA modifies the submission to cure the deficiencies pursuant to Paragraph 35(c) and the submission has a
16
• •
material defect, EPA retains its right to seek stipulated penalties, as provided in Section XX
(Stipulated Penalties).
37. Resubmission of Plans.
a. . Upon receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to Paragraph 35(d),
Settling Defendant shall, within 45 days or such longer time as specified by EPA in such notice,
correct the deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report, or other item for approval. Any stipulated
penalties applicable to the submission, as provided in Section XX, shall accrue during the 45 day
period or otherwise specified period but shall not be payable unless the resubmission is
disapproved or modified due to a material defect as provided in Paragraphs 38 and 39.
b. Notwithstanding the receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to
Paragraph 35(d), Settling Defendant shall proceed, at the direction of EPA, to take any action
required by any non-deficient portion of the submission. Implementation of any non-deficient
portion of a submission shall not relieve Settling Defendan.t of any liability for stipulated
penalties under Section XX (Stipulated Penalties) for deficient items ..
38. In the event that a resubmitted plan, report or other item, or portion thereof, is
disapproved by EPA, EPA may again require the Settling Defendant to correct the deficiencies,
in accordance with the preceding Paragraphs. EPA also retains the right to modify or develop the
plan, report or other item. Settling Defendant shall implement any such plan, report, or item as
modified or developed by EPA, subject only to its right to invoke the procedures set forth in
Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).
· 39. If upon resubmission, a plan, report, or item is disapproved or modified by EPA
due to a material defect, Settling Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to submit such plan,
report, or item timely and adequately unless the Settling Defendant invokes the dispute resolution
procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and EPA's action is overturned
pursuant to that Section. The provisions of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and Section XX
(Stipulated Penalties) shall govern the implementation of the Work and accrual and payment of
any stipulated penalties during Dispute Resolution. If EPA's disapproval or modification is
upheld, stipulated penalties shall accrue for such violation from the date on which the initial
submission was originally required, as provided in Section XX.
40. All plans, reports, and other items required to be submitted to EPA under this
Consent Decree shall, upon approval or modification by EPA, be enforceable under this Consent
Decree. In the event EPA approves or modifies a portion of a plan, report. or other item required
to be submitted to EPA under this Consent Decree, the approved or modified portion shall be
enforceable under this Consent Decree.
XII. PROJECT COORDINATORS
41. Within 20 days of lodging this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant and EPA will
notify each other, in writing, of the name, address and telephone number of their respective
designated Project Coordinators and Alternate Project Coordinators. If a Project Coordinator or
Alternate Project Coordinator initially designated is changed, the identity of the successor will be
given to the other Parties at least 5 working days before the changes occur, unless impracticable,
but in no event later than the actual day the change is made. The Settling Defendant's Project
Coordinator shall be subject to disapproval by EPA and shall have the technical expertise
17
• •
sufficient to adequately oversee all aspects of the W 6rk. The Settling Defendant's Project
Coordinator shall not be an attorney in this matter. He or she may assign other representatives,
including other contractors, to serve as a representative for oversight of performance of daily
operations during remedial activities at OU-3.
42. Plaintiff may designate other representatives, including, but not limited to, EPA
and State employees, and federal contractors and consultants, to observe and monitor the
progress of any activity undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree. EPA's Project Coordinator
and Alternate Project Coordinator shall have the authority lawfully vested in a Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) and an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) by the National Contingency Plan, 40
C.F.R. Part 300. In addition, EPA's Project Coordinator or Alternate Project Coordinator shall
have authority, consistent with the National Contingency Plan, to halt any Work required by this
Consent Decree and to take any necessary response action when s/he determines that conditions
at OU-3 constitute an emergency situation or may present an immediate threat to public health or
welfare or the environment due to release _or threatened release of Waste Material.
XIII. ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK
43. Within 30 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall establish
and maintain financial security in the amount of$ 5,624,000.00, in one or more of the following
forms:
a. A surety bond or payment bond guaranteeing performance of the Work;
b. One or more irrevocable letters of credit equaling the total estimated cost
of the Work;
c. A fully funded trust fund.
The financial security mechanisms created pursuant to a-c above must be in form and substance
satisfactory to the United States.
44. In the event that EPA determines.at any time that the financial assurances
provided pursuant to this Section are inadequate, Settling Defendant shall, within 30 days of
receipt of notice of EPA's determination, obtain and present to EPA for approval one of the other
forms of financial assurance listed in Paragraph 43 of this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant's
inability to demonstrate financial ability to complete the Work shall not excuse performance of
any activities required under this Consent Decree.
45. If Settling Defendant can show that the estimated cost to complete the remaining
Work ·has diminished below the amount set forth in Paragraph 43 above after entry of this
Consent Decree, Settling Defendant may, on any anniversary date of entry of this Consent
Decree, or at any other time agreed to by the Parties, reduce the amount of the financial security
provided under this Section to the estimated cost of the remaining work to be performed.
Settling Defendant shall submit a proposal for such reduction to EPA, in accordance with the
requirements of this Section, and may reduce the amount of the security upon approval by EPA.
In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendant may reduce the amount of the security in accordance
with the final administrative or judicial decision resolving the dispute.
46. Settling Defendant may change the form of financial assurance provided under
this Section at any time, upon notice to and approval by EPA, provided that the new form of
18
•
assurance meets the requirements of this Section. In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendant
may change the form of the financial assurance only in accordance with the final administrative
or judicial decision resolving the dispute. ·
XIV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
47. Completion of the Work.
a. Within 90 days after Settling Defendant concludes that all phases of the
Work (including O & M), have been fully performed, Settling Defendant shall schedule and
conduct a pre-certification inspection to be attended by Settling Defendant and EPA. If, after the
pre-certification inspection, the Settling Defendant still believes that the Work has been fully
performed, Settling Defendant shall submit a written report by a registered professional engineer
stating that the Work has been completed in full _satisfaction of the requirements of this Consent
Decree. The report shall contain the following statement, signed by a responsible corporate
official of Settling Defendant or the Settling Defendant's Project Coordinator:
To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that the
. information contained in or accompanying this submission is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
If, after review of the written report, EPA, after reasonable opportunity to review and comment
by the State, determines that any portion of the Work has not been completed in accordance with
this Consent Decree, EPA will notify Settling Defendant in writing of the activities that must be
undertaken by Settling Defendant pursuant to this Co~sent Decree to complete the Work,
provided, however, that EPA may only require Settling Defendant to perform such activities
pursuant to this Paragraph to the extent that such activities are consistent with the "scope of the
remedy selected in the ROD," as that term is defined in Paragraph 14.b. EPA will set forth in the
notice a schedule for performance of such activities consistent with the Consent Decree and the
SOW or require the Settling Defendant to submit a schedule to EPA for approval pursuant to
Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Settling Defendant shall perform
all activities described in the notice in accordance with the specifications and schedules
established therein, subject to its right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in
Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).
b. If EPA concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent request for
Certification of Completion by Settling Defendant and after a reasonable opportunity for review
and comment by the State, that the Work has been performed in accordance with this Consent
Decree, EPA will so notify the Settling Defendant in writing.
XV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
48. In the event of any action or occurrence during the performance of the Work
which causes or threatens a release of Waste Material from OU-3 that constitutes an emergency
situation or may present an immediate threat to public health or welfare or the environment,
Settling Defendant shall, subject to Paragraph 49, immediately take all appropriate action to
prevent, abate, or minimize such release or threat of release, and shall immediately notify the
19
• •
EPA's Project Coordinator, or, if the Project Coordinator is unavailable, EPA's Alte~ate Project
Coordinator. Settling Defendant shall notify the State in accordance with applicable state and
federal law. If neither EPA official is available, the Settling Defendant shall notify the EPA
Emergency Response Unit, Region 4. Settling Defendant shall take such actions in consultation
with EPA's Project Coordinator or other available authorized EPA officer, and in accordance
with all applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Plans, the Contingency Plans, and any
other applicable plans or documents developed pursuant to the SOW. Settling Defendant shall
consult the State in accordance with applicable state and federal law. In the event that Settling
Defendant fails to take appropriate response action as required by this Section, and EPA takes
· such action instead, Settling Defendant shall reimburse EPA for all costs of the response action
not inconsistent with the NCP pursuant to Section XVI (Payments for Response Costs).
49. Nothing in the preceding Paragraph or in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to
limit any authority of the United States or the State a) to take all appropriate action to protect
human health and the environment or to prevent, abate, respond to, or minimize an actual or
threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from OU-3, orb) to direct or order such action, or
seek an order from the Court, to protect human health and the environment or to prevent, abate,
respond to, or minimize an actual or threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from OU-3,
subject to Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff).
XVI. Payments for Response Costs
50. Payments for Interim Response Costs.
a. Settling Defendant shall pay to EPA all Interim Response Costs not
inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan. The United States will send Settling Defendant
a bill requiring payment that includes a full accounting supporting the bill, including an EPA
SCORPIOS Report and the DOJ-prepared cost summary which reflects costs incurred by DOJ
and its contractors. If Settling Defendant has specific questions with regard to the bill, Settling
Defendant may request in writing copies of vouchers and other documents evidencing
expenditures and materials acquired in connection with expenditures at OU-3 which are the basis
of the demand ("supporting documentation"). EPA will produce such supporting documentation,
in r_esponse to a request regarding a specific question Settling Defendant has with the bill.
Settling Defendant shall make all payments within 30 days of Settling Defendant's receipt of
each bill requiring payment, or in the event supporting documentation is requested, within 30
days of receipt of the supporting documentation, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 53.
Payment shall be made by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer ("EFT") to the U.S. Department of
Justice account in accordance with current EFT procedures, referencing USAO File Number
__ , EPA Site/Spill ID Number 041B, and DOJ Case Number 90-11-3-07838/1. Payment shall
be made in accordance with instructions provided to the Settling Defendant by the Financial
Litigation Unit of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Any payments received by the Department of Justice after 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) will be
· credited on the next business day.
b. At the time of payment, Settling Defendant shall send notice that payment
has been made to the United States, to EPA and to the Regional Financial Management Officer,
in accordance with Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions).
c. The total amount to be paid by Settling Defendant pursuant to
20
• •
Subparagraph SO.a shall be deposited in the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating
Plant site Special Account within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and
used to conduct or finance response actions at or in connection with the Site, cir to be transferred
by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund.
51. Payments for Future Response Costs.
• a. Settling Defendant shall pay to EPA all Future Response Costs not
inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan. On an annual basis the United States will send
Settling Defendant a bili'requiring payment that includes a full accounting supporting the bill,
including an EPA SCORPIOS Report and the DOI-prepared cost summary which reflects costs
incurred by DOI and its contractors. Failure to submit a bill in one fiscal year does not prevent
EPA from submitting an accounting for that year in .a subsequent fiscal year. If Settling
Defendant has specific questions with regard to the bill, Settling Defendantmay request in
writing copies of vouchers and other documents evidencing expendit_ures and materials acquired
in connection with expenditures at OU-3 which are the basis of the demand ("supporting
documentation"). EPA will produce such supporting documentation; in response to a request
regarding a specific question Settling Defendant has with the bill. Settling Defendant shall make
all payments within 30 days of Settling Defendant's receipt of each bill requiring payment, or in
the event supporting documentation is requested, within 30 days of receipt of the supporting
, documentation, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 53. Settling Defendant shall make all
payments required by this Paragraph by a certified or cashier's check or checks made payable to
"EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund," referencing the name and address of the party making
the payment, EPA Site/Spill ID Number 041B, and DOI Case Number 90-11-3-07838/1.
Settling Defendant shall send the check(s) to: U.S. EPA, Region 4, Superfund Account Box
100142, Atlanta, GA 30384, Attn Superfund Collections Office.
b. At the time of payment, Settling Defendant shall send notice that payment
has been made to the United States, to EPA and to the Regional Financial Management Officer,
in accordance with Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions).
c. The total amount to be paid by Settling Defendant pursuant to Paragraph
51 shall be deposited in the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site Special
Account within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or
finance response actions at or,in connection with the Site, or to be transferred by EPA to the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund.
52. Settling Defendant may contest payment of any Interim Response Costs under
Paragraph 50 or Future Response Costs under Paragraph 51, if it determines that the United
States has made an accounting error or if it alleges that a cost item that is included represents
costs that are outside the scope or terms of this Consent Decree or are inconsistent with the NCP.
Such objection shall be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of the bill or the supporting
documentation and must be sent to the United States pursuant to Section XXVI (Notices and
Submissions). Any such objection shall specifically identify the contested Interim or Future
Response Costs and the basis for objection. In the event of an objection, the Settling Defendant
shall within the 30 day period pay all uncontested Interim or Future Response Costs to the United
States in the manner described in Paragraph 50 or 51, respectively. Simultaneously, the Settling
Defendant shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in a federally-insured bank duly
21
• •
chartered in the State of North Carolina and remit to.that escrow account funds equivalent to the amount of the contested Interim or Future Response Costs. The Settling Defendant shall send to the United States, as provided in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions), a copy of the
transmittal letter and check paying the uncontested Interim or Future Response Costs, and a copy of the correspondence that establishes and funds the escrow account, including, but not limited · tci, information containing the identity of the bank and bank account under which the escrow
account is established as well as a bank statement showing the initial balance of the escrow
account. Simultaneously with establishment of the escrow account, the Settling Defendant shall
initiate the Dispute Resolution procedures in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution). If the United
States prevails in the dispute, within 5 days of the resolution of the dispute, the Settling
Defendant shall pay the sums due (with accrued interest) to the United States in the manner described in the applicable Paragraph 50 or 51. If the Settling Defendant prevails concerning any aspect of the contested costs, the Settling Defendant shall pay that port.ion of the costs (plus
associated accrued interest) for which it did not prevail to the United States in the manner
described in the applicable Paragraph 50 or 51; Settling Defendant shall be disbursed any balance of the escrow account. The dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Paragraph in
conjunction. with the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) shall be the
exclusive mechanisms for resolving disputes regarding the Settling Defendant's obligation to reimburse the United States for its Interim Response Costs and Future Response Costs.
53. In the event that the payments required by Paragraphs 50 and 51 are not made within 30 days of Settling Defendant's receipt of the bill or supporting documentation, Settling
Defendant shall pay Interest on the unpaid balance. The Interest to be paid shall begin to accrue on the 30th day after Settling Defendant's receipt of the bill, or 30 days after Settling Defendant
received the requested supporting documentation. The Interest shall accrue through the date of the Settling Defendant's payment. Payments of Interest made under this Paragraph shall be in addition to such other remedies or sanctions available to Plaintiff by virtue of Settling
Defendant's failure to make timely payments under this Section including, but not limited to, payment of stipulated penalties pursuant to Paragraph 68. The Settling Defendant shall make all payments required by this Paragraph in the manner described in the applicable Paragraph 50 or 51.
54. Balance of Special Account Funds. After EPA notifies Settling Defendant in writing that the Work has been performed in accordance with this Consent Decree, if any funds
remain in the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site Special Account, EPA may transfer such funds to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. Any transfer of funds to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund shall not be subject to challenge by Settling Defendant pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of this Consent Decree or in any ·other forum.
XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
55. Settling Defendant's Indemnification of the United States.
a. The United States does not assume any liability by entering into this
agreement or by virtue of any designation of Settling Defendant. as EPA's authorized
representative under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Settling Defendant shall indemnify, save and
hold harmless the United States and its officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors,·
or representatives for or from any and all claims or causes of action to the extent they arise from,
22
• •
or on account of, negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Settling Defendant, its officers; directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any persons acting on its behalf or under their control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, any claims to the extent they arise from any designation of Settling Defendant as EPA's authorized representatives under Section 104(e) ofCERCLA. Further, the Settling Defendant agrees to pay the United States all costs it incurs including, but not limited to, attorneys fees and other expenses of litigation and settlement arising from, or on account of, claims made against the United States based on negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Settling Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any persons acting on its behalf or under its control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree. The United States shall not be held out as a party to any contract entered into by or on behalf of Settling Defendant in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree. Neither the Settling Defendant nor any such contractor shall be considered an agent of the United States.
b. The United States shall give Settling Defendant notice of any claim for which the United States plans to seek indemnification pursuant to Paragraph 55, and shall consult . with Settling Defendant prior to settling such claim.
56. Settling Defendant waives all claims against the United States for damages or reimbursement or for set-off of any payments made or to be made to the United States arising from or on account of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between the Settling Defendant · and any person for performance of Work on or relating to OU-3, including, but not limited to, claims on account of construction delays. In addition, Settling Defendant shall indemnify and hold harmless the United States with respect to any and all claims for damages or reimbursement arising from or on account of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between the Settling Defendant and any person for performance of Work on or relating to OU-3, including, but not limited to, claims on account of construction delays.
57. Settling Defendant shall secure, or shall require that its Supervising Contractor and its primary construction contractor acquire and maintain, until the completion of the construction of the remedy, comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of one million dollars, combined single limit, and automobile liability insurance with limits of one million dollars, combined single limit, naming the United States as an additional insured. In addition, for the duration of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall satisfy, or shall enwre that its contractors or subcontractors satisfy, all applicable laws and regulations regarding the provision of worker's compensation insurance for all persons performing the Work on behalf of Settling Defendant in furtherance of this Consent Decree. Prior to commencement of the Work under this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall provide to EPA certificates of such insurance and a copy of each insurance policy. Settling Defendant shall resubmit such certificates and copies of policies within 30 days of any substantial or material change in such policy. Settling Defendant shall provide any portion of the insurance described above which is not maintained by the Supervising Contractor and its primary construction contractor.
XVIII. FORCE MAJEURE
58. "Force majeure," for purposes of this Consent Decree, is defined as any event arising from causes beyond the control of the Settling Defendant, of any entity controlled by Settling Defendant, or of Settling Defendant's contractors, that delays or prevents the. ·, . .
23
• •
performance of any obligation under this Consent Decree despite Settling Defendant's best efforts
to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Settling Defendant exercise "best efforts to
fulfill the obligation" includes using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event
and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it is occurring
and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to the
greatest extent possible. "Force Majeure" does not include financial inability to complete the
Work or a failure to attain the Performance Standards.
59. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any
obligation under this Consent Decree, whether or not caused by a force majeure event, the
Settling Defendant shall notify orally EP A's Project Coordinator or, in his or her absence, EPA's
Alternate Project Coordinator or, in the event both of EPA's designated representatives are
unavailable, the I>irector of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, within ten days of
wli.en Settling Defendant first knew that the event might cause a delay. Within ten days
thereafter, Settling Defendant shall provide in writing to EPA an explanation and description of
the reasons for the delay; the anticipated duration of the delay; all actions taken or to be taken to
prevent or minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures to be taken to
prevent or mitigate the delay or the effect of the delay; the Settling Defendant's rationale for
attributing such delay to a force majeure event if it intends to assert such a claim; and a statement
as to whether, in the opinion of the Settling Defendant, such event may cause or contribute to an
endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment. The Settling Defendant shall include
with any notice all available documentation supporting its claim thatthe delay was attributable to
a force majeure. Failure to comply· with the above requirements shall preclude Settling
Defendant from asserting any claim of force majeure for that event for the period of time of such
failure to comply, and for any addiiional delay caused by such failure. Settling Defendant shall
be deemed to know of any circumstance of which Settling Defendant, any entity controlled by
Settling Defendant, or Settling Defendant's contractors knew or should have known.
60. IfEPA agrees that the delay or anticipated delay is attributable to a force majeure
evertt, the time for performance of the obligations under this Consent Decree that are affected by
the force majeure event will be extended by EPA for such time as is necessary to complete those
obligations. EPA will consider extending the delay of the performance of the obligations
affected by the force majeure event by not less than the actual duration of the delay caused by the
force majeure event. An extension of the time for performance of the obligations affected by the
force majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time for performance of any other obligation.
If EPA does not agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a fo~ce
majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendant in writing of its decision. If EPA agrees
that the delay is attributable to a force majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendant in
writing of the length of the extension, if any, for performance of the obligations affected by the
force majeure event.
61. If the Settling Defendant elects to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set
forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), it shall do so no later than 20 days after receipt of
EPA's notice. In any such proceeding, Settling Defendant shall have the burden of demonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused
by a force majeure event, that the duration of the delay or the extension sought was or will be
warranted under the circumstances, that best efforts were exercised to avoid and mitigate the
24
•
effects of the delay, and that Settling Defendant complied with the requirements of Paragraphs 58
and 59 ,-above. If Settling Defendant carries this burden, the delay at issue shall be deemed not to
be a violation by Settling Defendant of the affected obligation of this Consent Decree identified
to EPA and the Court.
XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
62. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Consent Decree, the dispute
resolution procedures of this Secdon shall be the exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes arising
under or with respect to this Consent Decree. However, the procedures set forth in this Section
shall not apply to actions by the United States to enforce obligations of the Settling Defendant
that have not been disputed in accordance with this Section.
63. Any dispute which arises under or with respect to this Consent Decree shall in the
first instance be the subject of informal negotiations between the parties to the dispute. The
period for informal negotiations shall not exceed 30 days from the iime the dispute arises, unless
it is modified by written agreement of the parties to the dispute. The dispute shall be considered
to have arisen when one party sends the other party a written Notice of Dispute.
64. Statements of Position.
a. In the event thatthe parties cannot resolve a dispute by informal
negotiations under the preceding Paragraph, then the position advanced by EPA shall be
considered binding unless, within 30 days after the conclusion of the informal negotiation period,
Settling Defendant invokes the formal dispute resolution procedures of this Section by serving on
the United States a written Statement of Position on the matter in dispute, including, but not
limited to, any factual data, analysis or opinion supporting that position and any supporting
documentation relied upon by the Settling Defendant. The Statement of Position shall specify
the Settling Defendant's position as to whether formal dispute resolution should proceed under
Paragraph 65 or Paragraph 66.
b. Within 30 days after receipt of Settling Defendant's Statement of Position,
EPA will serve on Settling Defendant its Statement of Position, including, but not limited to, any
factual data, analysis, or opinion supporting that position and all supporting documentation relied
upon by EPA. EP A's Statement of Position shall include a statement as to whether formal
dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 65 or 66. Within 20 days after receipt of
EPA's Statement of Position, Settling Defendant may submit a Reply.
c. If there is disagreement between EPA and the Settling Defendant as to
whether dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 65 or 66, the parties to the dispute
shall follow the procedures set forth in the paragraph determined by EPA to be applicable.
However, if the Settling Defendant ultimately appeals to the Court to resolve the dispute, the
Court shall determine which paragraph is applicable in accordance with the standards of
applicability set forth in Paragraphs 65 and 66:
65. Formal dispute resolution for disputes pertaining to the selection or adequacy of
any response action and all other disputes that are accorded review on the administrative record
under applicable principles of administrative law shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures
set forth in this Paragraph. For purposes of this Paragraph, the adequacy of any response action
includes, without limitation: (1) the adequacy or appropriateness of plans, procedures to
25
• •
implement plans, or any other items requiring approval by EPA under this Consent Decree; and
(2) the adequacy of the performance of response actions taken pursuant to this Consent Decree.
Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to allow any dispute by Settling Defendant
regarding the validity of the RO D's provisions.
a. An administrative record of the dispute shall be maintained by EPA and
shall contain all statements of position, including supporting documentation, submitted pursuant
to this Section. Where appropriate, EPA may allow submission of supplemental statements of
position by the parties to the dispute. ·
b. The Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will
issue a final administrative decision resolving the dispute based on the administrative record
described in Paragraph 65.a. This decision shall be binding upon the Settling Defendant, subject
only to the right to seek judicial review pursuant to Paragraph 65.c.imd d._
c. Any administrative decision made by EPA pursuant to Paragraph 65.b
shall be reviewable by this Court, provided that a motion for judicial review of the decision is
fiied by the Settling Defendant with the Court and served on all Parties within 14 days of receipt
of EPA's decision. The motion shall include a description of the matter in dispute, the efforts
made by the parties to resolve it, the relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the
· dispute must be resolved to ensure orderly implementation of this Consent Decree. The United
States may file a response to Settling Defendant's motion.
d. In proceedings on any dispute governed by this Paragraph, Settling
Defendant shall have the burden of demonstrating thatthe decision of the Waste Management
Division Director is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. Judicial
review ofEPA's decision shall be on the administrative record compiled pursuant to
Paragraph 65.a.
66. Formal dispute resolution for disputes that neither pertain to the selection or ·
adequacy of any response action nor are otherwise accorded review on the administrative record
under applicable principles of administrative law, shall be governed by this Paragraph.
a. Following receipt of Settling Defendant's Statement of Position submitted
pursuant to Paragraph 64, the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will
issue a final decision resolving the dispute. The Waste Management Division Director's decision
shall be binding on the Settling Defendant unless, within14 days of receipt of the decision, the
Settling Defendant files with the Court and serves on the parties a motion for judicial review of
the decision setting forth the matter in "dispute, the efforts made by the parties to resolve it, the
relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the dispute must be resolved to ensure
orderly implementation of the Consent Decree. The United States may file a response to Settling
Defendant's motion.
b. Notwithstanding Paragraph K of Section I (Background) of this Consent
Decree, judicial review of any dispute governed by this Paragraph shall be governed by
applicable principles of law.
67. The invocation of formal dispute resolution procedures under this Section shall
not extend, postpone or affect in any way any obligation of the Settling Defendant under this
Consent Decree, not directly in dispute, unless EPA or the Court agrees otherwise. Stipulated
26
• •
penalties with respect to the. disputed matter shall continue to accrue but payment shall be stayed
pending resolution of the dispute as provided in Paragraph 76. Notwithstanding the. stay of.
payment, stipulated penalties shall accrue from the first day ofnoncompliance·with any
applicable provision of this Consent Decree. In the event that the Settling Defendant does not
prevail on the disputed issue, stipulated penalties shall be assessed and paid as provided in
Section XX (Stipulated Penalties).
XX. STIPULATED PENALTIES
68. Settling Defendant shall be liable for stipulated penalties in the amounts set forth
in Paragraphs 69 and 70 to the United States for failure to comply with the requirements of this
Consent Decree specified below, unless excused under Section XVIII (Force Majeure).
"Compliance" by Settling Defendant shall include completion of the activities under this Consent
Decree or any work plan or other plan approved under this' Consent Decree identified below in
accordance .with all applicable requirements of law, this Consent Decree, the SOW, and any
plans or other documents approved by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree and within the
specified time schedules established by and .approved under this Consent Decree.
69. Stipulated Penalty Amounts -Work.
a. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per day for
any noncompliance identified in Subparagraph 69.b:
Penalty Per Violation Per Day
$1,250.00
Period of Noncompliance
1st through 14th day
15th through 44th day
45th day and beyond
$2,500.00
$5,000.00
b. Compliance Milestones.
(1) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any and all draft and
final Remedial Action Wark Plans;
(2) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any significant
deliverables as identified in the EPA approved Remedial Action Work Plan;
(3) Implementation of the approved Remedial Acti.on Work Plan;
(4) Completion of the Remedial Action required under this Conseut
Decree and the SOW; ·
(5) Submitta1 and, if necessary, modification of Remedial Action
Reports as required by SOW Tasks IDE and F; ·
(6) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of the Performance
Standard Verification and Operation and Maintenance Plan;
and 44;
(7) Establishment of financial assurance as required by Paragraphs 43
(8) Procurement or proof of insurance;.
27
• •
(9) · Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any Work Plan(s) for
further response actions and additional Work pursuant to Sections VI, VII, VIJI, or IX,
hereof; ·
(10) Implementation of further response actions and additional Work
pursuant to Sections VI, VlI, vm, or IX, hereof;
(11) Payment of all monies required to be paid pursuant to Section XVI;
. (12) Recording of Consent Decree, applicable Deed Restrictions and
Notices required in Section V, Paragraph 9, and Section IX.
70. Stipulated Penaltv Amounts -Reports.
a. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per day for
failure to submit timely or adequate reports or other written documents pursuant to this Consent
Decree:
Penalty Per Violation Per Day
$ 500.00
$ 1500.00
$ 3000.00
Period of Noncompliance
1st through 14th day
15th through 44th day
45th day and beyond
71. In the event that EPA assumes performance of a portion or all of the Work
pursuant to Paragraph 82 of Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff), Settling Defendant
shall be liable for a stipulated penalty in the amount of $25,000.00.
72. All penalties .shall begin to accrue on the day after the complete performance is
due or the day a violation occurs, and shall continue to accrue through the final day of the
correction of the noncompliance or completion of the activity. However, stipulated penalties
shall not accrue: (1) with respect to a deficient submission under Section XI (EPA Approval of
Plans and Other Submissions), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day after EPA's
receipt of such submission until the date that EPA notifies Settling Defendant of any deficiency;
(2) with respect to a decision by the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4,
under Paragraph 65 or 66 of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), during the period, if any,
beginning on the 21st day after the date that Settling Defendant's reply to EPA's Statement of
Position is received until the date that the Director issues a final decision regarding such dispute;
or (3) with respect to judicial review by this Court of any dispute under Section XIX (Dispute
Resolution), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day after the Court's receipt of the
final submission regarding the dispute until the date that the Court issues a final decision
regarding such dispute. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate
penalties for separate violations of this Consent Decree.
73. Following EPA's determination that Settling Defendant has failed to comply with
a requirement of this Consent Decree, EPA may give Settling Defendant written notification of
the same and describe the noncompliance. EPA may send the Settling Defendant a written
demand for the payment of the penalties. However, penalties shall accrue as provided in the
preceding Paragraph regardless of whether EPA has notified the Settling Defendant of a
violation.
28
• •
74. All penalties accruing under this Section shall be due and payable to the United
States within 30 days of the Settling Defendant's receipt from EPA of a demand for payment of
the penalties, unless Settling Defendant invokes the Dispute Resolution proce-dures under Section
XIX (Dispute Resolution). All payments to the United States under this Section shall be paid by
. certified or cashier's check(s) made payable to "EPA Hazardous Substances Superfund," shall be
mailed to: U.S. EPA, Region 4, Superfund Account Box 100142, Atlanta, GA 30384, Attn
Superfund Collections Office, shall indicate that the payment is for stipulated penalties, and shall
reference the EPA Region and Site/Spill ID #04Bl, the DOJ Case Number 90-11-3-07838/1, and
the name and address of the party making payment. Copies of check(s) paid pursuant to this
Section, and any accompanying transmittal letter(s), shall be sent to the United States as provided
in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions), and to Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, Waste Management
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303.
75. · The payment of penalties shall not alter in any way Settling Defendant's obligation
to complete the performance of the Work required under this Consent Decree.
76. Penalties shall continue to accrue as provided in Paragraph 72 during any dispute
resolution period, but need not be paid until the following:
a. If the dispute is resolved by agreement or by a decision of EPA that is not
appealed to this Court, accrued penalties determined to be owing shall be paid to EPA within 30
days of the agreement or the receipt of EPA's decision or order;
b. If the dispute is appealed to this Court and the United States prevails in
whole or in part, Settling Defendant shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the Court to be
owed to EPA within 60 days of receipt of the Court's decision or order, except as provided in
Subparagraph c below;
c. If the District Court's decision is appealed by any Party, Settling Defendant
shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the District Court to be o~ing to the United States
into an interest-bearing escrow account within 60 days of receipt of the Court's decision or order.
Penalties shall be paid into this account as they continue to accrue, at least every 60 days. Within
15 days of receipt of the final appellate court decision, the escrciw agent shall pay the balance of
the account to EPA or to Settling Defendant to the extent that they prevail.
77. If Settling Defendant fails to pay stipulated penalties when due, the United States
may institute proceedings to collect the penalties, as well as interest. Settling Defendan·t shall
pay Interest on the unpaid balance, which shall begin to accrue on the date of demand made
pursuant to Paragraph 74.
78. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as prohibiting, alte1ing, or in
any way limiting the ability of the United States to seek any other remedies or sanctions available
by virtue cif Settling Defendant's violation of this Decree or of the statutes and regulations upon
which it is based, including, but not limited to, penalties pursuant to Section 122(1) of CERCLA,
provided, however, that the United States shall not seek civil penalties pursuant to Section 122(1)
of CERCLA for any violation for which a stipulated penalty is provided herein, except in the
case of a willful violation of the Consent Decree.
79. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the United States may, in its.
unreviewable discretion, waive any portion of stipulated penalties that have accrued pursuant to
29
•
this Consent Decree.
XXI. Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff
80. In consideration of the actions that will be performed and the payments that will
be made by the Settling Defendant under the terms of the Consent Decree, and except as
specifically provided in Paragraph 81 of this Section, the United States covenants not to sue or tci
take administrative action against Settling Defendant pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of
CERCLA for performance of the Work and for recovery of Interim Response Costs and Future
Response Costs. These covenants not to sue shall take effect upon the receipt by EPA of the
payments required by Paragraph 50.a of Section XVI (Payments for Response Costs). These
covenants not to sue are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance by Settling Defendant of
its obligations under this Consent Decree. These covenants not to sue extend only to the Settling
Defendant and do not extend to any other person.
81. General reservations of rights .. The United States reserves, and this Consent
Decree is without prejudice to, all rights against Settling Defendant with respect to all matters not
expressly included within Plaintiffs covenant not to sue. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Consent Decree, the United States reserves all rights against Settling Defendant with respect
to:
a. claims based on a failure by Settling Defendant to meet a requirement of
this Consent Decree;
. . b. liability arising from the past, present, or future disposal, release, or threat
ofre]ease of Waste Material outside of OU-3;
c. liability based upon the Settling Defendant's ownership or operation of
OU-3, or upon the Settling Defendant's transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal, or the
arrangement for the transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of Waste Material at or in
connection with OU-3, other than as provided in the ROD, the Work, or otherwise ordered by
EPA, after signature of this Consent Decree by the Settling Defendant;
d. liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources, and for the costs of any natural resource damage assessments;
e. criminal liability;
f. liability for v:olations of federal or state law which occur during or after
implementation of the Remedial Action; and
g. liability, prior to Certification of Completion of the Work, for additional
response actions that EPA determines are necessary to achieve Performance Standards, but that
cannot be required pursuant to Paragraph 14 (Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans);
h. previously incurred costs of response above the amounts reimbursed
pursuant to Paragraph 50.a;
1. liability for other operable units at the Site;
j. liability for costs that the United States will incur related to the Site, but
are not within the definition of Future Response Costs;
30
• •
k. liability for costs incurred or to be incurred by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry related to the Site.
82. Work Takeover. In the event EPA determines that Settling Defendant has ceased
implementation of any portion of the Work, is seriously or repeatedly deficient or late in its performance of the Work, or is implementing the Work in a manner which may cause an endangerment to human health or the environment, EPA may assume the performance of all or any portions of the Work as EPA determines necessary. Settling Defendant may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 65, to dispute EPA's determination that takeover of the Work is warranted under this Paragraph. Costs incurred by the United States in performing the Work pursuant to this Paragraph shall be considered Future Response Costs that Settling Defendant shall pay pursuant to Section XVI (Payment for
Response Costs).
83. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United _States retains all authority and reserves all rights to take any and all response actions authorized by law.
XXII. COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANT
84. Covenant Not to Sue. Subject to the reservations in Paragraph 85, Settling
Defendant hereby covenants not to sue and agrees not to assert any claims or causes of action against the United States with respect to the Work, past response actions, and Interim and Future Response Costs as defined herein or this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to:
a. any direct or indirect claim related to OU-3 for reimbursement from the Hazardous Substance Superfund (established pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § _9507) through CERCLA Sections 106(b)(2), 107, 111, 112, 113 or any other provision of law;
b. any claims against the United States, including any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States under CERCLA Sections 107 or 113 related to OU-3; or
c. any claims arising out of response actions at or in connection with OU-3, including any claim under the United States Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution, the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as amended, or at common law.
Except as provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claims Against De Micromis Parties), and Paragraph 92 (waiver of Chum-Splitting Defenses); these covenants not to sue shall not apply in the event that the United States brings a cause of action or issues an order pursuant to. the reservations set forth in Paragraph 81 (b) -(d) or 81 (g) -(k), but only to the extent that Settling Defendant's claims arise from the same response action, response costs, or damages that the United States is seeking pursuant to the applicable reservation.
85. The Settling Defendant reserves, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, claims against the United States, subject to the provisions of Chapter 171 of Title 28 of the United States Code, for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the riegligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the United States while acting within the scope of his office or employment under circumstances where the United
States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. However, any such claim shall not include a claim for any
31
• •
damages caused, in whole or in part, by the act or omission of any person, including any contractor, who is not a federal employee as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2671; nor.shall any such claim include a claim based on EPA's selection of response actions, or the oversight or approval of the Settling Defendant's plans or activities. The foregoing applies only to claims which are brought pursuant to any statute other than CERCLA and for which the waiver of sovereign immunity is found in a statute other than CERCLA.
86. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute preauthorization of a claim within the meaning of Section 111 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9611, or 40 C.F.R. · § 300.700(d).
87. Settling Defendant agrees not to assert any claims and to waive all claims or causes of action that it may have for all matters relating to OU-3, including for contribution, against any person where the person's liability to Settling Defendant with respect to OU-3 is based solely on having arranged for disposal or treatment, or for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances at OU-3: or having accepted for transport for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at OU-3, if:
a. the materials contributed by such person to OU-3 containing hazardous substances did not exceed the_greater of (i) 0.002% of the total volume of waste at OU-3, or (ii) 110 gallons of liquid materials or 200 pounds of solid materials.
b. This waiver shall not apply to any claim or cause of action against any person meeting the above criteria if EPA has determined that the materials contributed to OU-3 by such person contributed or could contribute significantly to the costs of response at OU-3. This waiver also shall not apply with respect to any defense, claim, or cause of action that a Settling Defendant may have against any person if such person asserts a claim or cause of action relating to OU-3 against such Settling Defendant..
XXIII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION
88. Except as provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claims Against De Micromis Parties), nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to create any rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person not a Party to this Consent Decree. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to waive or nullify any rights that any person not a signatory to this decree may have under applicable law. Except as provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claims Against De Micromis Parties), each of the Parties expressly reserves any and all rights (including, but not limited to, any right to contribution), defenses, claims, demands, ar,d causes of actio,1 which each Party may have with respect to any matter, transaction, or occurrence relating in any way to the Site against any person not a Party hereto.
89. The Parties agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds, that the Settling Defendant is entitled, as of the Effective Date, to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by CERCLA Section 113(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2) for matters addressed in this Consent Decree. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the "matters addressed" are the Remedial Design and Remedial Action for OU-3 (Former Chlorine Plant) and all Interim and Future Costs, as defined herein.
90. The Settling Defendant agrees that with respect to any suit or claim for contribution brought by it for matters related t_o this Consent Decree it will notify the United
32
•
States in writing no later than 60 days prior to the initiation of such suit or claim.
91. The Settling Defendant also agrees that with respect to any suit.or claim for
contribution brought against it for matters ·related to this Consent Decree it will notify in writing
the United States within 14 days of service of the complaint on it. In addition, Settling
Defendant shall notify the United States within 14 days of service or receipt of any Motion for
Summary Judgment and within 14 days of receipt of any order from a court setting a case for
trial.
92. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United
States for injunctive relief, recovery of response costs, or other appropriate relief relating to the
Site, Settling Defendant shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon
the principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim-splitting, or
other defenses based upon any contention that the claims raised by the United States in the
subsequent proceeding were or should have been brou.ght in the instant case; provided, however,
that nothing in this Paragraph affects the enforceability of the covenants not to sue set forth in
Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff).
XXIV. ACCESS TO INFORMATION
93. Settling Defendant shall provide to EPA, upon request, copies of all documents
and information within its possession or control or that of its contractors or agents relating to
activities at OU-3 or to the implementation of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to,
sampling, analysis, chain of custody records, manifests, trucking Jogs, receipts, reports, sample
traffic routing, correspondence, or other documents or information related to the Work. Settling
Defendant shall also make available to EPA, for purposes of investigation, information gathering,
or testimony, its employees, agents, or representatives with knowledge of relevant facts
concerning the performance of the Work.
94. Business Confidential and Privileged Documents.
a. Settling Defendant may assert business confidentiality claims covering
part or all of the documents or information submitted to Plaintiff under this Consent Decree to
the extent permitted by and in accordance with Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 9604(e)(7), and40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b). Documents or information determined to be confidential
by EPA will be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies documents or information when they are submitted to EPA, or if
EPA has notified Settling Defendant that the documents or information are not confidential under
the standards of Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA or 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, the public may be
given access to such documents or information without further notice to Settling Defendant.
b. The Settling Defendant may assert that certain documents, records and
other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendant asserts such a privilege in lieu of providing
documents, it shall provide the Plaintiff with the following: (1) the title of the document, record,
or information; (2) the date of the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of the
author of the document, record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and
· recipient; (5) a description of the contents of the document, record, or information; and (6) the
privilege asserted by Settling Defendant. However, no documents, reports or other information
33
• •
created or generated pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on the
grounds that they are privileged.
95. No claim of confidentiality shall be made with respect to any data generated in the
performance of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, all sampling, analytical,
· monitoring, hydrogeologic, scientific, chemical, or engineering data, or any other documents or
information evidencing conditions at or around OU-3.
XXV. RETENTION OF RECORDS
96. Until 10 years after the Settling Defendant's receipt of EPA's notification pursuant
to Paragraph 47 .b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion of the Work), the Settling
Defendant shall preserve and retain all records and documents (including records or documents
in electronic form unless there is a hard copy of such documents) now in its possession or control
or which come into its possession or control that relate in any manner to its liability under
CERCLA with respect to OU-3, the performance of the Work, or to the liability of any other
person under CERCLA with respect to OU-3. The Settling Defendant must also instruct its
contractors and agents to preserve, for the same period of time specified above all documents or
records (including documents or records in electronic form unless there is a hard copy of such
documents) now in its possession or control or which come into its possession or control that
relate in any manner to the performance of the Work. Each of the above record retention
requirements shall apply regardless of any corporate retention policy to the contrary.
97. At the conclusion of this document retention period, Settling Defendant shall
notify the United States at least 90 days prior to the destruction of any such records or
documents, and, upon request by the United States, Settling Defendant shall deliver any such
records or documents to EPA. The Settling Defendant may assert that certain documents, records
and other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendant asserts such a privilege, it shall provide the
Plaintiff with the following: (1) the title of the document, record, or information; (2) the date of
the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of the author of the document,
record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and recipient; (5) a description of
the subject of the document, record, or information; and (6) the privilege asserted by Settling
Defendant. However, no documents, reports or other information created or generated pursuant
to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on the grounds that they are
privileged.
XXVI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS
98. Whenever, under the terms of this Consent Decree, written notice is required to be
given or a report or other document is required to be sent by one Party to another, it shall be
directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless those individuals or their
successors give notice of a change to the other Parties in writing. All notices and submissions
shall be considered effective upon receipt, unless otherwise provided. Written notice as specified
herein shall constitute complete satisfaction of any written notice requirement of the Consent
Decree with respect to the United States, EPA, and the Settling Defendant, respectively.
As to the United States: Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
34
•
and
As to EPA:
•
U.S. Department of _Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Re: DJ# 90-11-3-07838
Winston A. Smith, Director
Waste Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Randy Bryant
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
As to the Reeional Financial Management Officer:
As to the State:
As to the Settling Defendant:
Carol A. Williams
Financial Management Officer
P.O. Box 100142
Atlanta, GA 30084
Nile Testerman
State Project Coordinator
401 Oberlin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Melody Sydow
Environmental Manager
Weyerhaeuser Company
Mail Stop EC2-2Cl
33810 \Veyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way WA 98001
XXVII. EFFECTIVE DA TE
99. The effective date of this Consent Decree shall be the date upon which this
Consent Decree is entered by the Court, except as otherwise provided herein.
35
• •
XXVIII. RETENTION OF JURiSDJCTION
100. This Court retains jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this Consent Decree
and the Settling Defendant for the duration of the performance of the terms and provisions of this
. Consent Decree for the purpose of enabling any of the Parties to apply to the Court at any time
for such further order, direction, and relief as may be necessary or appropriate for the
construction or modification of this Consent Decree, or to effectuate or enforce compliance with
its terms, or to resolve disputes in accordance with Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) hereof.
Decree:
XXIX. APPENDICES
101. The following appendices are attached to and incorporated into this Consent
"Appendix A" is the ROD.
"Appendix B" is the SOW.
"Appendix C" is the description and/or map of OU-3.
XXX. Communitv Relations
102. · Settling Defendant shall propose to EPA its participation in the community
relations plan to be developed by EPA. EPA will determine the appropriate role for the Settling
Defendant under the Plan. Settling Defendant shall also cooperate with EPA in providing
information regarding the Work to the public. As requested by EPA, Settling Defendant shall
participate in the preparation of such information for dissemination to the public and in public
meetings which may be held or sponsored by EPA to explain activities at or relating to OU-3.
103. EPA arid Settling Defendant previously entered into a Consent Decree for the
closure of the Former No. 1 Landfill (hereafter "Consent Decree for OUl ") which was lodged
with the Court in Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-90(H)(3), and was entered by the Court on August
18, 2003. The Consent Decree for OUl sets forth requirements for the creation, funding, and
implementation of a Technical Assistance Pian (TAP). The Parties agree that there should be
one TAP for both OUl and OU3. To that end, the terms of Paragraph 103 of the Consent Decree
for OUl are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth, and Settling Defendant shall
create, fund, and implement one TAP for OUl and OU3 in accordance therewith.
XXXI. MODIFICATION
104. Schedules specified in this Consent Decree for completion of the Work may be
modified by agreement of EPA and the Settling Defendant. All such modifications shall be made
in writing.
105. Except as provided in Paragraph 14 (Modification of the SOW or Related Work
Plans), no material modifications sha_ll be made to the SOW without written notification io and
written approval of the United States, Settling Defendant, and the Court, if such modifications
fundamentally alter the basic features of the selected remedy within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.
300.435(c)(2)(B)(ii). Prior to providing its approval to any modification, the United States will
provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
modification. Modifications to the SO\V that do not materially alter that document, or material
modifications to the SOW that do not fundamentally alter the basic features of the selected
36
• •
remedy within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.300.435(c)(2)(B)(ii), may be made by written agreement
between EPA, after providing the State with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on
the proposed modification, and the Settling Defendant. ·
106. Nothing in this Decree shall be deemed to alter the Court's power to enforce,
supervise or approve modifications to t~s Consent Decree.
XXXII. LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PullLIC COMMENT
107. This Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period of not less than
. thirty (30) days for public notice and comment in accordance with Section 122(d)(2) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(2), and 28 C.F.R. § 50.7. The United States reserves the right to
withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the Consent Decree disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Settling Defendant consents to the entry of this Consent Decree without further notice.
108. If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the
form presented, this agreement is voidable at the sole discretion of any Party and the terms of the
agreement may not be used as evidence in any litigation between the Parties.
XXXIII.. AGREEMENT OF PARTIES FOR SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE
110. Settling Defendant acknowledges and stipulates that for the purposes of 113(g)(l)
of CERCLA, it agrees not to assert a challenge to the United States' natural resource damages
claims based on the running of the statute of limitations for three years after the completion of
the remedial actions, excluding operation and maintenance, taken at the Site.
111. Settling Defendant agrees not to challenge, either directly or indirectly, through an
officer, employee, or corporate affiliate, any listing or proposed listing of the Site on the NPL, if
EPA has determined that Settling Defendant is in "noncompliance" at OU-3 because Settling
Defendant: 1) has ceased implementation of any portion of the Work; 2) is seriously or
repeatedly deficient or late in its performance ofthe Work; or 3) is implementing the Work in a
manner which may cause an endangerment to human health or the environment, and which
noncompliance constitutes bad faith on the part of Settling Defendant.
112. If EPA makes a determination of noncompliance pursuant to Paragraph 111, then
EPA shall notify Settling Defendant of such determination in writing. EPA's written
determination shall be final and unreviewable, unless Settling Defendant invokes dispute
. resolution pursuant to Section XIX. The dispute shall be limited solely to whether pursuant to
Paragraph 111, Settling Defendant is in "noncompliance" at OU-3 and shall be reviewable under
Paragraph 66. Dispute resolution pursuant to this Section shall not have arty effect on the
Settling Defendant's obligations pursuant to this Consent Decree, including but not limited to,
Settling Defendant's obligation to perform the Work and reimburse EPA for Interim and Future
Response Costs. .
. 113. If EPA proposes the Site for listing or lists the Site on the NPL without'first
making a determination of noncompliance pursuant to the preceding Paragraph, then Settling
Defendant reserves all rights, except as provided in Paragraph 114, that it may have to challenge
the listing or proposed listing of the Site on the NPL. EPA's decision to propose the Site for·
listing or to list the Site on the NPL pursuant to this Section shall not have any effect on the
37
• •
Defendant's obligations pursuant to this Consent Decree.
114. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 111-113, Settling Defendant agrees not to seek
judicial review of a decision to list the Site on the NPL, or to submit comments on a proposal to
list the Site, directly or indirectly through a third party, anytime after the Effective Date of this
Consent Decree, based on a claim that changed conditions at OU-3 that result from this Consent
Decree in any way affect the basis for listing the Site on the NPL.
XXXIV. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE
113. Each undersigned representative of the Settling Defendant to this Consent Decree
and the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the
Department of Justice certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and
conditions of this Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind such Party to this document.
114. The Settling Defendant hereby agrees notto oppose entry of this Consent Decree
by this Court or to challenge any provision of this Consent Decree unless the United States has
. notified the Settling Defendant in writing that it no longer supports entry of the Consent Decree.
115. · The Settling Defendant shall identify, on the attached signature page, the name,
address and telephone number of an agent who is authorized to accept service of process by mail
on behalf of that Party with respect to all matters arising under or relating to this Consent Decree.
Settling Defendant hereby agrees to accept service in that manner and to waive the formal service
requirements set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local
rules of this Court, including, but not limited to, service of a summons. The parties agree that
Settling Defendant need not file an answer to the complaint in this action unless or until the court
expressly declines to enter this.Consent Decree.
38
• •
XXXV. FINAL JUDGMENT
116. This Consent Decree and its appendices constitute the final, complete, and
exclusive agreement and understanding among the parties with respect to the settlement
embodied in the Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that there are no representations,
agreeinents or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in
this Consent Decree.
117. Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent
Decree shall constitute a final judgment between and among the United States and the Settling
Defendant. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters this
judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. and 58.
United States District Judge
39
• •
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Former Chlorine Plant Area (OU-3) of the Weyerhaeuser
Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina.
Date
Date
Date
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA
Thomas L. Sansonetti
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Amy Gillespie
Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Frank D. Whitney
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. Department of Justice
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1461
40
•
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Former Chlorine Plant Area (OU-3) of the Weyerhaeuser
CompanYPlymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina. ·
~lc,\o~
I 1
Date
Winston A. Smith
Director, Waste Management Division
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Elizabeth E. O'Sullivan
Associate Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
41
• •
TI-IE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Former Chlorine Plant Area (OU-3) ofthe Weyerhaeuser
Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina
A&.IL Si VX>'f-
Date
FOR WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
•~,,,.-~ I Signatu.t:l,: :t "~
Name (p~ o -~~" ,J
Title: O ·
Address: /;..;'E_,y1=.r.?.Hl-l£USF.(< CamPt'/-Ny
(JO 12. p OR &11!:-H (;, A-P Q Uf/e71!.=S
· 33 ?,,w,s WI'!. yG&Hff:e.us~,e_ l!lfl-y Sou.-m
Ee. ~£&.HL Wfff, WA, 9BCCi3
Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Above-signed Party:
Name (J,rint): So!,f'Pil n :}le KC•<~:'> K !
· Title: .-Sfl--.J 1c·R.. LF-611 l-C0c,1,,).~E.L
Address: WE y:cr?, HAl'c Y s ~t?.. Com Pfh-.J'f
Co1<Po(<,t9-p;__ f-t£fi:DQuP.f?_.Ud? 'S
33&& '3 · WI';yeil HBF.<JSU W~ 5ou.71-f
Ph.Number: F-t!.-bE.12.&L WAY, [y',q.600-3
2o3-9Zl{-31/&/
42
•
APPENDIX A
RECORD OF DECISION
•
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT (OPERABLE UNIT THREE)
WEYERHAEUSER SITE, PLYMOUTH, NC
• •
PART 1: DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
A. Site Name and Location
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area-Operable Unit 3
Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant Site
Martin County, North Carolina
EPA ID# NCD991278540
Statement of Basis and Purpose
· This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Former Chlorine Plant
Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant Site, Martin County, North
· Carolina, chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
· Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision is based on the administrative record file for this Site.
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
C. Assessment of the Site
The response act.ion selected in this Record of Decision is necessary to protect the public
health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substanc~s into
the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The Weyerhaeuser Company Wood Treating Plant Site is comprised of 4 areas of concern
which are being investigated separately in focused Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies.
The 4 areas are Landfill No. 1, the Former Chlorine Plant, Welch Creek and the Roanoke River.
This remedy addresses the threat posed by the Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the
Weyerhaeuser Site. Mercury contamination in soil in the immediate area of the Former Chlorine
Plant is the major threat to human health . .md the environment: The major components of the selected
remedy include:
•
•
•
•
A Barrier Wall Containment system for contaminated soils largely within the footprint of the
Former Chlorine Plant building;
Shallow Target Area Excavations of contaminated soils;
A Surface Cap Containment system; ·
Groundwater monitoring; and
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
. Record 'or Decision
Manin County. NC
September, 2003 .
• •
• Institutional Controls for land and groundwater use.
E. Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective.
The remedy for the Former Chlorine Plant Area does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element because the remedy for the Site is containment. However, the
excavation of the Target Areas soils may result in treatment if contaminant levels exceed a threshold
level.
,-
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory ·
review will be conducted within five years after initiation of remedial action to ensure that the remedy
is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.
ROD Data Certification
The following infmmation is included in the-Decision Summary section of this Record of
Decision. Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for this Site.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chemicals of concern and their respective concentrations.
Baseline risk represented by the chemicals of concern.
Cleanup levels established for chemicals of concern and the basis for these levels .
Description of the Principal Threat waste at the site .
Current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions and current and potential
beneficial uses of ground water used in the baseline risk assessment and FS.
Potential land and ground water use that will be available at the site as a result of the Selected
Remedy.
Established capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth costs,
discount rate, and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected.
Key factors that led to selecting the remedy .
Authorizing Signature
~ cr-;2, r-o?
Winston Smith, Director
Waste Management Division
Former Chlorine Plant Area of"the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
~cord of Decision ·
Martin County.· NC
September, 2003
Date
ii
• •
PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Site Name, Location and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit
within Site Strategy
Site Characteristics
I. Conceptual Site Model
2. Site Setting
3. Regional Geology and Hydrology
4. Area Groundwater Use
5. Remedial Investigation Field Work
6. Contaminant Distribution
Contaminant Fate and Transport
1. Surface Soil
2. Subsurface Soil to Groundwater
3. Groundwater to the Roanoke River
Current and Potential Future Land and Resources Uses
Summary of Site Risks
I. The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
a. Chemicals of Concern
b. Exposure Assessment
c. Toxicity Assessment
d. Human Health Exposure.and Risk Calculations
e. Summary of Risk Characterization
f. Uncertainty Analysis
2. The Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
a. Measurement Endpoints
b. Effects Characterization
c. Summary of Ecological Risk
3. Basis for Action
Fonner Chlorine Plant Alea of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003
PAGE NO.
1
1
3
4
,. ..
4
4
4
6
7
7
8
21
21
21
22
24
24
24
24
25
31
34
38
40
40
40
42
43
iii
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
I.
J.
Remedial Action Objectives
Description of Alternatives
L Description of Remedy Components
•
2. Common Elements, Distinguishing Features and Expected Outcomes
K.
L.
M.
N.
o.
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Principal Threat Wastes.
The Selected Remedy
I. Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy
2. Description of the Selected Remedy
3. Summary of the Estimated Remedy Cost
4. Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
Statutory Determination
I. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs ·
3. Cost Effectiveness
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
5. Preference forTreatment as a Principal Element
6. Five-Year Reviews
Documentation of Significant Changes
Fomer Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County, NC
September, 2003
PAGE NO.
44
45
45
61
63
71
71
72
73
75
76
76
76
80
80
80
86
88
iv
,.
• ,i; • ~:::: -:-:;f::· ,::.:::_-:··
-•
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
List of Tables
E-1 Mercury detected in surface soil
E-2 Mercury detected in sub-surface soil
E-3 Mercury detected in groundwater
E-4 Mercury detected in sediment
H-1 Chemicals of Concern
H-2 Exposure Point Concentrations
H-3 RME and CT Exposure Assumptions
H-4a Oral/Dermal noncarcinogenic toxicity data
H-4b Inhalation noncarcinogenic toxicity data
H-Sa Hazard Indices-RME
H-Sb Hazard Indices-CT
H-6 Uncertainty analysis
H-7 , HQ and RGOs for the Ecological assessment
J-1 Comparative analysis of aitematives summary
K-1 Detailed analysis of alternatives summary
M-1 Cost estimate for the selected remedy
M-2 Cleanup levels
N-1 Chemical-specific ARARs
N-2 Location-specific ARARs
N-3 Action-specific ARARs
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
List of Figures
A-1 Site Location
E-1 Conceptual Site Model
E-2 Sample Location Map
E-3 Mercury in Soil
E-4 Cross-section of mercury in soil
F-1 Mercury ii:aching batch test results·
J-1 Al temati ve 3
J-2 Alternative 4
J-3 Alternative 5
J-4 Conceptual treatment gate for Alternative 5
J-5 Alternative 6
J-6 Alternative 7
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site.
~ecord of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003
•
PAGE NO.
13
14
18
20
25
28
29
32
33 f"
36
37
39
43
62
66
74
75
77
78
81
PAGE NO.
2
5
9
11
12
23
48
. 51
54
55
58
60
V
•
Appendixes
Appendix A Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B Public Meeting Transcript
Appendix C State Concurrence Letter
Former Chlorine J:>lant Area of lhe Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision 1
Martin County. NC
September. 2003
•
vi
• •
A. Site Name, Location and Description
The Weyerhaeuser Company Wood Treating Plant Site is an active wood and paper
products manufacturing facility located just outside of the city limits of Plymouth, Martin
. County, North Carolina. The CERCLIS Site ID number is NCD991278540. The EPA has the
enforcement lead at the Site, with support from the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR). EPA plans to negotiate a Consent Decree with the
Responsible Party to conduct and pay for the cleanup at the Site: · ·
Cu_rrent operations at the Site include the production of fluff paper, paper, paperboard
and finished lumber. Weyerhaeuser has been the owner/operator of this facility since 1957, after
merging with the K.ieckhefer-Eddy Corporation, which began operation at the site in 19)7) The
facility is located on approximately 2,400 acres, about 1.5 miles west of the town of Plymouth.
The Former Chlorine Plant Area is approximately 3 acres in size, located adjacent to the
Roanoke River in an active manufacturing area of the facility. A steel sheet-piling seawall
(bulkhead) forms the entire northern boundary with the River in this part of the facility. The area
is primarily covered with asphalt and concrete pavement. Figure A-1 shows the approximate
location of the Fonner Chlorine Plant Area at the facility, and the size of the study area.
B. Site History and Enforcement Activities
The Fonner Chlorine Plant was built in 1951 and operated until 1968. Operations
involved the production of chlorine and sodi11m hydroxide from salt brine. Twelve mercury
cells, containing metallic mercury, were used in the production process. Process equipment was
removed from the Former Chlorine Plant building from 1968-1978. The building was then used
for storage and equipment maintenance until 1984. The building was demolished in 1986 and
1987. In 1992, the building slab, footings, a U-shaped concrete drain (the Central U-drain), tank
foundations and surrounding soil down to the water table (to approximately 4 feet) were
removed. The excavation was backfilled with soil and concrete and paved with asphalt. Soil
samples were collected from the base of the excavation at the completion of the soil removal.
Mercury concentrations in the soil not excavated were as high as 9,520 mg/kg. An additional U-
shaped drain (the Eastern U-drain) was identified during the Remedial Investigation planning.
A Special Notice Letter was sent to Weyerhaeuser ComTJany by the EPA on November
19, 1997, notifying them of potential liability, as defined by Section 107 (a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended, that Weyerhaeuser may have incurred with respect to the Site. The Special Notice
Letter outlined four areas on, and adjacent to, the facility property which, following initial
investigation by EPA and the NCDENR, were documented to have caused a release or the threat
of a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The four areas are: I) The
Landfill No. 1 Area; 2) The Former Chlorine Plant Area; 3) Welch Creek; and 4) The Roanoke
River .. After successful negotiations between EPA and Weyerhaeuser, an Administrative Order
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
R~cord of Decisio_n
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 1
•
l.lH)FU.
NO. 1
CtLOAtEPI.N<T
FORIEA ,_~tll.
STATE LOCATION
80UACE: TOCRAMMCTRIC OA~TE
1
-.!:~~;;--;;;;.ooco~usc!EC~o, ~•(~Y:.PHZORTH CAROUNA. rt BASE MAP P CHARLOTT[, R
2
0 I ii 4. SERVICES, INC.,HY: OECEMBE •
Of PHOTOGAAP . ·
. Lil,UT OF THE 10-YEAR APPROXIM.._TE
---FLOOD Pl>JN
OP£RTY LINE -APPROXIMATE PR .
0 1500' JOOO'
HAEUSER CO.
WEYER LORINE PLANT
FORfJ: ~ATOR ~TION
FINAL ~mv~N= CAROLINA
MARTIN SlORWEAL
-. rr: ~ JWA
0-lt', JUN£ 2000 -
""°'1 !5100.23
Figure ·A-I 2
• •
by Consent (AOC) was signed by both parties on March 24, 1998. The Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Landfill No. 1 Area, The Former Chlorine Plant Area and
Welch Creek were covered under the terms of the AOC and the attached Statement of Work
(SOW). The Roanoke River is being investigated as a separate Operable Unit by the EPA using
Superfund funding. A ROD was issued for the Landfill No. 1 Area on September 19, 2002. On
August 18, 2003 EPA and Weyerhaeuser entered into a Consent Decree for the RD/RA for the
Landfill No. 1 Area.
C. Community Participation
Pursuant to CERCLA Sections !13(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, the RI/FS Report and the
Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment on June 30, 2003.· l)lese
documents were made available to the public in the administrative record located in an
information repository maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region IV and at the Washington
County Public Library in Plymouth, North Carolina.
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Roanoke Beacon,
Plymouth North Carolina, on July 2, 2003 A pubic comment period on the documents was held
from July 2, 2003 to August I, 2003. A copy of the notice and the Proposed Plan Fact sheet
. were mailed to the Site mailing list which contains names of community members and interested
parties. In addition, a public meeting was held on July 10, 2003. · At this meeting,
representatives from EPA answered questions about the Site and the remedial alternatives under
\X :,~· consideration. Meetings with city and county officials were also hdd.
Other community relations activities included:
•
•
•
Development of a community relations plan .
An RI kick-off public meeting held in the community on March 23, 1999 .
Issuance of a fact sheet on the Rl/FS process and progress in March, 1999
and January, 2001.
• Issuance of a fact sheet on the Proposed Plan for the Landfill No. I Area in
March, 2002, followed by a Public Meeting in April, 2002.
•
•
Issuance of a fact sheet on the Proposed Plan for the Former Chlorine
Plant Area in July, 2003, followed by a Public meeting in July, 2003.
Informed citizens of the Technical Assistance Grant and Community
Advisory Group program (literature placed in repository).
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
~ecord of Decision
Martin County, NC
September. 2003 3
-:. :-·.: .. ·.
t·~.:-/\?i
• •
D. Scope and Role of Operable Unit within Site Strategy
Because of the geographic separation of the three areas, and the differences in the type of
contamination present and the media impacted, individual RI/FS work and reports have been
prepared for each of the three areas identified in the AOC. These focused investigations were
conducted in order to ·streamline the investigation and remedy selection process. EPA plans to
issue a ROD for each of the three areas of the site. The Roanoke River is being investigated by
EPA using Superfund funding, and is designated as Operable Unit 2. The Operable Unit
designations given to each area are: ·
Operable Unit I: Landfill No. I Area;
Operable Unit 2: Roanoke River .
Operable Unit 3:. The Former Chlorine Plant; and
Operable Unit 4: Welch Creek.
E. Site Characteristics
1. Conceptual Site Model
The Remedial Investigation for the Former Chlorine Plant Area began with the
development of an RI Work Plan, and a Conceptual Site Model. The Conceptual Site Model
formed the basis for the investigation and risk assessment for the Former Chlorine Plant Area.
The Conceptual Site Model for the Former Chlorine Plant Area is based on characteristics of the
waste sources, the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for each affected environmental
medium, and the migration and transport potential of the constituents to potential receptors. The
primary original source of releases were the Former Chlorine Plant mercury cells and underdrain
system. Surface and subsurface soil contamination is transported through precipitation to
groundwater, and through volatilization and dust to the atmosphere. Groundwater contaminated
with mercury eventually discharges downgradient to the Roanoke River immediately adjacent to
the Former Chlorine Plant. The Conceptual Site Model for the Former Chlorine Plant Area is
shown in Figure E-1.
2. Site Setting
The Weyerhaeuser facility is located in a low-lying area neai-the confluence of Welch
Creek and the Roanoke River. In general, the area comprises flat, low-lying terrain typical of the
Tidewater region within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. At
portions of the facility east of Welch Creek, ground surface elevations rise to 30 to 40 feet above
mean sea level. The Former Chlorine Plant Area is at an elevation of approximately 8 feet,
generally within the 5-foot to IS-foot elevation range typical for the region.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of thC Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record Of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 4
Primary Sources
F~rmer Chlorine Plant
Mercury Cells
Primary Rele_ase
Mechanisms
Releases from
Underdrain System
Figure E-1
Preliminary Conceptual Model for Former Chlorine Pl~nt
Secondary
Sources
Surface Soil
Secondary
Release
Mechanisms Pathway
I Exposun! Roull'
lncidentaJ Ingestion
Dermal Conlacl
Dust or Volatile
L::.:.!E~nu~-,~,~io;ns~:::}---{=~W~in;d[=}l---llnhaJation
Receptor
Humu, Biota
SileWorke~I
Construction
Worku Aqu&tlc
X X
X X
X X
Subsurface I--'-------~--------------~,1n,.,,,0id0,0n0t0al:..:,ln05,"'ce"c·o0n,._+-____ --ll----'X'------+-----'.J· 1
~--S~o~i_l -~ e. D~•~rmal-"'"-'C~o~n~•:"~''------'-------'----~x ___ .1.. ___ J_
lnfilrration into
Groundwater
Groundwater Derma.I Contact X
•
•
• •
The Former Chlorine Plant Area is currently used for the loading, unloading, and storage
· of raw materials used at tlie facility. This results in significant fork lift and semi-truck traffic.
Other structures in the area include storage sheds, a raw materials storage pad (drums) in the
Former Chlorine Plant building footprint, a bank of the facility's cooling towers to the north
adjacent to the River, and the former polycoater building to the west (now used for paper roll
storage).
3. Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology in the region generally consists of a wedge of elastic sediment and marine
limestone that thickens from west to east. The sediment consists of sand, silt, and clay. The sand
is deposited in poorly connected bodies that may have only a limited horizontal and vertipal
extent. However, on a regional scale, differences in the frequency of occurrence and th~
interconnection of the sand bodies are sufficient enough to distinguish regional aquifers from
regional aquitards.
The shallowest unit is the Quaternary-age surficial aquifer. It consists of fine sand, silt,
clay, and peat that form a unit of less than 50 feet in thickness. Sand typically makes up greater
than 70 percent of the unit in the Plymouth, North Carolina, area.
Beneath the surficial aquifer is the Yorktown confining unit. These Pliocene-age marine
deposits typically consist of up to 50 feet of clay and sandy clay, with occasional beds of fine
sand or shells. In the Plymouth, North Carolina Area, the confining unit is reported to be about
40 feet thick.
The Yorktown aquifer is immediately beneath the confining clay. It consists of fine
sand, silty and clayey sand, and clay with shells and shell beds throughout the aquifer. From 70
to 80 percent of the aquifer is sand in the Plymouth, North Carolina, area.
The confining unit of the Pungo River Formation is composed of Miocene-age clay from
the lowermost Yorktown Formation and the top of the Pungo River Formation. The unit is
typically more than 90 percent clay and averages 55 feet in thickness. The Pungo River aquifer
below the clay is only about 10 feet thick near Plymouth, North Carolina.
The Pungo River aquifer is separated from the Eocene-age Castle Hayne aquifer by the
thin, and in some areas discontinuous, Castle Hayne confining unit. Where present, the Castle
Hayne confining unit consists of clay and sandy clay.
The Castle Hayne aquifer is composed predominantly of loose consolidated to hard
(recrystallized) limestone, fine to coarse carbonate sand, and marl (clayey limestone). Limestone
dominates the lithology in the top third to the top half of the aquifer, while sand dominates in the
lower aquifer. The elevation of the aquifer below Plymouth, North Carolina, is reported to be
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 6
• •
about -130 feet. This is the most productive aquifer in North Carolina, with an average hydraulic ·
conductivity of 6.5 x 104 ft/s.
At least five other confining/aquifer units have been identified below Plymouth, North
Carolina. The deeper units are of little relevance because the Castle Hayne aquifer is the regional
water supply aquifer below the Site.
4. Area Ground Water Use
The majority of the Weyerhaeuser facility process water is obtained from the Roanoke
River. Historical records indicate that as many as 30 water supply wells have been drilled on the
Weyerhaeuser facility since 1937. Of the 19 wells not currently in use, construction .
documentation for five indicates that well intakes were between 113 to 160 feet in depth: These
depths indicate that the Castle Hayne aquifer was the source of water for the wells. All nineteen
wells were properly abandoned. Water supply wells currently in use obtain their water from the
Castle Hayne aquifer.
There are no private water supply wells within l mile of the Former Chlorine Plant. It is
estimated that about 330 people may be served by private wells within the three mile radius of
the facility and south of the Roanoke River. Approximately 2.7 square miles of the area within
the three mile radius are served by public water service from the City of Plymouth, and 4.3
square miles are part of the Weyerhaeuser facility. Private wells typically draw water from
depths of 100 to 200 feet, within the Castle Hayne aquifer.
The nearest private well is about l. I miles to the south of the Former Chlorine Plant.
This well is reportedly 160 feet deep and is likely completed in the Castle Hayne aquifer.
Regional ground water flow in the aquifer is from west to east, therefore, the nearest well to the
Former Chlorine Plant is not downgradient of the plant. There is a cluster of homes to the
southeast that is just over a mile from the facility. This area and the remaining residential areas
are also not downgradient from the site.
The City of Plymouth operates four public water supply wells just outside the 3-mile
radius of the facility. The water supply system services approximately 5,900 people. The city
system includes four wells located to the east of the plant site. The wells are from 115 to 1.85
feet deep, within the Castle Hayne (and possibly Pungo River) aquifers. Regionally, the general
horizontal direction of groundwater flow within these formations is west to east, placing the City
wells not downgradient of the landfill.
5. Remedial Investigation Field Work
The RI field work at the Former Chlorine Plant Area was completed during two
mobilizations, conducted from February to May of 1999. ·
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Rec~rd of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 7
• •
Samples were assigned a unique alpha-numeric sample descriptor identifying the study
area; media types; sample number; and, in certain instances, sample depth. The relevant study
area descriptors.for the Former Chlorine Plant Area are as follows:
• CP=Former Chlorine Plant
• PW=Pore Water
• SD=Sediment
• SS=Surface Soil
• SB=Subsurface Soil
• PZ=Piezometer
The sampling locations for the RI are shown on Figure E-2.
Remedial Investigation site characterization. activities included soil, groundwater and
near -shore sediment sampling. Specifically, the sampling efforts included the collection of 3
surface soil samples, the advancement of 23 soil borings to various depths, the installation of 32
on-shore monitoring wells and 11 temporary mini-piezometers in the river along the bulkhead,
the advancement of 18 sediment thickness probes, and the collection of 10 sediment core
sampl.es and three pore water samples. Samples were analyzed primarily for mercury.
Additional analyses were conducted to quantify the presence of methyl mercury and bioassay
indicators, to assess leachability, and to define inorganic constituents that may impact mercury
treatment. This information in conjunction with historical data was used to evaluate the nature
and extent of the constituents of concern.
6. Contaminant Distribution
a. Soil
Surface soil (to depths of 2 feet) was sampled in the limited unpaved area along the
bulkhead. Total mercury was detected in only one of the three surface samples, at a total
mercury concentration of 7 .3 mg/kg.
The highest concentrations of mercury in the subsurface soil below the pavement were
· coincident with the former building footprint and associated U-drains. Total mercury
concentrations ranged from <0.04 to 45,800 mg/kg. Flecks and beads of metallic mercury were
observed in soil samples from directly below the building footprint to a depth of 42 feet below
ground surface, and are likely present as a result of leaks from the historical building drains.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 8
"'
@CP-12-1 • ®
CP-12-2
1--
~. lJ..J
<..(
.,,.. ...
@)a>Gl'-GI
1-j
~
1 N 'l
@CPGP-11 ·11.,.
•
PROJECT: WEYERHAEUSER CO.·
FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
~ MARTIN COUNlY, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET TITLE:
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
l
DRAWN BY: STORMERL SCALE: PRO'. NO. 5100.23
CHECKED . BY: JMR 1 ·=20· Fll.E NO. 51002328.DWG
~ <;:,
j I ~ r<)
a ·~
~ :)
0 H ~ ~ l!.J '
APPROVED BY: KDK DAlE PRINlED: FIGUREe-1
DATE: JUNE 2000 ~UN 30 2000
-> .~ a
7 44 Heartland T roil
o 20' 40• ,a,,,. Madison. WI 5J717-19J4
' P.O. Box B92J
I ' Madison, WI 5J70B-892J
SCALE: 1•=20• Phont1: 608/BJl-444-4
,..--
• •
However, no contiguous separate phase of metallic mercury was observed during the RI.
Soil volumes were determined for various concentration limits as indicated in the
following table:
->1 7,500 9,300
>10 7,500 4,800.
>100 7,200 1,700
>1,000 6,200 580
The occurrence and concentration of mercury in· soil decreases with depth and distance
from the Former Chlorine Plant footprint. Additionally, most of the concentrations greater than
100 mg/kg are within the building footprint, typically below the former mercury cell sumps and
associated U-drains. The RI concluded that approximately 95 percent of the mercury mass is
associated with concentrations above 100 mg/kg, and approximately 98 percent of the mercury
containing soil is located above 26 feet below ground surface. Methyl mercury represents less
than I percent of the total mercury in the subsurface soil tested. Figure E-3 presents a summary
of the maximum subsurface soil mercury concentrations detected during the RI, and Figure E-4
illustrates the extent of total mercury in subsurface soil in cross-sectional view, Tables E-1 and
E-2 present the results of surface soil and subsurface soil sampling conducted during the RI.
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 10
•
' ;:; ' p t
!U o•'
•
"""°"'"""'
l
...
ESTIMATED UASS OF MERCURY (POUNDS)
AT EACH JHTERVAl!'1
(1) CUMULATIVE t.lASS,. 7.500 LBS. •
"
" ,.
" .,
~
"' 0 m
w
lo.
iE ~ w 0
LEGEND
TOTAi.. MERCURY
CONCENTRATION IN SOIL
AREAL EXTENT
D I TO 10 mg,'kg
~ 10 TO 100 mg/kg
-> 1 00 tn9/kg
NOTES
L GROUND SURfAC( EU:VATION APPROXIMATELY
SFT. (NG\/029).
2. V£RTlCAl DISTRIBUTION PROflU: 11>.S(O ON
I mg/kg CONCENTRA.TlON CONTOUR .
.J. CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS ARE
Af'PROXU,tAll::.
0 so·
SCALL 1•-so•
PROJECT: FEA8l8a.lTY BTt.DY
WEYERHABJaEJICO.
100·
MARTIN OOUOY, NORTH CAROIJN,\
sum mt.L: TOTAL lilEACUn' ., at.118URFACE
801.. AT FORMER CHLORDE Pl.ANT PUNVEW
[li'IT(: .I.Kl'O(I..) Figure E-)
JI ;ui& o._ ______________________________________ ..,_ ___________ _..J
lij
I
i • li ~ ~ w
A
•1l
-1l
-30
B
l'RlllUC110H FfoCIUTY
AI.L.UIIW. ~
CENTllAL U-OAAlN
M£A
FOfMER CK1lfl1'E PV,N'T
CW.ROOM _,.
IIAMl
1-CUAH FU "°""""" ••""'
' I
I
I
,-~,---_ --------,., ""', .-,--., ,,c-c. ""'""" •• ~ ••
{:$·:; ',. '"•'.:·•·~ ._, , •. ,. •,-; .;,,,-.«·, .... c ••.
--··-... ·-';""··----··•-·-·· --·,,-,·----.-,---. . . ' .
1~t~:=tftf::~11t/J..:~Ii;'.~·-:~.::r.1:i\'°fH\1P!·J/;trfPf;•:!~tt\7l:..
COOLING TOWERS
EA8lB<N U-IJAAtj -<
A' LEGEND
TOT.Al M[~URY
CONC[NTR>.TION IN SOil
.-.REAL [lCT[NT
D I TO 10 mg/kg
r~~:~>1 10 TO 100 mg/kg
->" 100 mg/kg
NOTE
I. DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
B'
MOTOR
CONlllOL
BUILDING
• •
Table E-1
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Detected in RI Surface Soil
SAMPLE-' .. ••.· ...
·, •DEPTII-· ... \fibg;>
CPSS-01 0-0.5
CPSS-02 0-0.5
CPSS-03 0-0.5
u = laboratory result judged to be not detected. based on data validaticin.
Ct) Second value is a duplicate result.
4.1 u/3.6 u11)
. 0.53 u
73
13
• •
Table E-2
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Detected in RI Subsurface Soil
.. ,. . .. . . .-__ ;:··,·· .· SAMPLE DEl'TII .. , ·. ELEV_ATION ·:·· .... · . 'SOIL.CONCENTRATION lmg/kg)]'if:..{~ .. . ·,_:;: ····· . _ .. , . ·; ,(ft b~) < · .. ;" ... ' BORING LO •. •:,·
d CPSB-01 4.0 • 5.5
14.0 -14.5
28.0 • 30.0
36.5 • 37.5
44.0 • 45.0
CPSB-02 4.0 • 5.5
14.0 -15.5
31.0 • 32.0
36.0 • 37.5
44.0 • 45.5
CPSB-03 4.0 • 5.S
12.0 -13.5
21.0 -21.5
36.S-37.5
44.0-45.5
CPSB-04 4.0-5.5
14.0 -15.0
23.0 • 24.0
31.0 • 32.5
36.0 -37.5
44.0 • 45.5
CPSB-05 4.0-7.5
14.0 • 15.5
26.0 • 27.2
CPSB-06 4.0 • 8.0
12.0 -16.0
26.0 • 26.5
CPSB-07 4.0-5.5
12.0 -13.5
20.0 • 26.0
CPSB-08 .4 .0-5.5
13.5 • 15.0
20.0 • 20.5 .
CPSB-09 4.0 • 5.5
14.0 -15.0
21.5-23.0
CPSB-10 4.0 • 7.5
16.0 -17.5
20.0 • 21.0
"' Second value 1s a duplicate result.
•=duplicated analysis not within control limits.
•;: . ' iti NGVD29) ...
4.0 to 2.5
-6.0 to -6.S
-20.0 to -22.0
-28.5 to -29.S
-36.0 to -37.0
4.0 to 2.5
-6.0 to -7.S
-23.0 to -24.0
-28 to -29.S
-36.0 to -37.5
4.0 to 2.5
-4.0 to ~5.5
-13.0 to -13.5
-28.5 to -29.5
-36.0 to -37.5
4.0 to 2.5
-6.0 to -7.0
-15.0 to -16.0
-23.0 to -24.5
-28.0 to -29.5
-36.0 to -37.5
4.0 to 0.5
-6.0 to -7.5
-18.0 to -19.2
4.0 to a.a
-4.0 to -8.0
-18.0 to -18.5
4.0 to 2.5
-4.0 to -5.5
-12.0 to -18.0
. 4.0 to 2.5
-5.5 to -7.0
-12.0 to-12.5
4.0 to 2.5
-6.0 to -7.0
-13.5 to-15.0
4.0 to 0.5
-8.0 to -9.5
-12.0 to -13.0
j = concentration considered an estimate based on data. validation.
· u = laboratory result judged to be not detected based on data validation.
< = concentration l~ss than the Quantitation Limit.
--= not analyzed.
··MERCURY ·:··,,:·:
5.0
0.71
50.3
<0.05
0.51
192
20.S
0.1
0.46
0.53
45800
2.9
6370
328
74.7 /4.0 (1)
389
5970
1210
0.23 u
0.28 u
0.20 j
11.6 •j/8.8 (1)
<0.04 •j
0.07 •j
3.6
0.39
0.11
1.0 •j
1.1 •j
0.43 •j
0.45 •j/0.60 (l)
0.25 •j
0'25 •j
6.7
105
2.4
9.3 •j/10.5 •ill
1.4 •j
2.1 'i
NS= not sampled, the boring_encountered refusal at a depth of 2.5 feet in three attempts.
0;MEiim;·MEil~
0.155
0.0121
0.000339
0.000383
0.000152 u
0.112 /0.116 (l)
0.0107
<0.SlQDCJ87
0.000239
<0.000087
---
--
0.206
0.0209
0.103
0.000041
0.000225
0.000094
--
-
0.000591/0.000959 (l)
0.00179
<0.000087 .
-
-
----
0.00368
0.0345
0.000308
0.0266
0.00205
0.00617
14
• •
Table E-2
Fonner Chlorine Plant
Mercury Detected in RI Subsurface Soil
·-.·',-. . :·, . i//:., __ ," : SAMPLE DEl'Tii": . -· '.ELEVATION '· ---· · :: SOIL CONCENTRATION<,i:iglkgl)~~~ .'./.i:, ··1 > ·:·-r-\(/ .,_.. . . _ ,_ ·. • '> (ft NGVD29>. ?:'i (~bgs) __ ..... <: ~(." ".BORING-I.Di<.•·· ··
CPSB-11 4.0 -8.0 4.0 to 0.0
12.0 -13.0 -4.0 to -5.0
20.0-21.0 -12.0 to -13.0
CPSB-12 6.0-7.0 2.0 to LO
12.0-13.5 -4.0 to -5.S
23.0 -24.5 -15.0 to -16.5
CPSB-13 4.0 -8.0 4.0 to 0.0
12.0 -13.0 -4.0 to -5.0
20.0 -20.5 -12.0 to -12.S
CPSB-14 4.3-4.7 3.7 to 3.3
13.0 -13.5 -5.0 to -5.S
23.5 -24.0 -15.S to -16.0
CPSB-15 3.8 -4.8 4.2 to 3.2
CPSB-16 4.2-5.0 3.8 to 3.0
CPSB-17 4.2-8.0 3.8 to 0.0
12.0-16.0 -4.0 to -8.0
20.0-24.0 . -12.0 to -16.0
CPSB-18 7.0·8.0 LO to 0.0
CPSB-19 6.5 -7.0 L5 to 1.0
CPSB-20 6.5 -7.0 L5 to LO
CPSB-21 4.0-8.0 4.0 to 0.0
12.0 -16.0 -4.0 to -8.0
20.0-24.0 -12.0 to-16.0
CPSB-22 4.0 -8.0 4.0 to 0.0
12.0 -16.0 -4.0 to -8.0
20.0 -22.0 -12.0 to -14.0
CPSB-24 6.0 -7.0 2.0 to 1.0
CPSB-25 NS -
"' Second value 1s a duplicate result.
• = duplicated analysis not within control limits.
j = concentration considered an estimate based on data validation.
u = laboratory result judged to be not detected based on data valid,ation.
<=concentration less than the Quantitation Limit.
-= not analyzed.
·:'·-•.MERCURY"·->·>.
8.6 'j/4.8 ,111
0.56
0.14
14.3
L9
2.1
60.8
47.1
0.15
601
22
L3
L7 'i
72.4 'i
0.40 'j
0.88 'j
LO 'j
2.6 'i
9.4 'j
50.5 •j
3140 'j
2.8 'j
3.6 "i
0.080 B'j
0.19 'j
L9 'i
2.6 Ni
-
NS= not sa~pled, the boring encountered refusal at a depth of 2.5 feet in three attempts.
·: METHYL¥I!Ktdi<,~
-
--
-
-
-
0.0386/0.0133 111
0.00,\191 r
0.0102
0.0946
0.0,71
0.000246
-
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
--
15
• •
b. Groundwater
Of the 29 monitoring wells which were installed in the immediate area of the Former
Clarine Plant, the North Carolina Maximum Acceptable Concentration (_NCMAC) for mercury in
groundwater of 1.1 µg/kg was exceeded at six locations. In general, the highest mercury
concentrations were observed at the water table beneath the former mercury cell room and U-
drain system. The six monitoring wells with concentrations of mercury above the NCMA.C were
shallow wells within the Former Chlorine Plant building footprint or immediately downgradient.
Lower concentrations were measured in deeper samples, from the middle alluvial aquifer and
from the marine sand. None of the groundwater samples collected from the deeper wells
exceeded the NCMAC.
The mercury-containing groundwater is in direct contact with the mercury-containing
soil located within the alluvial aquifer, which extends from approximately 4 to 40 feet below the
ground surface. Mercury concentrations decrease by an order of magnitude approximately 50
feet from the Former Chlorine Plant footprint and are at or below the NCMAC within 50 feet to
the east and west of the footprint area. Total mercury concentrations from 13 monitoring wells
at the water table ranged from 0.002 µg/kg to 116 µg/kg. Methyl mercury was quantified in
selected groundwater samples at concentrations averaging 0.0 to 2 percent of the total mercury
concentrations. The results of groundwater sampling during the RI are presented in Table E-3.
c. Sediment
Sediment core samples were collected at 10 locations within the Roanoke River adjacent
to the Former Chlorine Plant Area. The cores were divided into four samples, with three samples
evenly spaced in the upper soft sediment, and with the deepest sample coming from the
underlying alluvial aquifer sand. Total mercury concentrations ranged from <0.05 mg/kg to 291
mg/kg. The thickness of soft sediment ranged from 4.2 feet to 13.9 feet, with an average depth of
10.1 feet.
The areal distribution of the mercury in sediment does not directly correspond to the
locations of the historical drains from the Former Chlorine Plant. The highest mercury
concentrations were found over 250 feet upstream of the central discharge, at depths of
approximately 8 feet within the-soft sediment column. Lower concentrations were found at all
locations in the overlying sediment, providing evidence of continuing deposition of material with
less mercury over time. -There was an area of buried sediment (depths of 9 to 10 feet) with
mercury concentrations between 10 and 70 mg/kg that is adjacent to the bulkhead and
downstream of the central and eastern historical U-drains.
Possible hypotheses for the areal distribution of mercury in the sediment are
resuspension and deposition of sediment due to constructiori activities related to the bulkhead
extension, and/or due .. to historical barge loading oper~tions that occurred along the bulkhead near
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Dei:ision ·
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 16
··---·-----• •
the Fonner Chlorine Plant.
The vertical distribution of mercury was also variable across the area sampled. With the
exception of the core sample collected at CPSD-06, the highest concentrations of mercury were
quantified in soft sediment from either the second or third depth collected. One possible
explanation for the vertical mercury profile detected during the RI is the deposition of clean
sediment over these areas in the 30+ years since the Fonner Chlorine Plant ceased operations.
Methyl mercury concentrations in sediment were not found with the highest total
mercury concentrations. A higher percentage of methyl mercury compared with total mercury
occurred in the upper one or two sample depths. However, the actual concentration of methyl
mercury is generally proportional to the total mercury, ie: samples with higher mercury leyels
also had higher methyl mercury levels. The percent of mercury that is present as methyl mercury
in the sediment of the Roanoke River is at the low end of literature reported values for marine
and estuarine sediment. Although methylation of mercury typically takes place in the top layers
of sediment, this was not what was found during the RI. The conclusion presented in the RI was
that the methylatioh of the mercury occurred historically, and like the sediments containing
higher mercury concentrations, the sediment was then covered through burial.
Mercury and methly mercury concentrations detected in Roanoke River sediment during
the RI are presented in Table E-4.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September. 2003 17
•
Alluvial MW-lB
aquifer
(water table) CP-02-1
CP-03-1
CP-04-1
CP-05-1
CP-06-1
CP-07-1
CP-08-1
CP-09-1
CP-10-1
CP-11-1
CP-12-1
MW-2
CPGP-01-1
CPGP-02-1
CPGP-03-1
CPGP-04-1
CPGP-05-1
CPGP-06-1
CPGP-07-1
CPGP-08-1
CPGP-09-1
CPGP-10-1
CPGP-11-1
CPGP-12-1
CPGP-13-1
Alluvial CP-01-2
aquifer
(-20 foot CP-02-2
elevation)
CP-03-2
CP-04-2
CP-05-2
CP-06-2
CP-07-2
CP-08-2
•
Table E-3
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Detected in Groundwater
3/2/99
4/26,29/99
3/1,2/99
4/29/99
· 2/28,3/3/99
4/28/99
3/1/99
4/27,28/99
3/4/99
4/29/99
5/3/99
5/3/99
5/3/99
10/19/99
10/21 /99
10/20/99
10/20/99
10/14/99
· 10/11/99
10/11/99
10/12/99
10/12/99
10/12/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/14/99
10/14/99
3/2/99
4/26/99
3/1/99
5/5/99
3/3/99
4/26/99
3/1/99
4/26/99
3/2/99
4/26/99
5/3/99
5/3/99
5/3/99
.·.,.
'
<0.11
<0.10
.,. 1.1·:-..c-' .
0.56
0.0174
0.0222
-0.00212
0.00674
0.00399
1
0.3/0.3(J)
-2.3 -
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.0364
0.267
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
1.9 /2.4''' --_
<0.ll/<0.11('1
0.334
<0.11
0.0301
<0.11
0.0248
0.43
0.399/0.176131
<0.11
0.0970-
0.21 B
0.19 B
<0.10
..
0.000269
0.000790
1.675
0.2573,"
0.728
1.16 i
0.327
0.00517
0.00566
0.000619 /0.000049 u'''
0.000403
0.000160 u
0.000115
0.000144 u
0.000119
0.00124
0.00176/0.00123131
0.000619
0.000369
0.00843
0.00131
0.00101
18
• •
Table E-3
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Detected in Groundwater
/,/.\'.•:WELL-.,,.-.. ., 1.._-:,;:;_ ,. 1 ., .,; _:-.:_.,···· ,. METHYL' :~1:-.~:f~.~l
~iJ#i#~\i .·: ; << 1
:/·. ',~fu~G/{ .• .·•-·_··• :tk~CUR.~ ;';,: 'ii .. ' / < MERcinr~iSf" ~fflIERYAi.'. . ~ELL I.D."!_ •. ;·DATE): i " -:;.:.i;'ii,,fa'\.•,;:: _.-. ___ . -. , ,, ... ,• -.. (i:u,\@,t(:=r
Alluvial 1-....:C::.:Pc..·::;09:....·2=--+__.:.:10'-'/_:l.::.9/:....9:.::9_1-__ __;=::_---+----------~
aquifer CP-10-2 10/21/99
0.137 -
0.0159 -
(-20 foot 1-....:C;:P_-1:.:1...:·2=--+--=1.:.0 lc,.:2:.:0.!..,/9~9'--+----""',:..o.:;~=.:.=----+----------l
elevation) 1---C=P=-·-=1=2·-=21--4--_1:.:0"-/-=2=-0 /~9:.:9_+-----==-----1-------------1
(continued) 1--...:MW.;.:.;...c.c·2=-·.::.2--11--.:.l0:..:l.=2c:.0:..../9:.:9_+-----'===-----+------------1
0.0512/0.0472'"' -
0.102
Marine
sand
CPGP-01-2 10/11/99
CPGP-02-2 10/12/99
CPGP-03-2 10/12/99
CPGP-04-2 10/12/99
CPGP-05-2 10/12/99
CPGP-06-2 10/13/99
CPGP-07-2 10/13/99
CPGP-08-2 10/13/99
CPGP-09-2 10/13/99
CPGP-10-2 10/13/99
CPGP-11-2 10/13/99
CPGP-12-2 10/14/99
CPGP-13-2 · 10/14/99
CP-01-3 3/2/99
CP-03-3
CP-04-3
4/26/99
3/3/99
4/26/99
10/20/99
3/1/99
4/26/99
0.0581
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2/ <0.2'"'
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
0.2
<0.2
<0.11
0.0475
45\4)
0.0180
0.0i94
<0.11
0.00172
--
-
..
-!' ... -
-
-
..
..
-
-
..
..
..
0.00005 u
0.000324
0.000019 u
0.00006
-
0.000036 u
0.000011
111 I.D. numbers w1th the CPGP-prefLX u,.d1cate one-tune grab sample of groundwater from direct-push borings.
C2> Shaded values indicate an exceedence of the North Carolina groundwater quality standard of 1. 1 µg/L
(ISA NCAC ZL.0202).
131 Second value is a duplicate result.
<•l Value of 45 is a suspected laboratory or samplin~ error ~iven the 2000-fold difference in the latter tw~ samplin~ rounds.
B ~ less than the required detection limit but greater than the Instrument Detection limit.
j = concentration considered an estimate based on data validation.
u = laboratory result judged to be not detected based on data validation.
<;;: concentration less than the Quantitation limit.
- = not analyzed or measwed.
19
• •
Table E-4
Mercury Detected in Roanoke River
Sediment
i~iji/iif!,};:{:J , . · ·. ··. o!%~~-. ·• ; , :/:. •·.· . _s_E-~IMENT ~~NCE~no;.:;g11cs>_ • ·_:;i;;=i
iBORING.I.o.· .. SURFACE(ft) . ··•·.·.··. : .. c: MERCURY . . ' -METHYi,MERCURi-
CPSD-01 0 -0.5 0.54 0.000639
CPSD-02
CPSD-03
CPSD-04
CPSD-05
1.9 -2.4 1.7 0.00205
3.9 -4.4
7.4 -7.9
0 -0.5
5.6 • 6.1
11.1 -11.6
14.1 -14.6
0-0.5
6.5 -7.0
12.0 -12.~
14.0 -14.5
0-0.5
4.2 -4.7
6.7 -7.2
10.2 -10.7
0 -0.5
3.5 -4.0
7.5 -8.0
5.0
3.5
0.11
0.23
0.36
0.07
0.1/0.1 ())
0.29
0.06 B
0.07
0.20
0.29
291
0.10
0.18
0.20
127 /1 lJ (I)
0.0252
0.00318
0.000348
0.000731
0.000276
0.000011
0.000339/0.000451 (I)
0.000413
0.000012
0.000067
0.000508
0.000526
0.0553
0.000062
0.000463
0.000585
0.0406/0.0361 (!)
t},;;_,;--C-P-SD---0-6-.----'8cco
7----'o9-'35'-,·---1-----~'-------1-
~ ·..;..·t~~/7
0.41 0.000777
0.77 0.000943
CPSD-07
CPSD-08
CPSD-09
CPSD-10
4' .. 3 -4.8
7.3 -7.8
9.8 -10.5
0 -0.3
5.8 -6.3
10.8-11.3
12.8 -13.3
0-0.5
6.0 -6.5
11.5 -12,0
14.2 -14.7
0 -0.5
. 3.5 -4.0
8.5 -9.0
9.0 -95
0 -0.5
7.0 -7.5
14.0-14.5
16.0 -16.5
..
0.38
1.0
69.5
0.22
0.65/0.48
0.12
0.11
0.11
1.0
118
0.09 Bu
0.35
1.6
17.9/8.3
0.65
0.13
6.2
0.23
<0.05
B = less than the reqw.red detection 11.lTI..lt but greater than the Instrument Detection LlilUt.
u = laboratory result judged to be not detected based on data validation.
< =.concentration less than the Quantitation Limit.
-= not analyzed.
(lJ Second value is a duplicate result. ·
0.000271
0.00315
0.01
0.000721
0.000497 /0.000379 (!)
0.000141
0.000158
0.000271
0.00291
0.00723
0.00033
0.00294
0.0222
0.00266/0.00211
0.001055
0.000347
0.000271
0.000361
<0.000048
20
• •
F. Contaminant Fate and Transport
The potential routes of migration from the various media in the Fonner Chlorine Plant
Area are as follows:
• Migration of mercury from surface soil to surface water
• Volatilization of mercury from surface soil to air
• Migration of mercury from subsurface soil to groundwater
• Discharge of groundwater containing dissolved mercury into the Roanoke River
The potential for these routes of migration to be completed and the details associated
with them are'discussed in the following sections. The potential migration of mercury containing
sediments downstream within the Roanoke River is being assessed as part of the Roanoke River
Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit-2.
1. Surface Soil
The Fonner Chlorine Plant Area is mostly covered with asphaltic concrete pavement and
concrete. The covering reduces run-off, volatilization to the air and leaching from soil to
groundwater, Uncovered soil is present near the bulkhead, where a small grass-covered strip is
located adjacent to the bulkhead. Mercury was detected at one surface soil sample taken during
the RI at 7-3 mg/kg, and previous sampling detected mercury levels as high as 59.8 mg/kg. The
potential routes of migration from the grass covered strip are through surface water runoff and
volatilization .. Surface water runoff is not likely to contain significant amounts of mercury
because the ground surface is flat, the soil is sandy, and the mercury levels present in surface soil
are low. In addition, significant volatilization of mercury from the soil is not expected. Since the
mercury in soil has been present for decades, any elemental mercury (the source of greatest
volatilization potential) would have long since volatilized. Also, since the levels of total mercury
in the soil are low, this would not be a significant source.
2. Subsurface Soil to Groundwater
Groundwater flow patterns beneath the Fonner Chlorine Plant are complex due to the
presence of two mounds in the water table possibly created by leakage from a cooling tower used
in the present manufacturing operations. In addition, there are numerous stonn water drains and
process water drains in the area of the Former Chlorine Plant.
The highest concentrations of total mercury in groundwater are present in the vicinity of . .
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 21
~. -~· .. ·. ;,.-:;::-;:,::--1. ~..:,~--:· .:
• •
the high soil concentrations below the former mercury cells and associated U-drains. As
groundwater flows through these high concentrations of mercury in the soil, the mercury is
leached from the soil and dissolves in the groundwater. Dissolved mercury is then earned
through the aquifer with the groundwater flow. The potential leaching effect was confirmed
· during the RI by using a Modified Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. The results are
shown in Figure F-1. As presented in the graph, the total mercury in the "leachate" increases
with increasing mercury concentration.
Small beads of elemental mercury were observed in saturated soil beneath the center of
the Former Chlorine Plant Area. Given the low water solubility of elemental mercury, this
mercury could serve as an ongoing source of dissolved mercury to the groundwater.
3. Groundwater to the Roanoke River
Groundwater originating beneath the Former Chlorine Plant travels in several directions
as follows:
• To the north and west, toward the bulkhead and the Roanoke River
• To the south-southeast as a result of the mound near the cooling towers, eventually
discharging to the Roanoke River to the north, due to the influence of regional
groundwater flow.
Vertical hydraulic gradients beneath the river along most of the bulkhead are upward,
therefore, groundwater flowing northward may be entering the Roanoke River through leaks in
the sheet pile bulkhead. This is possible due to the age and intended design of the bulkhead. ·
Groundwater flowing to the south-southeast discharges to the Roanoke River to the east of the
Former Chlorine Plant Area, but this full migration route has not been defined.
An estimate of the mercury flux from the Former Chlorine Plant Area was made during
the RI using groundwater flow data and chemistry data. The flow system was divided into three
parts on the basis of hydraulic conductivity: the shallow alluvial aquifer, the deep alluvial
aquifer, and the marine sand. The combined mass of mercury discharging from the Former
Chlorine Plant Area is estimated to be 0.012 pounds per year. There is significant uncertainty in
the calculation due to oversimplified assumptions. Applying an uncertainty factor of± 10
provides a range of 0.0012 to 0.12 pounds per year. ·
The potential discharge of mercury to the Roanoke River from the Former Chlorine Plant
was also evaluated on a concentration basis. Using an assumption that there is no mercury in the
river upstream of the mill, and the Former Chlorine Plant groundwater flux is the only source,
results in concentrations of 0.000000 I µg/L to 0.0000 I µg/L: These concentrations are 0.0009 to
0.09 percent of the North Carolina surface water quality standard of0.012 µg/L.
Former Chlorine Plant Area _of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of. Decision ·
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 22
100
90
80
~ 70
.3,
~ 60
,: u .. .. .J = 50
i:' :, !:! .. 40 ::i;
~ ~ 30
20
10 /
0 --0
►
• •
Figure F-1
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Leaching Batch Test Results
(Modified Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure)
/
/
hear Reg
'
/
ession: I/ !'----Li ., = r, 1 ./.. ' ":I --
/ R2 = 0.83
/
,/
//
.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Total Mercury In Soll (mg/kg)
500
23
• •
G. Current and Potential Future Land and Resources Uses
The Former Chlorine Plant Area is located within the property boundary of the active
Weyerhaeuser manufacturing facility. The plant is occupies approximately 2,400 acres located
1.5 miles from the Town of Plymouth, North Carolina. The Weyerhaeuser facility is expected to
remain an active industrial facility in the future, and site access is controlled by complete
perimeter fencing and full time security.
Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Former Chlorine Plant is not currently used,
and is not expected to be used, as a potable water source. However, the State of North Carolina
considers all groundwater to be potentially potable.
The Weyerhaeuser facility is located immediately adjacent to the Roanoke River:
approximately 7 miles from the river's confluence with Albemarle sound. ·The river is used for
recreational fishing and boating. Drinking water is not obtained from the surface water of the
Roanoke River downstream of Weyerhaeuser. A national wildlife estuary is located across the
River on Huff Island, and down river near the Albemarle sound.
H. Summary of Site Risks
The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment and the Baseline Ecological Risk
Assessment present the results of comprehensive risk assessments that addresses the potential
threats to public health and the environment posed by the Site under current and future
conditions, assuming that no remedial actions take place, and identifies the contaminants and
exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action.
1. The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
The Baseline Risk Assessment consists of the following sections: identification of
chemicals of potential concern; exposure assessment; toxicity assessment; and, risk
characterization. All sections are summarized below.
a. Chemicals of Concern (COCs)
The first step involved in the human health risk assessment process is selection of
COCs. The COC selection identifies site-related chemicals that are present at concentrations that
could result in potential adverse effects on human health.
For the purpose of the baseline risk assessment, the COCs for human health, are mercury
and methyl-mercury in soil and groundwater. Table H-1 presents a summary of the chemicals of
concern and their detection in environmental media at the Former Chlorine Plant.
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of thC: Weyerhaeuser Comµ"any Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 24
•
Media Chemical of
Concern
Surface Soil Mercury
Sub-surface Mercury
Soil
Methyl-
mercury
Groundwater Mercury
Methyl-
mercury
Table H-1
Chemicals of Concern for the
Former Chlorine Plant Area
Concentration Detected
Min Max
0.1 59.8
0.08 45,800
0.000959 0.206
0.43 116
1.6 E"3 1.68
b. Exposure Assessment
•
Units of Frequency
Measure of Detection
mg/kg 3/3
mg/kg 168/204
mg/kg 5/8 ,.
.
µg/L 13/24.
µg/L 7/13
The second step of the risk assessment process, the Exposure Assessment, involves
identifying the human populations that may be exposed to COCs in environmental media and the
routes by which they may be exposed. The exposure assessment is finalized with the estimate of
the daily dose of COCs to which receptors may be exposed.
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and magnitude of
potential exposures to COCs in environmental media associated with the Fonner Chlorine Plant
Area. The exposure assessment for the Fonner Chlorine Plant Area follows the guidance in Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (EPA, 1989) and addresses the following:
•
•
•
Characterization of the exposure setting
Identification of migration and exposure pathways
Quantification of exr')sure
Characterization of Exposure Setting
The location and setting of the Fonner Chlorine Plant Area was presented earlier. As a
component of characterizing the exposure setting for the Fonner Chlorine Plant Area, potential
human rec_eptors and their expected types of exposure to the constituents present at the site were
identified for.current and hypothetical future land use scenarios. These potential human
Fonner Chlorine Plant Aiea of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
· Martin County, NC
September, 2003 25
• •
receptors represent those segments of the population most likely to come into contact with the
COCs present in environmental media at the Former Chlorine Plant Area. Given the location of
the Former Chlorine Plant Area human populations that may potentially be exposed to COCs
under the current land use scenario are limited to the industrial worker and the construction
worker. Fencing, and extensive facility security, eliminated the potential trespasser scenario.
Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Former Chlorine Plant is not currently used,
and is not expected to be used, as a potable water source. Therefore, potential groundwater
ingestion pathways are considered incomplete for all receptors under consideration for current
land uses, and as such, were not quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment for those
receptors. Even though shaUow groundwater is not used currently as a potable source and is
· unlikely to be accessible for future use, the shallow groundwater in the vicinity of Former .
Chlorine Plant Area is considered potable by the State of North Carolina. '•
Identification of Migration and Exposure Pathways
The conceptual site model for Former Chlorine Plant Area ( See Figure E-1) is based on
characterization of waste sources, the COCs for each affected environmental medium, and the
migration and transport potential of this constituent to potential receptors.
An exposure pathway is the means by whi'ch a constituent moves from a source to a
receptor. A completed exposure pathway has the following elements:
1. Constituent Source-The primary remaining known sources of site-related
constituents in environmental media in the Former Chlorine Plant Area is
mercury and methyl-mercury in soil and groundwater.
2. ' Mechanism for constituent release and environmental transport
medium -The potential constituent release and transport pathways
relevant to human health at the Former Chlorine Plant Area are as follows:·
•
•
•
Mercury and methyl-mercury in surface and subsurface soils that
can migrate to groundwater;
Discharge of groundwater containing ,nercury and methyl-mercury
to the sediments and surface water of the Roanoke River; and
Mercury accumulation in sediment from grouridwater discharge .
3. Feasible route of potential.exposure-Completed exposure pathways are
the means by which potentially exposed populations (receptors) come into
contact with site-related COCs. The completed exposure pathways
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 26
• •
evaluated under current land use scenarios for potential human receptors at
the Former Chlorine Plant Area were as follows:
• Industrial worker exposure (ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation)
to mercury in uncovered surface soil
• Incidental construction worker exposure (ingestion, dermal contact,
inhalation) to mercury in subsurfac·e soil and dermal contact with
groundwater.
Quantification of Exposure
The potential exposure to site-related COCs for each receptor is represented by "a''chronic
daily intake (CDI). The CDI for an individual receptor is estimated from the exposure point
concentration of each COC in each environmental medium.
Exposure Point Concentration
Consistent with Region 4 Supplemental Guidance (EPA, 1996), the exposure point
concentrations used for estimating CD Is are the lesser of the maximum concentration for each
· COC or the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95% UCL) of the mean concentration assuming a
log-normal distribution of the data set. A value equivalent to one-half the Quantitation Limit
· was used in the exposure point concentration calculations for constituents reported as not
detected. The exposure point concentrations for the COCs from the various environmental media
are presented in Table H-2.
Former ChJorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 .27
_.
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Surface Soil-
future use
•
Mercury
Mercury
Methyl
mercury
Mercury
Methyl
mercury
Mercury
•
Table H-2
Exposure Point Concentrations
{I I 7.3 mg/kg ·7.3 mg/kg
45,800 mg/kg 767 mg/kg 767 mg/kg
0.206 mg/kg 22.5 mg/kg 0.206 mg/kg
-"
116 µg/L 220 µg/L 116 µg/L
1.65 µg/L 1,530 µg/L 1.65 µg/L
59.8 mg/kg 12.7 mg/kg 12.7 mg/kg
(II Only three surface soil samples were collected during the RL Given the small sample data set. the maximum
observed concentration was used as the exposure point concentration
CDI
A CDI is the exposure expressed as the mass of a substance contacted per unit body
weight per unit time, averaged over a period of years. The CD!s for COCs at the Former
Chlorine Plant Area were calculated to represent both the RME and the potential average or
central tendency exposure. The RME doses are defined as the "maximum exposure that is
reasonably expected to occur at the site" (EPA, 1989). The average or central tendency exposure
doses are defined as representing more typical exposures that are based on 50th percentile
exposure estimates. The exposure variables used to calculate the CDI for each potential receptor
for both the RME and the potential average or central tendency exposure are outlined in Table
H-3. The exposure point concentration relied upon in both the RME and central tendency risk
calculations is conservative in that it represents the 95% UCL for each media.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
M:lftin County. NC
September, 2003 28
Table H-3
Reasonable Maximum Exposure and Average Exposure Assumptions
Industrial Worker (Current and Future Land Use)
Age Adult Adult
Incidental soil ingestion rate 50 mg/day Region rv Guidance<'> 10 mg/day
Skin surface area available 5,660 cm2/day Dermal Exposure
. for dermal contact with soil Guidance()>
4,300 cm2/day
Adherence factor 1.0 mg/cm' Region rv Guidance 0.2 mg/cm2
Exposure time 8 hours/day Region rv Guidance 8 hours/day
Exposure frequency 250 days/year Region rv Guidance 219 days/year
Exposure duration 25 years Region rv Guidance 9 years
Body weight 70 kg Region IV Guidance 70 kg
. (I)
Exposure Factors
Handbook12l
Dermal Exposure
Guidance
Dermal Exposure
Guidance
Region rv Guidance
Central Tendencyl2l
Central Tendency for
time at one residence0 >
Region rv Guidance
Region rv Guidance: USEPA. Oc1ober 1996. Supplemental Guidance lo RAGS: Region f·/ Bullei.ins-Human Health Risk Assessment·
m Exposure factors Handbook: USEPA. August 1997. Exposure Fac_to~ Handbook._ USEPA/(,O{Vp-95/002F.
111 Dermal Exposure Guidance: USEPA. January I 992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. lnlerim Report. USEPA/600/8-91/011 8.
29
•
•
30
Table H-3 (Continued)
Reasonable Maximum Exposure and Average Exposure Assumptions
,.•~··-·""'w,r ...... , .. :,-u·•,;~--' ~~.,.,.-..... ;~--•,~-•;,._~fj-,.''
\~N~Q!i&;.~ •.w:,~ .. -.. ~:~tt, ... ~~_Ji~. . -QN,.i '""t11s'"··i:,~~'Gi '""" ,p . ;11-€1 ¥~·e:,i ' . . ".'-~•li,,,~.,'d .. _ . -

.

,,a,, .. ,.;,,.,.,.-..,,, .,. ~::;.~~~~~~jS?f/~~ ;:~x1i1::l·\£~t~1ur~~~~i ~r-w~11tt"~-•~Uvi~t~':i~1~ r~i! -. -~-lt'i'{<-··ui f"':· ' -''-" -' . 'J, -~l""m > i'Fj fl! ~le, · •· " I I
_,;,; f.. ::';:.K~~.~ .c•:..:~lj,t,~,•-'lu, _,r,-.-;:..•~.r!'t' ,._!.~. -.. "--~..i~'. ,r;(f':~i'moo~ ~: :., .. _;~~~;1~.-·-· ----;~~t~!,,.:-.-.•.•;. ~r,t~Ji~~~~t~\fti~f~{
Construction Worker
Age . Adult Adult
Incidental soil ingestion rate 100 mg/day Region r✓ Guidance01 10 mg/day
Skin surface area available 5,660 cm2/day Dermal Exposure 4,300 cm2/day
for dermal contact (soil arid Guidance"1 2,000 cm2/day for
water) dermal contact with
groundwater
Adherence factor 1.0 mg/cm2 Region IV Guidance<'> 0.2 mg/cm2
Exposure time IO hours/day Professional judgment 10 hours/day
2 hours/day for dermal 2 hours/day for dermal
contact with contact with
groundwater groundwater
Exposure frequency 250 days/year Region IV Guidance01 250 days/year
25 days/year for dermal 25 days/year for dermal
contact with contact with
groundwater groundwater
Exposure duration I year Professional judgment I year
Body weight 70kg Region IV Guidance<'> 70kg
c•i Region IV Guidance: USEPA. October 1996. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region IV Bulletins -Human Health R.jsk Assessment ,
m Exposure Factors Handbook: USEPA. August 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPN600IP-9S/002F. "
Exposure Factors
Handbook<2l
Dermal Exposure
Guidance01
Dermal Exposure
Guidance<'>
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidance01
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidance01
OJ Dermal Exposure Guidance: USEPA. January 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Repon. USEPAf600/8-91/0l l B.
•
•
• •
c. Toxicity Assessment
There are two purposes of the toxicity assessment: first, to review available information
on the potential adverse effects that may result from exposure to the COPC; and second, to
quantify the relationship between exposure to these constituents and the likelihood of potential
health effects. Toxicity reference values (TRVs) for the COPCs were taken from Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) and the Health Effect Assessment Summary Table (HEAST).
Toxicity Information for Non-carcinogenic Effects
EPA's preferred (EPA, 1996) toxicity value for evaluating non-carcinogenic effects
resulting from chemical exposure is the chronic reference dose (RID). The chronic RID is an
estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population (including sensitive populac\C>ns) that
should not cause an appreciable risk of harmful effects during a lifetime of exposure. For the
Former Chlorine Plant Area baseline human health risk evaluation, mercury and methyl mercury
were quantitatively evaluated for non-carcinogenic health effects.
Oral RIDs (RIDO) are published exposure dose estimates derived from ingestion-based
studies. RIDO values were used to estimate the potential hazards associated with the incidental
ingestion pathway and with modification, the dermal contact pathway. Inhalation RIDs (RIDI)
are published exposure dose estimates derived from inhalation based studies and were used to
estimate the potential hazard for the inhalation pathway. Toxicity information for the oral route
is not available for elemental mercury and as such, a quantitative estimate of risk through oral or
dermal pathways cannot be estimated. The available toxicity values for mercuric chloride,(the
soluble chloride salt of mercury) were evaluated for use as a surrogate. Table H-4a and H-4b
present a summary of the available quantitative toxicity information.for elemental mercury,
mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury for the estimation of hazard through incidental ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathways.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 31
Table H-4a
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Data • Oral/Dermal
Mercury, elemental NA
Mercuric chloride Subchronic
Methyl mercury Chronic
'" "'
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, USEPA 1996
For ffiJS values, dale ffilS was searched.
NA Not available.
32
NA NA NA
3E-04 0.2 6E-05
IE-04 1.0 !E-04
ft-' ·~: ,-:
NA IRIS 11/23/99 • 1,000 IRIS 05/12/00
IO IRIS 11/23/99
•
Table H-4b
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Data -Inhalation
Mercury, elemental Subchronic 3.0E-04 8.6E-05 30
Mercuric chloride NA NA NA NA
Methyl mercury NA NA NA NA
tu .
m
NA
For ooncarcioogenic compounds: lnhalatioo RID (mg/1cg.<fay) = RfC (mg/m1) x (70 kgr• x 20 m1/day, Supplemental Guidance lo RAGS, USEPA 1996
For lRIS values, datC IRIS was seirched.
!"fot available.
33
IRIS 11/23/99 • IRIS 05/12/00
IRIS 11/23/99
•
• •
Toxicity Information for Carcinogenic Effects
Carcinogenic toxicity values for elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl
mercury are not available in the IRIS. As a result, incremental carcinogenic risk was not
estimated during the risk assessment. Mercury, as elemental or metallic mercury, is identified as
a Class D carcinogen; in other words, it is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. This
classification is based on the absence of adequate human and animal data that show a correlation
between exposure to metallic mercury vapor and carcinogenicity.
Mercury, as mercuric chloride, is identifiable as a Class C carcinogen. Class C indicates
that mercuric chloride is a possible human carcinogen indicating inadequate data in humans and
limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. No data are available on the carcinogenic effects
of mercuric chloride in humans. Similar to mercuric chloride, methyl mercury is identified as a
Class C carcinogen; a possible human carcinogen based on inadequate data in humans and
limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Three human studies were identified in the IRIS
that examined the relationship between methyl mercury exposure and cancer. No persuasive
evidence of increased carcinogenicity attributable to methyl mercury exposure was observed in
any of the studies.
Absorbed Doses
Reference doses and slope factors are calculated based on toxicity testing that
involves ingestion of the constituent being evaluated. It has been recognized that many
constituents are not 100 percent absorbed through the gastrointestinal system. To utilize oral
toxicity values (e.g .. RfD0 ) in estimating hazards associated with dermal contact exposures, it is
necessary to apply a dermal correction factor to RfD0 when they are applied to absorbed intake
values. A dermal correction factor of 10 percent was utilized for inorganic mercury (based on
divalent mercury: ATSDR, 1994). A dermal correction factor of 100 percent was utilized for
mercuric chloride and methyl mercury (ATSDR, 1994).
d. Human Health Exposure and Risk Calculations
In the baseline risk characterization, the results of the toxicity and exposure assessments
are summarized and integrated into quantitative and qualitative expressions of potential risk for
carcinogenic compounds and into a HI for non-carcinogenic compounds. The baseline risk
characterization presents reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and average/ce:-itriil tendency
exposures to baseline site conditions in the absence of additional site controls or remediation.
Non-carcinogenic Hazard
The potential for non-carcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level
over a specified time period (e.g., life-time) with a reference dose (RID) derived for a similar
Former Chlorine Plant Area of th"e Weyerhaeuser t;:ompany Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 34
• •
exposure period. An RID represents a level that an individual may be exposed to that is not
expected to cause any deleterious effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard
quotient (HQ). An HQ<l indicates that a receptor's dose of a single contaminant is less than the
RID, and that toxic non-carcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index
(HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all chemicals of concern that affect the same target organ
(e.g., liver) or that act through the same mechanism of action within a medium or across all ·
media to which a given individual may reasonably be exposed. An Hkl .indicates that, based on
the sum of all HQs from different contamiants and exposure routes, toxic non carcinogenic
effects•from all contaminants are unlikely. An H1 >I indicates that site-related exposures may
present a risk to human health.
The HQ is calculated as follows:
Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RID
· Where CDI = chronic daily intake
RID = reference dose
CDI and RID are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period
(e.g., chronic, sub-chronic, or short-term). Table H-5a and H-5b present a summary of the
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices for the Former Chlorine Plant Area.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 35
• •
Table H-Sa
Summary of Estimated Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices
Based on RME Exposure Assumptions
Industrial worker (current land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000013
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000013
Industrial worker (future land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000022
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000022
Construction worker
Total surface soil hazard 0.000014
Total subsurface soil (0-10 ft) hazard 0.003
Total groundwater hazard 0.0019
Total construction worker hazard 0.0049
w A noncarcinogenic h:i.z:ud of Jess than LO indicates thJ.t no significant noncarcinogeoic hazard is likely,
· even for sensitive members of the population.
0.019
0.019
0.032
0.032
· 0.053
3.2
0.22
3.5
1~> Range of poteolial HQ presented for potential ex.posu~es to tota! mercury in affec1ed media which renec1s inorg:mic mercury toxicity
v:ilues and the requested surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity VJ.lues.
36
• •
Table H-Sb
Summary of Estimated Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices
Based on Central Tendency Exposure Assumptions
Industrial worker (current land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.000001 I 0.003
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000011 0.003
Industrial worker (future land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000019 0.0052
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000019 0.0052
Construction worker
Total surface soil hazard 0.000011 0.006
Total subsurface soil (0-10 ft) hazard 0.0009 0.36
Total groundwater hazard 0.0007 0.076
'otal construction worker hazard 0.0016 0.44
tlJ A noncarcinogeaic hazard of less than 1.0 indicates that no significant noncarcinogenic haz:ird is likely,
even for sensitive members of the population.
!:i Range ofpotc~tia\ HQ presented for potential e:,;posures to tot.1\ mercury in affected medi;i. which reflects inorganic mercury toxicity
Yalues and the requested surrogate mercuric ch_loride toxicity values.
37
• •
e. Summary of Risk Characterization
As indicated in Table H-Sa the range of total industrial worker I-Ils under current and
hypothetical future land use conditions, representing both RME and central tendency/average
exposure assumptions, was less than 1. The total I-Il for the industrial worker was based on a
summation of pathway I-Ils for the incidental ingestion of surface soil, dermal contact with.
surface soil, and the inhalation of airborne soil particulates.
As indicated in Table H-Sb, the range of total construction worker I-Ils representing
central tendency/average exposure assumptions was less than 1. The range of total construction
worker I-Ils reflecting reasonable maximum exposures ranged from below 1 (I-Il ,norgaruc m=,ry =
0.0039) to greater than 1 (I-Il mmuri, chloride= 2.3). The total I-Il for the construction worker was
based on a summation of pathway I-Ils for the incidental ingestion of surface and subsurface soil,
_dermal contact with surface soil, inhalation of airborne soil particulates, and incidental dermal
contact with groundwater.
r
The results of the baseline risk evaluation for the Former Chlorine Plant Area indicate
that exposure to affected media in the area does not present unacceptable hazard to industrial
workers, if site use and conditions remain as they currently are. Industrial workers are not
exposed to the high levels of mercury present in the subsurface soils, so only the surface soil
sample results were used in the risk evaluation. The results of the risk evaluations of potential
construction activities in the area indicate that reasonable maximum exposures could result in a
potential hazard for this receptor in the absence of additional site controls or modified work
practices.
f. Uncertainty Analysis
The primary goal of the uncertainty analysis is to provide a discussion of the key
assumptions made in the risk assessment that may significantly influence the estimate of
potential risk. A discussion of the sources of uncertainty contributing to the potential risk and
the associated effects (overestimation or underestimation of risk) of these factors is presented in
this section.
In the absence of empirical-or site-specific data, assumptions are developed based on
best estimates of exposure or dose-response relationships. To assist in the development of these
estimates, EPA (1989, 1991) recommends the use of guidelines and standard factors in risk
assessments conducted under CERCLA. The use.of these standard factors is intended to promote
consistency among risk assessments where assumptions must be made. · Although the use of
. standard factors undoubtedly promotes comparability, their usefulness in accurately predicting
potential risk is directly related to their applicability to the actual site-specific conditions. Table
H-6 summarizes the assumptions of the risk assessment that affect the estimates of exposure and
potential risk.
Fonner Chlorine Plant Aiea of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 38
• •
Table H-6
Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
-~-~~~·§tJ1~<;#t~;'.-:~~~~~ ~~;~½\¥¥~Vri§i't:¥~~,9~_,,~~
Exposure point concentrations may not represent May overestimate or underestimate exposure.
actual exposure.
Assumes on-site workers spend entire their Most likely overestimates exposure and resulting
workdays within, and ingest the entire daily soil estimated risk.
dose from, the localized affected areas of the site
Uses USEPA-approved toxicity values with low Most likely overestimates risk.
confidence ratings and high uncertainty factors.
Uses toxicity values that are largely based on Most likely overestimates risk. ,· ..
animal studies and extrapolated to humans.
Sampling schemes tended to be biased to areas of Most likely overestimates exposure and resulting
probable concern (for example soil samples estimated risk.
focused on the areas that were known or suspected
to be affected by chemical releases).
Risk estimates represent potential exposures to May undere·stimate risk.
mercury and methyl mercury only.
Lower range of risk estimates assume mercury is Most likely underestimates risk attributable to
present as inorganic mercury (oral and dermal risk mercury.
not quantified).
Upper range of risk estimates assume mercury is Given that mercuric chloride is not likely present
present as mercuric chloride and methyl mercury. based on geochemical conditions that do not
support its formation, the use of mercuric chloride
as a surrogate adds uncertainty about potential
risk to an exposed population.
39
• •
2. The Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA)
Due to the heavily industrialized setting of the Former Chlorine Plant Area, and given
that the area is -predominantly paved, on-site exposure to ecological receptors in the Former
Chlorine Plant Area is minimal. As aresult, an ecological risk evaluation was not performed for
the on-site portion of the Former Chlorine Plant Area. However, potential ecological receptors
associated with the Roanoke River that may be exposed to mercury in sediment or in the surface
water were evaluated by EPA during the RI activities on the Roanoke River, using data obtained
during the Former Chlorine Plant RI as well as data obtained during the Roanoke River RI.. The
following sections discuss the findings of the BERA relating to mercury contamination in the
river near the Former Chlorine Plant. , "
a. · Measurement Endpoints
There were a total of 9 assessment endpoints used to evaluate ecological risks in the
Roanoke River BERA. The endpoints which are appropriate for the evaluation of mercury and
methyl mercury in sediments and surface water are:
• Protection of Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Protection of Insectivorous Birds
• Protection of Fish
• Protection of Omnivorous Birds
• Protection of Camivorous/Piscivorous Birds
• Protection of Omnivorous Mammals
b. Effects Characterization
The approach taken to conduct the R0anoke River BERA was based on multiple lines of
evidence to evaluate ecological risks (i.e., multiple measurement endpoints for each assessment
endpoint, and data from mulitple sources such as site-specific toxicity data, bioaccumulation
tests, general literature and food chain modeling). The effects shcaracterization for each
endpoint was based on the measurement endpoints specified below:
• Protection of Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Risks to benthic macroinvertebrates
were evaluated by comparison of river sediment concentrations to a range.of
benchmark values that represent a low-and mid-point of effects concentrations to
Former Chlorine Plant Are:i of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 40
• •
aquatic organisms. These effects ranges were published by Long, et al. (1995) and
are termed ER-Land ER-M respectively. The ER-Lis the lower 10th percentile of
the effects data, and the ER-Mis the median, or 50th percentile of the effects data.
Risks were also evaluated by a toxicity test using Hyalel/a azteca.
• Protection of Insectivorous Birds: Three types of data were collected for
evaluation of exposure to this endpoint; chemical analysis of river sediments,
chemical analysis of surface water, and a benthic macroinvertebraie
bioaccumulation assay. The data were used in a food-chain model to evaluate risks
to insectivorous birds following exposure to contaminated sediments, water and
emergent insects. The barn swallow was selected as the representative
insectivorous bird species.
• Protection of Fish: Three types of data were collected for evaluation of exposure to
this endpoint: chemical analysis of river sediments, fish tissue, and surface water.
Risks were evaluated by comparison of measured fish tissue concentrations to risk-
based fish tissue concentrations published by Jarvinen and Ankley (1999), and
concentrations published in the Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED)
published by the US Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiments Station.
Measured surface water concentrations were compared to the State of North
Carolina Water Qulaity Standards, and No-Observed Effects Concentrations
(NOECs) and Lowest-Observed Effects Concentrations (LOECs) obtained from
Jarvin and Ankley (1999). The redear sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass were
selected as representative species, representing at least two different trophic levels.
• Protection of Omnivorous Birds: Six types of data were collected for evaluation
of exposure to this endpoint: chemical analysis of river sediments, fish, bivalves,
and frogs, as well as a benthic macroinvertebrate bioaccumulation bioassay that
provided tissue concentrations for L. variegatus (a surrogate for aquatic
macroinvertebrates). The results of exposures to contaminants in these media were
evaluated in a food-chain model. The wood duck was selected as the representative
omnivorous bird species ..
• Protection of Carnivorous/Piscivorous Birds: Exposure to this endpoint was
evaluated using five types of data: chemical analysis of ri·ver sediments, surface
water, fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates (from the L. variegatus bioaccumulation
bioassay), and frcigs. The results of exposures to contaminants in these media were
evaluated in a food-chain model. The osprey and the green heron were selected as
respresentative species for this assessment endpoint. The osprey captures fish from
the surface of the water while in flight and is exposed to chemicals in the fish tissue,
with a small contribution from drinking contaminated surface water. The green
heron stalks its prey from shallow water and may be exposed to chemicals in prey as
· · Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Manin County, NC
. September, 2003 41
• •
well as in surface water and sediments.
• Protection of Omnivorous Mammals: There were several types of data collected
for evaluation of exposure to this endpoint, including chemical analysis of rever
sediments, surface water and wetlands soils, a soil invertebrate and a benthic
macroinvertebrate bioaccumulation bioassay, and tissue samples of Corbicu/a clams
and several fish species. The results of exposures to contaminants in these media
were evaluated in a food-chain model. The racoon and the river otter were selected
as representative omnivorous mammal species.
c. Summary of Ecological Risk
t ~ .
Hazard Quotients and Remedial Goal Options were calculated for each assessment
endpoint. Both the No-Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) and the Lowest-Observed
Adverse Effects Level (LOAEL) are presented as a range of media concentrations that would
result in rio adverse effects to those that would result in low adverse effects.
The shallow sediments (0-6") are the only sediments considered available to ecological
receptors. The shallow sediments collected in the Roanoke River in front of the Former Chlorine
Plant have mercury concentrations ranging from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.77 mg/kg. The LOAL-based
Remedial Goal Option for sediments at two locations for heron and river otter are slightly
exceeded.
Table H-7 presents the summary of calculated LOAEL based Hazard Quotients and
Remedial Goal Options for mercury which were calculated as part of the Ranoke River
Investigation.
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the We)'erhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 42
• •
Table H-7
Hazard Quotients and RGOs for Selected Ecological Endpoints
from the Roanoke River Study
Benthic
macroinvertebrates
Insectivorous Bird
(Barn swallow)
Omnivorous•Bird
(Wood duck)
Cami vorous/
Piscivorous Bird
(Heron)
Omnivorous
Mammal
(Otter)
Omnivorous
Mammal
(Raccoon)
* nc-not calculated
3. Basis for Action .
2 11
0.39 0.82
0.11 ·0.29
0.7 2.53
0.61 2.31
0.19 0.59
nc*
0.97
3.21
0.37
0.42
45.3
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selecte_d in this ROD, may present a current or potential threat
to human health, welfare, or the environment. Although the current risk measured in the human
health risk assessment is low, there remains a significant possibility that a release of the large
quantities of mercury contained in sub-surtace soils in the Former Chlorine Plant Area will occur
and that this release would result in an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. . .
. Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decis'ion
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 43
• •
I. Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Former Chlorine Plant Area were developed
based on the requirements of the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR §300.430[e][2][i]), which
· defines remedial action objectives as a listing of the COCs and media of concern, potential .
exposure pathways and remediation goals. Specific RAOs were developed from a review of the
results of site characterization activities, site-specific risk and fate and transport evaluations, and ·
an initial review of ARARs.
The remedial action objectives are as follows:
•
•
•
To maintain acceptable levels of potential risk to site-specific human recep)ors
associated with exposure to mercury in soil and groundwater at the Former Chlorine
Plant Area.
To reduce groundwater levels of mercury in groundwater at a point of compliance to
the NCMAC of 1. I µ.g/L
To prevent a release of the large quantities of mercury in subsurface soils to
groundwater contaminating the Roanoke River.
These RA Os served as the basis for the design of Remedial Altemati ves presented in the
next section. Remedial Action Objectives which address contamination in the Roanoke River,
including mercury contaminated sediments if appropriate, are being developed as part of the
Roanoke River Operable Unit.
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County: NC
September, 2003 44
J.
•
Description of Alternatives
1. · Description of Remedy Components
Alternative 1-No Action
•
The No Action alternative is evaluated as a baseline option for comparison to other
alternatives. Under this alternative, no remedial actions will be performed at the site.
• Five Year Review Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$ 100,000.00
$ 215,785.00
,.
Soils: The soils in the Former Chlorine Plant Area will remain in their present condition.
Groundwater: No active remediation or monitoring. Mercury in the groundwater will
be subject to reduction in concentration by natural physical and biochemical processes, although
not significantly.·
Alternative 2-Cooling Tower Repair with Groundwater Compliance and Trend
Monitoring
• Cooling Tower Repair, routine inspection
• Surface Cover Improvements
• River Bulkhead inspections/routine maintenance
• · Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring
• Land Use Restrictions
• Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$ 427,000.00
$ 143,163.00
$2,420,000.00
Duration to Finish Construction: 10-12 months
Soils: The subsurface soils in the Former Chlorine Plant Area will remain in their
present condition. Currently, all of the Former Chlorine Plant Area is covered with pavement or
structures. However, there are small grassy areas around the edges of the area near the existing
bulkhead where soil is present at the ground surface. This alternative includes covering these
areas and maintaining the integrity of the existing cover, minimizing surface run-off to the
Roanoke River.
Groundwater: This alternative reduces the mass flux of mercury in the groundwater
through the repair of the leaks from the cooling towers. The NCDENR is requiring the repair.of
the cooling towers and end the discharge of cooling water to groundwater, regardless of any
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Deci~ion
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 45
----·-------·----------------• •
decisions associated with this ROD. This repair reduces the volume of water moving through the
mercury containing soils below the Former Chlorine Plant and the modification of the flow path
of the groundwater. ·
A groundwater monitoring network of approximately 31 wells will be installed and
monitored in accordance with the North Carolina administrative process for establishing
compliance monitoring locations under the NCAC 2L rules. The monitoring network will
provide data needed to update the modeled hydrogeologic conditions under the Former Chlorine
Plant Area. The mercury concentrations in the source area of the aquifer will me monitored, but
it is estimated that groundwater concentrations will remain above the NCMAC of I. I µg/L in
some locations within the building footprint for an excess of I million years.
. 1~
Also included in this alternative are regular bulkhead inspections to evaluate and monitor
the integrity of the existing bulkhead along the Roanoke River. These non-destructive, visual
inspections would be conducted both above and below the water line, to the sediment surface.
Routine maintenance of the bulkhead is included in this alternative.
Land use restrictions: The land use restrictions would preclude the potable use of
groundwater from the shallow aquifer beneath the Former Chlorine Plant and mercury plume
areas. Currently, a map is on file with the Martin County Register of Deeds that identifies the
Former Chlorine Plant Area as an Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site (NCD
99 i-278-540): To the extent necessary, this deed notice will be revised as a part of the remedial
design to reflect the selected remedy, to meet the current North Carolina administrative process,
and any additional requirements to maintain the integrity of the remedy and to limit exposure to
soil and groundwater. The Land use restrictions will be defined during the Remedial Design, and
the State will continue to enforce the required controls.
Alternative 3-Extended Flow Path and Groundwater Compliance and Trend
Monitoring
•
•
Flow path modification through bulkhead wall improvements
Cooling tower repair
• Surface cover improvements
•
•
Groundwate, compliance and trend monitoring
Land use restrictions
• Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$3,821,000.00
$ 65,163.00
$ 4,630,000.00
The soil and land use restriction components are the same as those described in
Alternative 2. ·
Former Chio'rine Plant Ar~a of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 46
•
Groundwater: In addition to the cooling tower repair and groundwater compliance and
trend monitoring components described in Alternative 2, this alternative includes the installation
of a vertical barrier wall system along the Roanoke River, downgradient of the source area. This
barrier system would reduce the mass flux of mercury in groundwater leaving the Former
Chlorine Plant Area and discharging to the Roanoke River. The wall would be placed to a depth
of approximately 45 feet below ground surface and would tie into the low permeability clay
aquitard. The length of this wall is expected to cover approximately 520 feet of river frontage,.
approximately 2.5 times longer than the length of the Former Chlorine Plant footprint (Figure J-
1). The barrier would consist of sealed sheet piling which will retard groundwater flow directly
to the Roanoke River, with a design hydraulic conductivity of approximately 5.0 X 10·3 emfs,
compared to the estimated hydraulic conductivity of the existing sheet pile bulkhead of
approximately 1 X 10·5 emfs or more. The new bulkhead would be connected to the exi,s!ing
bulkhead through a series of tie backs. The installation of this barrier wall would lengthen the
flow path from the source area to the river as the groundwater would have to flow around the
barrier rather than directly to the river though the existing unsealed wall.
The flow path lengthening will increase the mass of soil (and therefore increase potential
adsorptive surface area) that the groundwater will pass through, which will result in a greater
amount of mercury mass adsorbed over time. However, because of the continuing source of
mercury, the finite adsorptive capacity of the soil will in time be exceeded and the mercury flux
to the river will ultimately return to the mass levels estimated for Alternative 2. As a result of the
lengthened flow path a greater volume of aquifer will contain groundwater in excess of the
NCAC 2L standard.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Corripany Site
Record of Decision
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 47
•
•
I I
NOTES
I. &.SE MAP PRODUCED BY PHOTOGRAl,0.l[TRIC DATA SERVICES,
INC.
ESnw.rro U[RCURY ISOCONCENTRATIONS
DETERMINED FROM FlGURE 5-1A Of THE
INVESTIGATION REPORT (RUT 2000}.
IN SUBSURFACE SOLL .
REU[OIAL.
J. SUBSURFACE SOil MERCURY CONC[NOOTIONS PR(S[NT[Q rDR
8 TO O FT. NCV029. (0-8 FT BGS)
4. GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION APPROXIMAlUY 8 fI[T NCV029.
-----.
0 ...
J!9ENa~D=-----------~------APPROXIMAT£ LOCATION OF FORU(R EQUIPU[NT
AND SUBSURfAC[ UHLITl(S
EXISTING EQUIPMENT
APPRO)(IW..l[ OlENT or 4-FOOT DEEP SOIL
EXCAVATION (HI.A 1992)
BUR!fO CONCRffi SL.ABS
-10--ESTit.tAr£0 EXT[Nr OF TOTAL U(RCURY.
ISOCCINCENT~IION. IN SOIL (mg/kg)
-
PROPOSED R[Pl..A,C[MENI S£AW"1..l _(SEAL£0)
,4J•mC1f'ATED GROUNDWATER FlOW (ASSUU(S
COOLING TOWER LEAKS ARE nxrn)
APPROXIMATE OCl[NJ OF OlSSOLV£D U[RCUR'i
;?; 1 ,.q/L IN GROUNOWAf[R
FENCE UN£
LEGEND (CONTJ
1/i.;;n!il TOTA.I.. MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
.!:1000mg/kg
BO'
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
.!;100mg/kg
TOJ,IJ._ MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
~IOmg/kg
PROJECT: fEASIBII.JTY stlJOY
WEYERHAEUaERCO.
MARTIN COUNTY, NOR1lt CNIOUNA
SHEET Tffi.E: ALTERNATlYE 3 -
EXTENDED FLOW PATii AHO OROUNDWATER
AND MONITORIN8
-~ Bl': D(F'O[)J • N0.«.1111.IJ
-~Ck(ll BT: BSJ NO. ~ll)llll.)(ll.OWC ___ _
<-=;:-~"'~.~-=~~.,,,~· ~-=--'BO.furrrf2003
48
• •
Alternative 4-Containment with Groundwater Compliance and Trend Monitoring
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In-situ Barrier wall around Former Chlorine Plant building footprint
Shallow "target area" soil excavation
Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring
Cooling Tower Repair
Surface cap containment system
Land use restrictions
Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$ 5,010,000.00
$ 49,465.00
$ 5,624,000.00
Soil: This alternative consists of the installation of a vertical barrier wall system around
the source area, and ".targeted" excavation of soil from the Central U-drain area and the Eastern
U-drain area. Various types of barrier walls can be utilized for the containment of mercury
contaminated soils in the Former Chlorine Plant building footprint. For purposes of cost
estimating in the FS, a se.aled sheet pile barrier wall was evaluated. The final material will be
determined during remedial design but shall meet the specifications that follow.
The wall enclosing the source area will consist of a sealed/low permeability barrier, with
an estimated permeability of 5.0 X 10·8 emfs. The wall will be installed to approximately 45 feet
below ground surface, tying into the low-permeability clay aquitard beneath the site. The
conceptual wall has a total length of 610 feet, and would enclose an area of approximately 23,000
square feet and a volume of approximately 38,000 cubic yards of soil (Figure J-2).
Approximately 7,200 pounds of mercury (or 96 percent of the estimated total mass of mercury)
will be enclosed by the barrier. ·
Also included in this alternative as shown on Figure J-2 are two "target area"
excavations. These target areas include excavation of both saturated and unsaturated soil. The
excavations will extend to the practicable horizon and vertical limits near the former
hypochlorite tank/central U-drain (Area I) and along the Eastern U-drain (Area 2). The
excavations will removed surface soil and subsurface soil to a mercury level of 20 mg/kg.
Structural sheet piling will be utilized for excavation stabilization and shoring. It is assumed that
interlocking sheet piling will be driven to 25 feet around Area I and 20 feet around Area 2. No
de-watering of soil is anticipated. Solidification of excavated, saturated soil will be performed in
constructed bunkers with the addition of a solidification agent such as fly ash. Area I has a
surface area of approximately 2,000 square feet. At an average depth of IO feet, excavation
would remove approximately 750 cubic yards of soil. About 80 pounds of mercury would be
removed from Area I (approximately I percent of the estimated total mass of mercury). Area 2
measures approximately 10 feet by 55 feet, and at an average depth of 8 feet, a total of 150 cubic
yards ofsoil would be excavated, containing approximately 230 pounds of mercury (about 3
Fo~er Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 · 49
• •
percent of the total mass of mercury).
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limit for mercury (40 CFR
261.24) is 0.2 mg/L. The TCLP values for the shallow soil samples from the Former Chlorine
Plant have historically not exceeded 0.09 mg/L, even in soil with total mercury concentrations as
high as 2,900 mg/kg. IfTCLP results are above 0.2 mg/L·and total mercury concentrations are
greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg (40 CFR 268.40), then the material must be retorted (or
equivalent process) to recover and recycle the mercury as per the Universal Treatment Standard
(UTS). For purposes of cost estimating it was assumed that materials from Area 1 wo,uld be
nonhazardous as defined by the TCLP. In Area 2, it was assumed that 50 percent of the
· excavated material would be nonhazardous and 50 percent would be hazardous. The
nonhazardous materials would be disposed of at the facilities nonhazardous landfill, or offssite at
a nonhazardous landfill, and the hazardous material will be sent to an off-site retort facrtfiy for
treatment prior to disposal. The excavations will be backfilled with clean fill material and
covered. The surface cap containment system will require the replacement of pavement over
· areas disturbed. by the barrier wall installation, the excavations, and the currently un-covered .
surface soil adjacent to the river.
Groundwater: Mercury concentrations in groundwater immediately outside of the
containment area are assumed to be 2.3 µ.g/L. Concentrations of mercury in the groundwater
outside of the containment area are estimated to fall below the NCMAC of 1.1 µ.g/L in 4 years.
However, these flushing calculations did not take into account t!Je sorption of mercury to soil. If·
mercury sorption to soils is included, with a low retardation factor of 10 for example, it would
require 40 years to reach the NCMAC. To assess the mercury concentration trends in
groundwater, this alternative includes the implementation of a groundwater compliance and trend
monitoring program consisting of 12 monitoring wells sampled over 30 years in accordance with
the North Carolina administrative process for establishing compliance monitoring locations
under the NCAC 2L rules. '
The land use restrictions are the same as those described in Alternative 2.
Former Chlorine Plant Area o( the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 50
•
•
,j ~· .. ~th!
(]
NOTES
i i ·r-~ 1 ~~"-·. 1r~ ,,~ ..
1. BASE UAf' PRODUCED BY PHOTOC:RAMMETRIC DATA SERVICES.
INC.
2. ESTit.lAT(D MERCURY ISOCONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURf,i.c[ SOIL
DCTERMINEO -FROM FlCURE 5-1A OF THE REMEDIAL
\WV[STIGAOON R£PORT (RUT 2000)
J. SUBSURFACE SOIL MERCURY CONCENrRATIONS PR[S[NJ[O roR
8 JO O n. NGW29. (0-8 FT EIGS)
♦• GROUND SURFACE El.£VATION >f'PROXlt.lATELY 8 FEET NCV029.
TARGET
AREA 1
fr-\
j ~_j l --
, ·--.
' "
TARGET
AREA2
0 40'
L)c(l!cl's,. ~D:._.....,===°"""="'9=====""'° APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of fQRlr,l[R [QUIPMfNT
ANO SUBSURFACE ununcs
EXISTING EQUIPMENT
APPROXlt.CAT[ EXTENT Of" ♦-mor O[[P SOIL
0.C,.,VAOON (HLA, 1992)
BURIED CONCRflE SLABS
-10-. ESTIMATED E.XT[Nf or TOTAL lr,l[RCURY,
ISOCONCENTRATION _IN SOIL (mg/kg)
PROPOSED" TARGEI AR£A "EXCAVATION LIMITS
APPROXlt.lAIE o:rENr or DISSOlV[() MERCURY
,': I .,q/L IN GROUNDWATER
f[NC( UN[
PROPOS[O BARRIER WALL AllGNMENI
· LEGEND (CoNTJ
80'
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
~ I OOOmg/kg
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS JN SOIL
~100mg/kg
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
~IOmg/l<g
PROJECT: FEABIBIUTY 811.l)Y
WEYEIIHABJSERCQ
MARTIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SH[El TITl.£: ALTERNATIVE .f -
CONTAINMENT wmt c:JAOUmWAll:R COMPUANCE
AHO mEND M0NJTORINQ
ORAIIM B'f: 00-0U • N()_Q!il006J
ClllCl<ll) SY: OS., 1"-oo" NO. ~,ooua::u:,.,c
•~:::-""""~ .. ~. ~,_~m";,,.,.,-'-"'--'j'uNZ'fiooJ Figure J-2
f(ML~ "
'----------------------------------L-------
• •
Alternatives-Funnel and Gate System
• In-situ Funnel and Gate Treatment system
• Shallow "target area" excavations
• Surface Cover
• Cooling Tower Repair
• Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring
• Land use restrictions
• Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$6,161,000.00
$ 58,175.00
$ 6,883,000.00
Soils: This alternative contains the same excavations of Areas 1 and 2 described in
Alternative 4. The surface cover replacement is also the same. The land use restrictions are the
same as those described in Alternative 2.
Groundwater: This alternative funnels impacted groundwater through an in-situ
treatment gate between the impacted saturated soil beneath the Former Chlorine Plant footprint
and the Roanoke River. A low permeability vertical barrier would be used to construct the in-
situ funnel and activated carbon will form the reactive media in the center of the funnel. This
reactive media in the treatment gate would remove aqueous mercury from groundwater that
passes beneath the Former Chlorine Plant. A treatability study was performed for this site. The
results have been used to estimate the effectiveness of the overall alternative. The funnel and
gate system has been conceptually sized and oriented to direct approximately 97 percent of the
groundwater that enters the funnel system through the treatment gate. The treatment gate media
would be installed from near surface to approximately 40 feet below the ground surface, where
the low-permeability clay aquitard is encountered. The engineered funnel would consist of joint-
sealed steel sheet piling installed to approximately 45 feet. Figure J-3 shows the details of the
wall alignment and Figure J-4 shows the conceptual treatment gate.
The ground surface length of joint-sealed sheet piling associated with the funnel totals
340 feet. The hydraulic conductivity will be 5.0 x10-s emfs. The hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer is approximately 6.0 X 104 emfs (upper), 2 0 X 10·3 emfs (middle) and 6.0 X 10·3 emfs·
(lower); and the hydraulic conductivity of the mixed reactive media is expected to be no less than
6.0 x10·3_ Given the differences in hydraulic conductivity, it is expected that the sealed sheet
piling on either side of the reactive media will serve as a funnel that directs groundwater flow
through the reactive gate. The 90-foot-long treatment zone within the gate would be 6 feet wide
and 36 feet high, and would consist of a 50/50 mixture by volume of granular activated carbon
and sand. The 50/50 mixture was chosen to enhance flow and constructability. Numerical
simulations determined flow through the gate to be 98 cubic feet per day (0.8 gpm). The
calculated average effluent on the other side of the gate is 0.0000129 µg/L after 30 years of
Fom1er C:hlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser_ Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 52
"
. ;·::_ . .,-./,;.:.
~:\!/?
groundwater flow, representing greater than 99.9% removal efficiency. The overall mass flux
reduction was calculated to be 97.1 %.
This alternative would also require the implementation of an integrated treatment
performance and groundwater compliance monitoring program to evaluate in-situ treatment
effectiveness, plume stability, plume movement and the effectiveness of natural processes to
reduce mercury concentrations in groundwater. The monitoring network would include the 12
existing wells and 15 new wells, and monitoring would continue for 30 years.in accordance with
the North Carolina administrative process for establishing compliance monitoring locations
under the NCAC 2L rules .
Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 53
"'
•
NOTES
{)
'
t:: :,
i] ,::
1. BAS[ lrU.P PR00UC£D BY PHOTOCR.WMITRIC OAlA SCRVICES,
>NC.
2. ESTIMAT£D MEROJRY ISOCQNC(NTRAOONS IN SUBSURFACE SOil
DmRMINED fROM flGURE 5-IA Of THE REMEOIAl
IN\l£Sll(;ATION REPOftT (RMT 2000).
3. SUBSURFACE SOIL MERCURY CONCENTRIIHONS PRESENT[O FOR
B TO O rT. NCY029. (0-8 FT BGS)
-4. GROUND SURf-'C[ [L£VATION APPRO>CIMAfCLY 8 rt'E1 NGV029.
TARGET
AREA 1
; (S;)j
I, ·--, ID FOOT TIE.ATMEffT MTE
" .. r, . . ,, r
"' " ' /; ' :: ~--" , U\ , ... _,/
TARGET -
AREA2
0 ...
LEOEND
APPRO>CO.IATE LOCAOON or fORM[R [OUIPMENT
SUBSURfAC[ ununES
EXISTING EOUIPM[NT
..,PPRQXJMAT[ EXTENT Of 4-fOOT DEEP SOIL
[XCAVATlON (HLA. 1992)
8UR1£0-CONCRETE SLABS
[STIMAT[O 0:TENl ur TOTAJ.. MERCURY.
--I) --ISOCONCENrRATION IN SOIL (mg/kg)
~/ill PROPOSED TREMM[NT GATI AUGNMlNt
APPROlCIMAff [XT[NT Of DISSOLVED MERCURY
;:= 1 ~g/l IN GROUNOWAT[R
f[NC( UN(
-----PROPOSED SHHT PIL[ fUNN[l "1.JGHMENT
PROPOSED TARGET AREA [XC,.,VATION LIMITS
LEGEND «:oNT1 ii:11!1 TOTAL MERCURY CONC(NTRATIONS IN SOIL
21000mq/kg
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
::tlOOrng/kg
TOTAL MERCURY CONCtNTRATIONS IN SOIL
::t10mg/kg
~[CT: FEA8l8IUTY snJDY
WEVB11 MB DIEP CO.
MARTIN ccunv. NOR1H CAROUNA
SHrrf mu: ALTERNATIYE a .
FUOIEL AND QA.ff BYBTBI
~9'r: ()(10(.I = . IC>.G&!OClU
OCCIUDIJr: "" 1•-40• NO. !>100lll04.0-
• •• Af'l'!IO,'(I)IJr: 5NII "l~tITl°'iOOJ OATl'.:.-...C:rooJ Figure: J-:
liMI.-" iJ ~h! ,,.._ _______________________________ --'-------
i
I
I
.•.·....:.·.•·
SAND
•
. : . . . . . .
---~ -:-:· 0
· · c· ·.O: ·
·-\·.::-::-i
.•. 0 -(I·
. · ·:O' .. ·.O:
•
/CONCRETE
/ PAVEMENT
..,.. -_ ........ -',--',---,.,-'---..... _ ..... -· '°"'· ............. __ -......, __ -',-,.....__...,._. "'""--..... _ ..... -.. -'---. _ ............. ·-· ·"'""----. ---'.-. -'----40' BGS ·~· .. ·.·.-·.· .. ·.··_c.·•·····-· .... ·._:·· ... · ·:· .··.··.·.··.·.·•···· ·· .. · ... ··.· . · .. ··.· ·.·· . ·.··.· ... · ...... · .. : . ·. ·.· ... · . .:·· ... : . ·.· ' -....... -·.· ... · : .... ·.-.. :. -.· .. · : ... ·. . :. ·.· .
:.-CLAY, SILTY-CLAYEY SAND . . . ---.·_._··--·. _._.._ .. __ ._ ... ·· .. ·:·_·_
.· ··.,·· . .. .. -··.·.·-···.·-···.· •. ·_• .·-·.··-,·••· .. "• ··•· .. ·•. -···· .. ·• .. ··•·.··:·•·._:·: __ -------... ·.. . ·. ----· ---· -· ---·-::_·_. ·~---•·_•·-• ~·_;...._·_··.-_ .. _·_· · __ :._. __ · ·_:._· -·· . __ .-_• ·_._. • .. ·._;.._·_:·_. -··-• ._··_· ·-··--.... · ·--·----·---·-~· ·-· -·-· --·-··-• ·"".;..._:_· __ -_:_· ·-----'-'-------48' BGS
LEGEND -EXAMPLE GROUNDWATER FLOW
(NOTE: GROUNDWATER CAN FLOW EITHER
DIRECTION THROUGH THE TREATMENT GA TE)
,_ ______ --ir----------------------t
. FEASIBILITY Sl\JDY CAAWN B'Y: 0£FO£J
WEYERHAEUSER CO. APPRCMD B'Y, SAM
MARTIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. Figure J-4 ALTERNATIVE 5 -CONCEPT\IAL TREATMENT GATE FILE NO.
CROSS SECTION .,.,..
··.•.::, .· .· • •
Alternative 6-Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
• Groundwater Extraction·
• Groundwater Treatment
• Shallow "target area" excavations
• Surface Cover
• Cooling Tower Repair
• Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring
• Land use restrictions
• Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$ 2,957,000.00
$ 373,055.00
$7,586,000.00
Soil: Included in this alternative is the target excavation of Area 2 only. Area 1 is not
included because it is contained within the hydraulic containment area described below. The
cover replacement and land use restrictions are the same as previously described.
Groundwater Extraction: Mercury contaminated groundwater would be removed from
the shallow aquifer below the Former Chlorine Plant Area through three groundwater extraction
wells and conveyed to a treatment system by means of underground forcemains. The conceptual
design of the extraction and conveyance network are shown on Figure J-5. The wells will
extend to the top of the low-permeability clay unit (approximately 40 feet bgs) and will have a
screened interval of 35 feet. The extraction wells are expected to have a combined flow rate
between 7.5 and 15 gpm. The resulting capture zone is shown in Figure J-5. The estimated
composite influent mercury concentrations entering the treatment system are expected to be
between 0.30 and 0.76 µg/L. Given the mass of mercury present below the Former Chlorine
Plant Area, the pumping will have to continue for 100,000's of years before the NCMAC is
achieved.
Groundwater Treatment:
Flocculation/Precipitation pretreatment: Because of the specific groundwater
chemistry, it is anticipated that the extracted groundwater stream will require pretreatment. The
conceptual design consists of reactor and clarifier modules. Air or chemicals would be injected
into the groundwater in the reactor module to drive ferrous iron into the ferric state, initiating
precipitation to remove the high levels of iron in the groundwater. Then, a flocculent polymer
would be injected as the water is transferred to the clarifier module. The clarifier module is used
to remove and collect the precipitated solids. Potentially, a significant amount of mercury could
be incorporated into the iron matrix and removed during the flocculation/precipitation process.
As a conceptual design estimate, a 50 percent mercury removal is assumed during the
pretreatment process: Sludge generated during the solids removal process would be pressed and
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of DeCision
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 56
• •
disposed of in the facility's on site nonhazardous waste landfill. Approximately 5 cubic feet of
sludge cake would be generated per day.
Liquid-phase carbon adsorption treatment train: Following the pretreatment step,
carbon adsorption would be used to treat the effluent from the clarifier module. It is assumed
that the removal efficiency of the Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) would be 50 percent. Based
on the treatability study it is estimated that between 3,000 and 6,000 pounds per year of carbon
will be needed. The treatment system would consist of two parallel trains of two 1 ,000-pound
carbon units to allow for continuous operation. It was assumed for cost estimating purposes that
the spent carbon would be nonhazardous following testing, and would disposed of in the facility's
on-site landfill.
,.
Ion exchange resin: After exiting the carbon treatment train, the w.ater stream would be
passed through treatment vessels containing ion exchange resin, and, if require, through a post-
filtration process to remove any additionally-precipitated solids or resin. A 75 percent mercury
removal efficiency is assumed for this part of the treatment system. Vessel replacement may be
necessary as often as once per year. Pending waste concentration and characteristic testing, the
spent resin would either be disposed of as a hazardous waste, treated at a retort facility and
. disposed as a hazardous waste, or as a nonhazardous solid waste in the facility's on-site landfill.
Discharge compliance: Based on the information presented and the treatability study
work performed, the mercury concentrations in the effluent stream are expected to be <0.1 µg/L
,0,...... but likely higher than 0.012 µ.g/L, the current North Carolina surface water quality standard for
\;:'' mercury.
Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring will also be performed under this
alternative in accordance with the North Carolina administrative process for establishing
compliance monitoring locations under the NCAC 2L rules. It is estimated that 13 of the
existing monitoring wells will be sampled along with 4 new wells. In addition, each extraction
well's concentration and flow, treatment system influent, intermediate (between carbon or ion
exchange vessels) and treatment system effluent will be sampled monthly.
former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerh,wuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 . 57
i
I 1
•
NOTES
OUNO SURr
1. GR (NCV029). OGR>J,O.oll 1mr. en. crn BY PHOT 2_ BASE t.lAP PROOU
.APPROilMAfD."r [ E.LEVAIION
INC.
ROANOKE RIVER
0.-.fA 5LIMCF'.i,
_ SURFACE OVTF~
-: DISOWlGE LINE
-TREATMENT BUILDtNG
Q
.,--CAPTURE ZONE
0
[L[VATION { )
WHERf 1Nf[RRED EXrK,\t:flOtl
(;Qr~C(Pocrl~~,o~[SIGN .
W[LL I. Cf~l)IJNllWAffH SIIALIUW
ffNCF. UN[ -
PHOPOSf.O fAHGfl
SCALE: I• 40'
PRO.JECT: FEASUIZUTY STIJD~ ~ CAAOUNA MARTIN COUNTY,
ALTERNATIVE 8 • D TREATMENT
,s
•. - -•• ;.·;,..' ._;: 9,,; ··_·· • • •
Alternative 7-Mass Excavation
• Excavation of surface and subsurface soil
• Surface cover replacement
• Cooling Tower Repair
• Groundwater compliance and trend monitoring
. • Land use restrictions
• Capita! Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$17,005,000.00
$ 49,465.00
$ 17,619,000.00
,.
Soil: This alternative primarily consists of source area excavation and off-site disposal
of excavated mercury-bearing soil. Figure J-6 presents the conceptual plan of the excavation
alternative. The excavation would have to be performed in phases to allow manufacturing
operations to continue and to allow various target depths to be structurally supported with sheet-
piling engineering controls. A total of 10 excavation phases ranging from 10 to 40 feet below
ground surface in depth are presented on Figure J-6. A majority of the excavations are expected
to be performed in the wet, but dewatering is assumed for some deeper excavation phases. The
collected groundwater from the dewatering, as well as decant water from saturated soil would
require treatment prior to any discharge.
The excavation area is approximately 24,000 square feet, and the total volume of soil to
be excavated is approximately 16,000 cubic yards. For cost estimating purposes, it was
estimated that approximately 1,050 cubic yards of soil having mercury concentration of 260
mg/kg or above would be treated as a hazardous waste and require off-site management at a
retort facility. The remainder of the nonhazardous soil would be placed in the facility's on-site
landfill, permitted by NCDENR. As with Alternative 3, the soil will be amended with fly ash
when necessary for solidification.
Upon cell completion and confirmation sampling at each excavation, the cell would be
backfilled with clean fill, the fill would be compacted in multiple lifts, and the excavation are
would ultimately be paved to match the existing facility ground surface.
Groundwater: This alternative involves leaving in-place mercury contaminated
groundwater above theNCMAC of 1.1 µg/L in the areas beyond the limits ofthe excavation. It
is estimated that between 2 and 20 years will be required for natural processes to reduce mercury
levels in groundwater to below the standard. A total of 12 wells would be used to monitor
groundwater for compliance and contaminant reduction in accordance with the North Carolina
administrative process for establishing compliance monitoring locations under the NCAC 2L
rules.
Fbrrner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company ~ite
Record of Decision ·
Martin County, NC
September. 2003 59
•
•
l..EOEND
APPR()ICIMATC lOCATION Of FORMER EOUIPMI
ANO SUBSURFACE UTILITIES
EXISTING [QUIPM[Nl
.-.PPROXlt.iATE EXTENT OF 4-FOOT Ofi.P SOIi
DCAVATION (Hl.A 1992)
BURIED CONCRCT[ SU.BS
10-[SHMAT[O [XJ[NI Qt 101"1.. U[RC\/RY,
ISOCONC[NrRA.TION 1N SOil (,.,g/1.g).
INTtRNALl Y BRACCO OE[~ EXCAVATION AREA
(UP ro 40' bgs)
i
l<fu?J
' '
l·
r_ .. -~JJ
--~-~ -·
©
0
SCALE: 1 •• 40·
I ~~
✓.;i I. BASE 1r,W> PRODUCED BY PHOTOCFW,O.IElRIC DATA SERVICES,
INC.
rl~i 2. ~~ ... ~~01.C~RYn~~~~~:1°~ :rJ~o':'RUCE SOIL E"f--::=
11·· INVESTIGATION R[PORT (RWT 2000).
I J. SUBSURFACE SOil MERCURY CONCENlRATIONS PRESENTED FOR
INT[RNAI..LY BRACfO EXCAVATION AREA (UP I
2{?° bgs)
CANTIL.E.VEH[O EXCAVATION AR(A
(UP TO 12" bg:s)
SHAl...1.0W TARGH AREA [.l(CAVATlON
(UP TO 8' bgs)
O:CAVAOON CEU AREA
APPROXIMArt: EXTENT OF DISSOLI/CD Hg 2-:
vg/L IN GROUNDWATER
TOTAL. MERCURY CONC[NTRACTIONS IN SOIL
21000mg/kg
TOTAi.. MERCURY CONCENTRACOOHS IN SOIL
:;i:IOOmg/kg
TOTAl MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SOil
210mg/kg
FENCE LINE
PROJECT: FEABBl.lTY ST\.OY
WEYEJIHASJIIB>CO.
MARTIN OOlNTY. NORTH CAROUHA
SHtCT mu,
ALTERHATlVE 7 -MASS EXCAVA110N
,__,-=="'='a"""'==-•""" ~ 9T: BS.I
lffl'll.~
• NJ.IISIIIIUJ
..i. 5IOOI.J05..0-
Flgur-e J-6
60 ~ 1 ;; 8 TO O n. NGV029. (0-8 n BCS) ~I 1: .. GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION APPROXll.lATELY 8 IT.CT NGV029 . .__ __________________________ :.:..:,_ ____ _;_ __ ........ ...1... ________ _
2. Common Elements, Distinguishing Features and Expected Outcomes
With the exception of the no action alternative, the components of each alternative are
designed to be protective of human health and the environment. As such, all of the active
alternatives incorporate components to maintain land use controls needed to control direst
contact exposure pathways and will provide long-term protection of human health. For all
alternatives, except Alternative 7, mass excavation, the mass of mercury will remain in place. To
limit future impacts and improve the long term reliability of those alternatives where mercury is·
left on site, various containment approaches and/or inspections are incorporated into the remedial
alternatives. ·
The environmental impacts associated with continued migration of mercury to the ,-
groundwater with ultimate discharge to the Roanoke River will be controlled to differing levels
in each alternative. Each alternative has some uncertainty regarding long-term adequacy,
reliability and permanence. Therefore, all of the alternatives, except no-action, will include
groundwater monitoring to assess the long-term effectiveness of mass removal, mass
containment, reduction through natural processes and/or groundwater treatment, in accordance
with the North Carolina administrative process for establishing compliance monitoring locations
under the NCAC 2L rules.
None of the alternatives directly reduce the toxicity of mercury. However, by removing
mercury-bearing soil and by removing mercury form groundwater, the potential toxicity of the
media are reduced. There are significant differences l,etween the altemati ves with regard to·
mercury mobility as measured by mass flux reduction to the Roanoke River.
A general qualitative comparative summary for each alternative for the broad criteria of
compliance with ARARs, effectiveness, implementability and cost is presented in Table J~l.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 61
2
3
4
5
6
7
!No Action
:Cooling Tower Repair and
Groundwater Compliance and
.... rend Monitoring
Extended Flow Path and
Groundwater Compliance 3nd
frend Monitoring
Containment with Groundwater
t:omplianc~ and Trend
Monitoring
l'unnel and Gate ·system
Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment
\1ass Excavation
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes121
Yes
Table J-1
Comparative Evaluation Summary of Qualitative Assessment
Former Chlorine Plant
No 5.4 NIA 600.000 NA
No. 3.2 41 1,000.000 NA
No 0.91 83 3,600,000 , NA
Yes 0.14 97 NA 4 to 40
Yes 0.32 94 1,000,000 3 to 30
Yes 4.6 to 4.8 86 to 89 280,000 2 to 20
Yes <0.054 >99 NA 2 1020
Easy $0
Easy
$2,420.000
Moderat~
$4,630,000
Moderate
. $5,624,000
Difficult
$6,883,000
Moderate/Difficult••
$7.586,000
Difficult
$17,619,000
otcs: Groundwater in lhe vicinily or the Former Chlorine Plant currently e~cccds the numerical NCMAC for mc1cury in groundwater. However, the 2L standard provides admioisll1ltivc prOvisions to identify points of
compliance or cslllblish alternate provisions to accommodate natural attenuation. -
Surface water discharge compliance consists of meeting the to-be-established discharge requircmeou for treated waters to the Roanoke Ri..,er. Although the current surface water quality staodard for mercury
(0.012 µg/L) is not a set discharge criterion, the alternati..,e contains a surface water discharge component for which the mercury cooccntntion will likely exceed 0.01-2 µg/L ·
The estimated mass flux or mercury is rrom the R:P area to the Roanoke River. The percent reduction of the aqueous mercury mass flux is compared lo the No Action Alternative (5.4 g/ycar).
Costs presented in this table arc in addition to the St.3MM source removal costs spent to date.
Consistently achiCving the surface water discharge rcquircmcots for mc:rcury may D21 be technically feasible:.
'A= not.applicable:.
2
. . .
K. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
In this section, each alternative is assessed using nine evaluation criteria required under
the NCP (NCP§300.430 (l)(S)(i)). The seven threshold and balancing criteria serve as the basis
for conducting the detailed and comparative analysis of the Alternatives presented in the previous
section. Companson of the alternatives with respect to these evaluation criteria are presented in
summary form This approach is designed to provide sufficient information to adequately
compare the alternatives, aid in the selection of an appropriate remedy for the Site, and
demonstrate satisfaction of the statutory requirements.
The evaluation criteria are briefly descri.bed below. Table K-1 presents the comparison
of the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria (without State and Community," ·
acceptance), and in relation to one another.
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each
alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how
risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled, through
treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARS)
Section 12l(d) of CERCLA and NCP §300.430(1)(l)(ii)(B) require that remedial actions
at CERCLA sites at least attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State
requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations, which are collectively referred to as "ARARs",
unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA section 12l(d)(4).
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental of
State environmental or facility siting laws that specifically ·address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
Only those State standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner and that. are more
stringent than Federal requirements may be applicable. Relevant and appropriate requirements
are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental or facility siting
laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial
action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well-suited to the
·Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 63
.. ·.:..: • •
particular site. Only those State standards that are identified in a timely manner and are more
stringent than Federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate.
To-Be-Considered Requirements (TBCs) are Federal and State environmental and
public health agency criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed standards that are not legally
enforceable but contain information that is useful in carrying out, or in determining the level of
protectiveness of, selected remedies: TBCs are meant to compliment the use of ARARs, not to
compete with or replace them. Because TBCs are not ARARS, their identification and use are
not mandatory. Where no_ARARs address a particular situation at a CERCLA site, or the
existing ARARs do not ensure sufficient protectiveness, the TBC advisory, criteria or guidelines
should be used to evaluate alternative remedial actions.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the applic.;i.ble or
' relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes, or provides a
basis for invoking a waiver.
Balancing Criteria
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
clean-up levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk thatwill
/;~\( remain on-site following remediation and the adequacy and reliability of controls.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that may be included as part of a remedy, and
examines the extent to which ·the remedial alternative achieves the statutory preference for
corrective action that permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy
and any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers, the community, and the environment
during construction and operatio_n of the remedy until clean-up levels are achieved.
6. Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from
design through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials,
former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County. NC
_ September, 2003 64
;..--' • •
administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.
7. Cost
The estimated present worth costs for the alternatives range from$ 215,785 for Five year
reviews under Alternative 1 to$ 17,619,000 for Alternative 7.
Modifying Criteria
8. State Acceptance
The State of North Carolina supports Alternatives 4 through 7.
9. Community Acceptance
During the public comment period, the community supported the need for remedial
action, and there was support for Alternative 4 and Alternative 7.
·Fonner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeus_er Company.Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 65
. .., i
Onnll holntioa
of Human Hrallh ......
Earir•nmtnl
(Coat.imadl)
Curnnlly nui in ,;omplimce Wllh
prnpcn.ed North Catolina a:roundwaler
ll.anchnh for iatal mm:ury.
Would nat be upc:clcd lo achieve the
chemital•,pc:cifK cruvnd•~cr ARAR
(NCMAC or I.I mg'L fcx IOlal
,ncn;uryJ. llo-vcr. 1hc
llllmini1.1n1i-.., prowis.ion, of lhc 15A
NCAC PfQYitk: altcmauvc means of
""h,n,na comph'°""c,
T1le mu, nu, in 1rouodw-ata
discharged lo the nwcr w-oul<l he
rur1het miLKcd .u w-aier infillra1ion
1hmugh !he iOUI'« IJ'U is reduced
CMi ..:hicvc ■II appliuhlc loc;J11on-
:and xt,on-1pcc1fic ARAR1.
Table K-1 (Continued)
Compar-atin Analysis of Altnnativc:s
Formu Chlorine Plant
i~·~t ~,1~~:
.;.:,TmMfMoaltorl -·-·,i,id-r.,.;i,.tMoal1..-tiiii'
Would nol bo: up0'lcd le;, acluc,;c: 1hc
chcmic;,J-spc:cific ,:mundwaler ARAR
U'1CMAC of I.I m&fl. for Iola!
mcrt:ury). llowur;e-, the
Mlmini~ivc provnions ur the ISA
NC....,C pro-.ide al1ci=1iwc muns of
~hicvi111 co1npli=cc.
l:ui:tt :iru" u~;iv.uion Mid 1cmoul
pm,·idcs lurthcr p1o1cc1ion of hum.lll
hc.allh ud the env1ronm::nl through
1hc J11«-1 rcmo•'1l of ""'rt:ury m•n
Th,s woulLI rcdun po1cntu.l lu111,c
dora.11.oolacl hu"'1U :u ,.,,IJ :u
dn;n;:u.11: 1,lk.llH arn soil volume 1ha1
could impxl ,roundw;itcr.
Would riot hc e.pn;ted ID irnmedia1ely
achieve ,t,e chcmic.tl•,,r,ec1fit: ARAR
oul\id., u( !he C011uinc<l uca
Al1hn11gh lhe chcmical-1r,ccif1c ARAk
-...oul,J llUI hc immcd,alcly mci.
ConccnlmlOllli ill smund••tCT "'°"Id
likely .NUCc through time n • res.ult
of naiu~ proccncs. The
admini!Jr,._,we pro"<isioni of 1he 15A
NCAC rrovilk allcmative muiu oC
achiuin1 ro~liancc.
SJmc a., Allem;itivc 4.
Same n A.ltemauwc 4, Chem1cal-
1p,c,;ific ARAR for g1uundw-11c1 w-ould
he met i111he ro,,n<lwater diKh»Jini
lhrough the 1e.:ii:1ivc g:itc
'The conccnuatioru and mus n,ri in Physical c:onllinmenl 11nd "ta.,gct .uu" S;amc u Altcmauwe 4.
cro,mdwacr disch;ircaJ 10 !he ri¥CJ uuw~ion and Krr...val would
would lcmporinly be fo.rnher reduced de,:ru,c future conccn1r•ciun1 or
u 1hc utcndcd now pJ1h ll:lud1 Che metro') in groundw•tcr disclurcjns to
llri•alor1hcmc1tury. 1hcri•c1.
C;111 achieve ~ll •pplic1blc 1outiun-Can okhinc ~I appl":ablc louli\JO-
and ac1ion•1pc,;1fic ARARs. &nd ::ic11nn-1pc:C1fit ARARs
Addi1i01141 pcnni11in1 /TL,11 be t=juira:I
ror 1hc bullhead co,u.uvc:1ion in the
Ro:u'IOkc Ri.-cr.
CM! achieve all 11pr,h~-ati°l~ ltxation•
and action-1pttif1c ARAR~.
Sam<' ;i\ A]ICmJtivc 4. Only nm:
·1ari;c:1 11c;i• .. -uuhJ be uravJ,,..J
undN A~cm;itivc t,
Floc:tul.J1io11 • .:»hon ;,dwrption. an<l
ion uduncc wnuld remove mcn.:ury
liom 11w cnllct:lcd wurcc =
gro•111d,..1la. [ollnwcd by the su1fxe
"'ltcr du.:h;11s,= uf rcmcdiatinn
cfOucnt. It i, 1104 ;uu1cip.atal that the
tn:arcd einucm u,uld n1miMcn1ly
meet t~0.012 }li:/L 1urfacc w-a1c1
nit~•-
Allhouglt the x:tinn•'l"'cifk <11rf.><:c
w-~er Al'"R w-oold likely noC be mc1
in 1rc;,11r.:1111y<1cm clnucnt.
conccn11111on1 in t""un,Jw:11er lh,ll
nows f1«11 lhc 10t1r~c :,n:J In the
Ro.inokc 11:iver would t,c n:ducc<l u ;a
,csull or u,;:llmcnl. "Tugcl IJ'"C•·•
ucawoi1,.i, :ind removal would ,ud in
dccrc"'i•,11 fu1u~ coru:cnllJ\1uns uf
mcn:ury ;., ,roun<lw-;a1cr.
CJII ac)u,-c "'11 ;i.r,plic;at.lc locahOl'I·
1pc-cific .UtARs.
Would not be C.lpct:tc,J 10 1mmcd131e
xhicwc 1hc.:hcmic.tl•1pccific ARAR
ouuiJe o/ ll'H: ClUV;lliOfl =:
how-ewer. thrnueh 1k rcmout of lhc
i0\11«; :area K>i1 and groundw-a1c1,
.:onccnt111ion1 in gmun,Jw-11cr w-oul~
hkcly rapidly reduce !hrough lime,.,
rc,ult of 1111111.tl ptOCCHCI. llie
~minim:itiwc prow1sinn1 uf •he I SA
NCAC prnvi<lc .tlh:mati•c mcam uf
~hic•ing cvmpha11tc.
C;an achieve :all apphcahlc lo...:;111nn•
;uvJ ai.;1ioo•tp«ifk ARAR~.
·I I ! _!( :,:-;1 ".! • . !~ ;~ ,.l ~ •• ,. ,., :~ O-,ripCian 0Hnll Prottttloa rJHumaD Holtb and 1hr EDriro11muit Nu F11nhcr AL1inn No acuon aJtcmilli•c cloc:I no1 modify curttnl uposun: ~hw~yi; R•lWlt oflhc: uiuin1 lu.kin1L-oolin1 tower 1h10 dc:cn:,1,ing lhc: amount of infihnt,on 1hruuJh 111<, "''""" ucao and mem,ry nul lotl'N: ri>u. Inspection of river bult.hca,J m U>e>I physical i111tgnly. lns1i1u1ional controh and morulonns ofrouno.J,..•1cr. Moddin1 and usui.rnent of dfomwcncu at 5-:,c:.-inlcrvah Pn>te,::tivc of huffWI hcallh anJ lhe mrironrnmt by dimin.11in1 the upos.ure paihw-oy to ,i1c w1J and puundw:llcr. Soil pathway would bc d11nin11cd bf Ute in,Wlllion of the conc,cic cvwc.-owe, cun-cntly unpa•CU "Mlllra: art&" soil. Groo.lndw11a p.othway WOtlld be diminllcd by pn:•cnlins inna,U&11on of potable water wcllJ in the wicinity of !he FCP. The ri:p,air of 1he cooling lo""CI" lc;».(IJ •• upec1etl to ,ipifoca.l'IIIJ dee ruse 1he di11:harre of 111Cri:urJ into th,; river t,y m.luc1n1 lhc amoun1 or infil11;Won through !he M>llm: area. Tabk K-1 Cocnparathe Analysit of Altcmathcs Fonarr Chlorine Plant Ei1crui1X1 of lht px1ndwacct Row pith through improYCmcnl1 lo lhc rau1.in1 bulkhcMJ ,..=-31 .idj.u,m 10 1hc n..:r. lncn:uc the .-olumc of .i,quifc.1 whJ1 OYtr ""hich nal\Jri.J process"' dnpcn;ion and ;ad~ion ~ occur. ln,1,1111in11aJ cvnirot. Mid monnorins of ground,..aLcr Same u Allcm,nvc 2. In .-.ldition. the installa1ion of lhc )Ca!cJ bullhc.:1 !!long 1he ri•a woo kl lcnC{hal the now p.llh of impa,cted grn11ndwa1c1. which i, upc,:ICd lo retard the dnchKgc of macury inlo 1hc ri.-cr. ln1c1JJ:11ioft of bMTin will system :around 1M 1oon:c :uu 10 rnluu the mn, nu, .,·1 m,er,:iny 1n gr1JU11Jw11cr from Lile c:ugc1 un lnllall~1on of I funnel wall ,~ucm b1;1tlcung I lM&crnl wurcc :11c1 m dfnnwdy nptu1c md ~h.annel Lhc imp;i,,.led crouO\l'llll"f Wllhin lhc 1.-g,:1 ..-Cl lhrou,:h I Uta!....,Jll ,:.11c lhil will n:movc aq=1 men:11r)'. ln,hhi11unJJ contruh &n<I mumlonng I lnnirution&J •--ontroh and mom1onn& nf ~n,un,d.,altr. of poundwa1cr E.uaut,on of I,..., "iattct arc~" wurcc I E~cna1ion of I,..., _"largd &ica"" wura: uu loe>1ion1 out•odc of ~on1ainmen1 arc.a lncal10111 oumdc of con1a.mmcnl area.. aJc~ Same as A.llcrnlli•c 2. With iapc<.I lo l!]011ndw11a uumdc of ll'lc conl;oinmcnl footpnnt. 1h15 al1clTlillht would Mt provide 1mmrdialc o.-cr&ll proccch,,n of 1hc tn>'ironment. bul upo,,u.-. of po1ent1aJ i:colng,c,I m:cplon; tu mercury 1n discbar1ing grourd-..-atcr would dt,,:rca,c o•cr hmi:: thruu1h natural proccnci a.l'ld lhc f~l lh:il .oorct UCI pountlw.Utl it ~onli1n<d within lhc barric1 wall. ll,c bUT"ln •all would inhibit Mltlrcc area p-ound.,11c1 from hydnulic'111y commuai~MI Mld mignllini lo the Ro..u>0URiwu. Same u Altcrnati.-c •· In -ldd111un. SOI/ICC .un gmundwilcl W1Lhin lhc cont.unmc111 an:, would be: directed through a ructivc trcarmcnl g~c lh.ll would rcmo.-c mercury from Ilic roundwalcr as ,1 pana Lht011gh 1hc g.itc ",~~i;_ '. fi};IA.,~ ' ' ' ..... lr~"1·. ~-t;i:_!1.udlaii,.,,,-.. ~~Jl~ ~\; _na _··' ---. . ln~l;itrn.of a 1T&Jlliplc well c,lrXU<W\ IY"tm. ~onwcy;ana: <y,1cm. r, 111u ~rOSld,..ala 1rc.i1mi::n1 •ia noccul~ri••. c.irb:in .-hnrption. mn uch~ge. 11d lurf;i,..c waler d1-ch.u~c ln<1i1ut1nnal ~<>nlruh and mon,u,nn,: ofpou,,JQL,er F.Jcao1,01nf one •·1u,:ct UCil .. source :un loc..tion out,iJc of cn,u;iinm,01 uu Proh:ctiwctl humilrl hcallh ;and Lhe cnvironn-..1 by t1imina11nll lhc uposun: JRh,..11110 inc 10iJ &nd · ground-...,. Soil pa1hw3y would he climinJlrtby the in.u,l\ariun of lhc concn,IC D\OCf owe, curnnrly unpawa.1 .. SO\lfCC' au" toil. Groundw..icr p•1hw•1 -..uld be: dnninatcd hf prc.-cn1i1111hc iru.1allahon nf f'Ulahk wala •-.:U 1111hc wicini1y of thc: KJ'. For gmullll'alcr oui.i.Jc of the hydraou!in,nta.nmcnt •rca !hit ii disch;1,1gi~ ,nto lhc: Roal"IOlt Riwn. thi• altcntiW't .,,)llld 1M>1 prowidc HM'>Cdldu ... rall prota:lioo of the cnwironfflll. but c•ro1urc of pof\."'1lli.&I c-colog,.:acccplnn ID m,i.·ury in diKh:uii! 1roundwi1t1 "l>IJkl dccrg.,,.. ,n umc 1hrough n:.iural rroces= Tbc hydr~lic uinr~nmcm p1owido:dy lhc Clll:M:tiun nclwnrl,. woulJ inb,1 ..,..,cc an,J i;mundwi1cr from miµiing lo lhc Ruano~c River. Ma.<J cu·aulion :uw..l /lllll••JJ of .<CMllnilf<'J\t.liJ ln•lilulionJl U)IIIRlh ;arMl rnon11orin~ nf i,0t1m.h•~lcr. Pru1n-1iwc uf hum.i.n he,llh ;and the cnwironmcnt h} climiniling lhc uposurc p.ithway to ,ilc soil ;md ground••t~r. Soil p.11hw•y would he chmin:,1et.1 by lhc dircci ri:moval or mcn:ury rn:,n wia 10,t uunhon: howc:wcr. ii """'Id be 1imply 1r;1,1ufcrrcd lo ;anuthcr /ocatiun tl;indfill) 10 be prnnanc111ly m....:,~dfmrn111oc,:d. lirOt1ndw;1cr pachw,y would be climm.Ccd b1 prcW1:n1in~ [he inltilllacion of poublc ,..,1c1 wc:lb in the •ici,.i1y of the FCJ> For gmondwalcr o,midc of 1tx, uca•ation fUOlpnnl \h;,t it di11:h.1rgin imu the Rn,1noAc River. ihii 11llcm;Jtiwt _,..fJ nol prowiJc irnm,.~i10: ovCr'111 prOIL-cliun nf lhc cnwironmi:nl. but upo~uii: of polcnli> ccnlo~ic..J rt.-ccplDJI lo ..-..-n-ury in di<ehaiging ,:roundw;itcr would lic<:rcll1C over nmc through n..1111'11 proct11e:s 1111d the r~t 1hai wuf(c area wil ind ,:1ound,..a1cr ~c rcmowctl from lht-site vi; c~u•·a1iun "
• • ..
. ' '··
1
lmplcmo:nlabUilJ
a..i.11uc,..1
NOi applicable:.
Not applicable.
No cu111 aiwci .. cd with !he f'lo
Act1ot1 ;,Jmn .. i.-e.
Would hue .uy lilfULcd adfffM:
cffm1 on 1he com.1!111ni1y. employee
hullh • .v,d !he cn•irunrncnt d11rin1
implcmcnUliDll. Qjrt,el cnnl.aiel rhkl
1noci~ed ,..ithgroundw,ucr
moni1orin1 &11: lirnitcd, ·
All Cllmpo!IUIII art implcmcnWdc on
bolh a ltthllical and an Mlminil!r&livc
lcvd. Coohn1 lower rcpain w,ould
haw,,: lo be .chcdulcd and ~-oincide
with a planned facility down time u
Repair of the cooling 1ow-c1 vrould lhut•
down niill oprratiom.
T•blit K.J (Continued)
Comparalin An;,.l)'Sis of Alkrnativcs
Former Chlorine Plant ·
Would haiwc wmc i,d,n:1w df«h on
lhe communuy, cmplorc,:: heallh. and
lhc c1ninmmcnt durins
implemm1;uion. 1hc: putM;c of
equipmcnt 1Mrgc1 Uld ~ill"fJ
equipment rtquirrd lo compklC
con1ln1ction WOllld in1crrup1 ri-.cr ~
lrJrr,c Scduncm would ~so t,c
di1111rbcd u a rc111l1 or 1hecl p,ilin~
ini1&ll1t10n Xli•iti,:.1. DI~ CUlll;x:1
mh ll~lllei.l •llh croundw;ucr
moni111rin& ;arc limucd.
All t0mponen11 311: implementable on
both I lochni<;,tl &n<.I an ldmini>lf'lllvc
lcv,,:L. TlM: equipmeni. marcrial1. and
prooMr] required to implcmenl lhi,
rcmcJuJ altcmat,.-e vc rud1ly
uail3blc. The hulU,r;ad rcpl:i,,,;nnem
would rcquiK • pJuu,inl ar,,J
s,chc::dulin& dfort. H ii would rcr:iuirc
spccidil.Cd equipment and riva lraffic
considcr21ions; b<,1 1his tcrhnalor, is
...,u cstabhlhcd and cwld be initi11cd
.1l 'll"IY hmc
Would h.nc few ad~n.c: cH«11 on the
comrnunny. cmployc,c hc,;ilth. ,,. 1hc
cnvin;,nn,,:nl during implcmcnta11un
One of 11,c cf fee ii -.wld be ood
di1n11t1&ncc llunng 1ourcc ;uc.a sod
uc1•ation and remmal. Shor1-1tOT1
du«I Cl>nl.CI, mlJ 1p,ll mki iUC ,
u<u,:111.d wnh w1l ucu;uiun anJ
lr.1111pon11ion D1=1 cone.ct mk,
anoci~t<1i ,..,th iround•11c,
ITIO(IJ1oring »c hrru1ed.
All components are impk:mcni~lc on
both 11ech1Ucal and ;u, .Jmin1.ir~tiv,,:
lc•cl. The. implcmcnwion or 1hi1
altcnwivc w,ould di\lllrb in UIW so,l
and grow,dwna. Wortco would be
capoicd lo conWNcn11 in puundw81n-
undcr 1hi1 &11cnuliv,,: dun111 JOil
ncavihufl. driUin1. and/or ~hn&
of moni1orin1 ...,11,. Wortcn
inmhul will> JOil uuv•oon. barrier
wall conslNCtion. w-c:U in1tall11100.
and groundwlltl Umplm1 w,ould li••r
••fcty 1r.11nin& and would -ar
•ppn,pnllc pcnon,i.l pn:o1cclivc
cqu1pmt.11I. The equipment. ~lcrial,.
and pct>Olln,d raiu1m;l lo implement
thi1 rcncdid altcmallvc ;an: ;iv;iil1blc.
lmplcm<ent1tion -...wLJ requirr 1
•irn,iliunl plannin& and Khmul1111
c[lort. ~ ,1 miuirc, sipif,cmt worl
and uo~aiion in a vr:ry kliv,,: pul'll<XI
of 1hc Sile. Thi1 lt:ehnolon is well
c11ahh~ed.
Sfflle ;u Ahcmaii•c 4. ll&ndlin1 or
IP"nl Uca1,nent mc:J,a would be &II
..i.lmon~ 1h<l11•lcrmri1k uwc:i:i.1cd
wuh mc;J,a ,cm,oval ;a.nJ rcplxcmcnt.
Sime al Ahcm:i.11vc 4. "Additi<111d
m.1tcnal• and effort w,ould be l"C<jui1cd
for ,onllrudion of IN: U'C.11.menl gate.
Al1t,uu1h promuinJ. lrutment 111u
fw mercury Removal an, 1 lc11
C$11bl1shcd 1cclu'lolou. Would requite
medi:i. replxcmcnl 111. infl,:,qucnt
intervals. Sw.:h replacement would hc
• signilicant cHon.
Would h.:lvc re ... ;idvcn.c crruu on the
cnmmunily. crnployu lic:il•h. or the
cn•i1t1nnl:nt during implcmcnuuon.
ld<entifl~ crrccu wuuld he wol
di>1.u1b:ini.c Wnng "'Urgct ;uu··
u~avaUOII andutr..ction and
~on•cJilfllC 1711cm in11all;o1,on ani.l
curu;io.1 ri<k1 dunnJ l~cm 1ampling
md moni1oring. Shon-1cnn.Jimt
contact. ,md 1pill ri1ks a,c as1oci;11cd
•ith 1pa>1 carbon rcmonl and
1ran1port,.ion
All cnrnpuncon .ut irnpkmcnl~blc un ·
OO!h I le<hnfr;,J ;and ,an admini11131ivc
10d. Tb: impkment.11.ion or lhi,
altem:i.U><: would ti.vc minimal
disturbano:e of Ill ,in, soil anJ
pounJw:i1cr. 1'hc cquipmen1.
IIVlieriali. &I'd prnonncl rc.iuircJ 10
implcmc:121 Lhis rcmcdi;,J ;,Jtcmaiivc 'll"C
rcad,lr •"lil:iblc. Tlw: W1(1 ~a
uc1v:rtM anJ utr3dion ;ind
c1,1n.,.,r;u,,,:c ly<tcm ..:orutruclion WO\lld
rcqoirc a p1.1Pning ;ind Khcduling
cllort 10 ,nincidc with p12nl lr3ffic and
acti.,i1ic1 b .. 1 ,hi• lec/uwllou is ...;II
cll3Mishc-d :aid cnuld be iniualcd o11
.1P} time.
I.ow to mc,Jium rclauvc Q&M Prcw:nl McJ,um rclauvc O&M Pre.sen! Wonli McJ1un1 rclanvc O&M Prc..:n1 Wunh. McJrnm tclJ\j.,, O&M Pre..:nt Wor1h. Hi&h ,d.lli,.,,O&M Prc:i.cru Wor1h
Worth.
Low rcb1iv,,: NPW coil Medium rcl.uivc !\'PW Clnt McJ,um In high rcl;111vc NPW cmt McJ1um tn liigh 1~-lllivc NPW coSI tligh rd,~1vc NPW (ll~I.
•
-·::··· .. ---""~ . . .
:. ·_ . • i, -·,. :., r,
Woold h3Vf: 1i~ifinn1 d[cct> on the
cumm~ni1y. cmplny.:c hc~lh. nr the
cnvironmcnl during unplcnw:IIIJlion
kiU.1 indudc uposu,c lo wurcc 'll"U
w,L n gtuunJwalcrduring c11cn11•c
ucnalion. hc.1•y 1f•lfic in Ilic ;un of
c1cava1inn b<~h by removal
COnllJCll>I' u -11 .,,_, cunuit pl;ull
xi1vi1ic~ polcn1i.1I ipdh d\Jnng
1r.in1port;1tion;,indd1spou1. Dm:·u
w<:1rkrr Clp<»urc tu CCll'IC'Cnlr.atcJ
mcrtul')' in lho: 111b111rfacc wd ,..,,..Jd
<>CCIII dunng UCJYJIH,n xh••11c1
Ah hough ·,igrlitic.inlly complu. 1he
con,poncnlS nr 11\is .t11cma1i"c c.in b,;
implcrro:ntcd on b<xh J 1ahnk;,J .1Pd
an adminhtrMivc level. Tlw:
implcmc:nution or 1hi1 ;it1ema1ivc
would ,ncludc 1i1nifinnl disiurt,anc:c
of in 1ir11 "°"n:e ;ar,:a .uil ~
ground,..a!~. 1ncc11ensivc
e1cava1ion ""t>t.1!,J rc:quirc consi,ktahlc
pl.innini. and ~hc::duhng eRons o,..ing
In <>0·11\c i,;,JT,c co,,.u<Jcr-1hon• :,od
plant opaatiun•. bul cuJntion .ul<l
rcmo~.tl 1cc:hnologic1 uc well
e>t1bli1hC'd. Pbnt tr.Jlic and 111c
op.:1~1ion1 wuutJ be 1ignif,untly
arrcnctl for a cun,idcr.lblc :imuuot nf
tm-.i, H lhc CIC.n~ion w,ou\d """" In
hc pcrfonncJ in stages to :Uluw wmc
plauu upcrahon, in !he :ire:i. On:p
c~CIVJUtlfll would require ,ign,fiunt
cnJina:nni,: ,ontmll
u, ... rcl.11,vcO&M l'rc~nl Wunh .
... -_ ... • •
L. Principal Threat Wastes
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA use treatment to address the principal
threats posed by a site wherever practical (NCP §300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). Identifying principal
threat waste combines concepts of both hazard and risk. In general, principal threat waste are
those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile; which generally cannot be
contained in a reliable manner or would present a significant risk to human health or the
environment should exposure occur. The mercury contaminated soils are considered to be
"principal threat wastes".
Mercury is a highly toxic substance, and is present in high quantities at the site. There is
a significant possibility that, absent remedial action, a release of the large quantities of mercury
present in on-site subsurface soils may occur, resulting in an unacceptable risk. The alJ,c:Inatives
which address the containment or excavation of the mercury contaminated soils address this risk.
Alternatives I, No-action, would not address the principal threats at the site. Alternatives 2, 3,
and 6 are groundwater alternatives and do not address the contaminated soil. Alternative 5
provides for partial containment of contaminated soils, and some excavation, but is still primarily
a groundwater alternative. Alternative 4 provides for effective containment of the majority of the
soil contaminated with mercury, and some limited excavation, treatment and disposal.
Alternative 7 would significantly reduce the risk by excavation, treatment and off-site disposal.
former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County. NC
September. 2003 70
M. The Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedy for the Former Chlorine Plant Area is Alternative 4-Containment
with Groundwater Compliance Monitoring and Trend Monitoring.
1. Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy
Alternative 4 provides the best balance of the nine evaluation criteria of all of the
Alternative remedies reviewed for the site. In terms of the balancing criteria, Alternative 4
provides for protection of human health and the environment through the installation of a barrier
system around the mercury contaminated soils, excavation of soils adjacent to the river,
groundwater compliance monitoring, and land and groundwater use restrictions. The barrier
system will prevent a catastrophic release of the nearly 7,500 pounds of mercury presen; in on-
site soils to the adjacent Roanoke River. Alternative 4 would allow the groundwater outside of
the barrier wall to remain above the chemical-specific ARAR for total mercury of 1.1 µg/L,
however the groundwater is expected to naturally recover with time and will be monitored for
compliance. In the interim, groundwater potable use restriction will prevent exposure to mercury
in the shallow aquifer.
Alternative 4 will be effective and reliable over the long term by containing impacted
soil and residual groundwater within the containment barrier system. Alternatives I, 2, 3, 5 and
6 are primarily groundwater alternatives which do not address the principal threat of the mercury
contaminated soil. Alternative 4 would effectively and permanently remove the source materials ·
in Areas I and 2. Only Alternative 7 provided for a permanent removal of all of the principal
threat waste.
Natural processes should be effective with time in reducing residual groundwater
contamination outside of the barrier system. Alternative 5 and 6 are more active groundwater
treatment remedies, but the groundwater restoration time frames are still in the hundreds of
thousands of years. Surface pavement and the barrier system will reduce the mobility of the
largest source of mercury in soils. Excavation in limited source Areas I and 2 will remove these
source areas and reduce their impacts to groundwater. Mercury flux from the source area to the ·
river is expected to be reduced by 97 percent.
All components of Alternative 4 are implementable in the short term, and should have
minimal adverse effects on the community, employee health or the environment duririg
implementation, although the work will be performed in a very active portion of the facility and
will require extensive planning. Only Alternatives I and 2 are more easily implemented than
Alternative 4. The remainder of the alternatives will be disruptive in the short term. Alternative
7 would present the highest degree of difficulty for implementation of 10 phased excavations,
and would also present significant worker health and safety concerns. The equipment and
personnel required to implement Alternative 4 are available, and workers would have safety
training and wear appropriate personal protective equipment
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision · ·
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 71
---··-----------------------····--·-~ • . . ....... \;.•".-~':/:.• .. -! .'..<·:a:.;7.·i._, .
2. Description of the Selected Remedy
This alternative consists of the installation of a vertical barrier wall system around the
source area, and "targeted" excavation of soil from the CentraJ.U-drain area ·and the Eastern U-
drain area. Various types of barrier walls can be utilized for the containment of mercury
contaminated soils in the Former Chlorine Plant building footprint. For purposes of cost
estimating in the FS, a sealed sheet pile barrier wall was evaluated. The final material will be
determined during remedial design but shall meet the specifications that follow.
The wall enclosing the source area will consist of a sealed/low permeability barrier, with
an estimated permeability of 5.0 X 10-s cm/s. The wall will be installed to approximately 45 fe~t
below ground surface, tying into the low-permeability clay aquitard beneath the site. The
conceptual wall has a total length of 610 feet, and would enclose an area of approximately 23,000
square feet and a volume-of approximately 38,000 cubic yards of soil. Approximately 7)00
pounds of mercury (or 96 percent of the estimated total mass of mercury) will be enclosed by the
barrier.
Also included in this alternative are two "target area" excavations. These target areas
include excavation of both saturated and unsaturated soil. The excavations will extend to the
practicable horizon and vertical limits near the former hypochlorite tank/central U-drain (Area l_)
and along the Eastern U-drain (Area 2). The excavations will removed surface soil and
subsurface soil to a mercury level of 20 mg/kg. Structural sheet piling will be utilized for
excavation stabilization and shoring. It is assumed that interlocking sheet piling will be driven to
25 feet around Area 1 and 20 feet around Area 2. No de-watering of soil is anticipated. -
Solidification of excavated, saturated soil will be performed in constructed bunkers with the
addition of a solidification agent such as fly ash. Area I has a surface area of approximately
2,000 square feet. At an average depth of 10 feet, excavation would remove approximately 750
cubic yards of soil. About 80 pounds of mercury would be removed from Area 1 (approximately
1 percent of the estimated total mass of mercury). Area 2 measures approximately 10 feet by 55
feet, and at an average depth of 8 feet, a total of ISO cubic yards of soil would be excavated,
containing approximately 230 pounds of mercury (about 3 percent of the total mass of mercury).
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limit for mercury ( 40 CFR
261.24) is 0.2 mg/L. The TCLP values for the shallow soil samples from the Former Chlorine
Plant have historically not exceeded 0.09 mg/L, even in soil with total mercury concentrations as
high as 2,900 mg/kg. If TCLP results are above 0.2 mg/Land total mercury concentrations are
greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg (40 CFR 268.40), then the material must be retorted (or
equivalent process) to recover and recycle the mercury as per the Universal Treatment Standard
(UTS). For purposes of cost estimating it was assumed that materials from Area 1 would be
nonhazardous as defined by the TCLP. In Area 2, it was assumed that SO percent of the
excavated material would be nonhazardous and SO percent would be hazardous. The
nonhazardous materials would be disposed of at the facilities nonhazardous landfill, or off-site at
a nonhazardous landfill, and the hazardous material wiil be sent to an off-site retort facility for
Former Chlorine Plant-,Arca of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 72
• •
treatment prior to disposal. The excavations will be backfilled with clean fill material and
covered.
The surface cap containment system will require the replacement of pavement over areas ·
disturbed by the barrier wall installation, the excavations, and the currently un-covered surface
soil adjacent to the river.
· To assess the mercury concentration trends in groundwater, this alternative includes the
implementation of a groundwater compliance and trend monitoring program consisting of 12
monitoring wells sampled over 30 years .
. The land use restrictions would preclude the potable use of groundwater from the
shallow aquifer beneath the Former Chlorine Plant and mercury plume areas. CurrentlX,Jl'map is
on file with the Martin County Register of Deeds that identifies the Former Chlorine Plant Area
as an Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site (NCD 991-278-540). To the e,i:tent
necessary, .this deed notice will be revised as a part of the remedial design to reflect the selected
remedy, to meet the current North Carolina administrative process, and any additional
requirements to maintain the integrity of the remedy and to limit exposure to soil and
groundwater. ·
The remedy described in this section may change somewhat as a result of-the remedial
design and construction processes. Changes to the remedy described in this ROD will be
documented using a technical memorandum in the Administrative Record, an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) or by a ROD Amendment, depending on the magnitude of the
proposed change.·
3. Summary of the Estimated Remedy Cost
The detailed cost estimate for Alternative 4 is shown on Table M-1. The cost estimate
presents the capital, annual O&M, and total present worth costs projected over 30 years. The
information in this cost estimate summary table is based on the best available information
regarding the anticipated scope of the remedial alternative. Changes in the cost elements are
likely to occur as a result of new information and data collected during the engineering design of
the remedial alternative. Major changes may be documented in the form of a memorandum in
the Administrative Record file, an ESD or a ROD amendment. This is an order-of-magnitude
cost estimate that is expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual projected cost.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Conipan·y Site
Record of Decision
Martin County. NC
_ September. 2003 73
74
.... ····:·-.:--..
1. Mobilizat10n/Oemobdizalion/Site Preparation
Subtotal
2. Sheeting Installation In FCP Area
a. WEZ95 Sheating
b. Comers
C Waterloo Barrier Seal
d. Equipmenl & labor
Sublo!al
3. Target Area Excavation
a. Area 1 Shoring
b. Area 2 Shoring
C. Ellcavatlon
d. Solidification Treatment Bunker
e. Handling I Disposal
I) SoUdilicatlon Agent
ii) Solldirlcation Mixing
iii) Non-hazardous Disposal
N) Hazardous Disposal ,. Confirmation SoW Sampling • Backli!VCompact with Clean Soil
h. Health and Salety Monitoring
Subtotal
4. MlsceltaneouS Costs ,. Relocate Oil St0fag1111 Area
b. Concrete Sur1ace Demo & Repair
C. Utility Penetralions/Ralocatkms
d. Surface Capping .. Deed Restrictions
' $!aging Area Development
•· Site Restoralion
h. Cooling Tower Evalualion and ReJ)airs
Subtolal
5. Subtotal Oiracl Capita! Costs
6. Facility Support and Corporate Costs
7. ProfesslonaVTechnk:al Services
a. Project Management
b. Remedial Design
c. Construction Management
d. Aegutalory Interaction
6. Contingency
TOT AL CAP IT AL COSTS ·
~:i'?'·1 FormeS:.\J.il:.i.' ;_·,a Plant
AJtt~~;~\·_(;e 4
Conceptual COst Estimate
,:., i•UnlF·' ,;Quantltv ,.unttCoat. ,•Total cosu
LS
SF
VF
SF
WK
SF
SF
CY
LS
TN
TN
TN
TN
CY
CY
Day
LS
SF
EA
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
10%
10o/a
12'Ya
12%
8%
30%
1
27,450
180
27,450
6
5.000
2,600
900
1
128
1,386
1,271
116
900
900
5
-1
3,770
10
1,600
1
1
1
1
$240,000
'" S90
$10
$90,000
$15
$15
$8
$50,000
:015
$5
$25
$2,000
$10
$22
$1,000
$100,000
S25
$10,000
$20
$20,000
S100,000
$100,000
$165,000
$240 000 Includes equipment mob/demob &
S2-40,000 1ransportation ol sheetpila/materials
610LFx45tldeep
$494,100
S 16,200 4 corners, 45 ft deep
$274,500 Includes material, Installation, and OA/OC
S540,000
$1,324,800
$75,000 200 fl perimeter x 25 fl deep
$39,000 1 JO ft perlmelat x 20 ft deep
$7 .200 area 1 c 750 cy, area 2 "' 150 cy
SS0,000
Total excavation malarial, assumes 1.4 tons/cy unit -Jghl
$1,890 Assume, 10% by weigh! addtuon ol solldlflcatlon agent
$6,930
$31,763 Assumea 100% ol area 1 and 50% of area 2 is non-haz to onsita LF
$231,000 Assumes 50% ol area 2 requires haz: d15posal at retort lacMrty
$9,000 USEPA Guidance, July 2000
$19,800 Sand fill placement and compaction
$5000
$478,583
$100,000
$84,250 Surface concrete ln areas of sheetplltng and areas to be excavated
$100,000 (610 ft X 2 ft+ 50ft JI 30 fl ♦ 25 fl J120 ft ♦ 10 fl JI 55 fl)
$32,000 10 fl by 160 fl area of concrete pavement
$20,000
$100,000
$100,000
S165000
$711 250
$2,752,633
$275,263 Weyerhaeuser
S275,263 10% ol direct capital
SJJ0,316 12% ol direct capital
$330,316 12% al di"act capital
$220,211 8% of-direct capital
SB25,790 15% scope and 15% bid conHngency of direct capital
15,010,000
,.,.Nwu. PPERATIO~, MAllf'EHNICE, ,<ND MONITDRING (Cl•Ml COSTS ., . , .. , ,,
1. Groundwater Performance Monitoring (AnnuaQ
a. Flald Effort (labor)
b. Expanses (vehlcie. equipment, kxJging)
c. Sample Analyses
d. Data Analyslsl'Repor'!ing
e. Cooling Tower Assessment
2. Subtotal O&M Costs
3. Contingency
!Total Annual O&M Costs
TOTAL O&M PRESENT WORTH
PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVE
NOia,.
1. Coatl assume that !toe rrill loading docks will nol be retocal.d.
HR
DY
TEST
LS
LS
30%
50
3
$75 $4,500 Assumes 2 people lor 3 days
S250 $750 .
$200 $2,800 Assumes 12 walls and 2 QA/QC dupllea1es
$20,000 $20.000
$10,000 __ ~•~1~0~000=,
$38,050
$11415 10%scope+20%bld
~9,465
$114,000 30 yaa~ at 7%
15,12:4,000
•
4. Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
Former Chlorine Plant-Area Clean-up Levels
•
The cleanup levels selected for the contaminated media at the Former Chlorine Plant
Area were developed using the results of the risk assessment and by comparison to ARARs. A
risk-based cleanup level was derived for soil as well as a level that was protective of
groundwater. The soil cleanup level was derived using partitioning coefficient calculations,
which result in no exceedence of groundwater standards. This level was lower than the risk-based
soil exposure level, and is therefore selected as the soil cleanup level. Table M-2 provides the
cleanup levels for the Former Chlorine Plant Area.
Table M-2
Cleanup Levels for the Former Chlorine Plant Area
Soil 20 mg/kg Protection of groundwater
Groundwater 1.1 µ.g/L ARAR'
Surface water 0.012 µ.g/L ARAR2
North Carolina Maximum Allowable Concentrations (North Carolina 2L standards) Title ISA NCAC Subchapter
2L.O!Ol, .0102, .0!03, .DIOS, .0106, .0109, .01 IO, .Oil I..0112, .OJ 13, .0114, .0201. .0202, and .031S-Applicable
2 North Carolina Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters, Title ISA, NCAC Subchapter 2B
.01 IO, .0200-Applicable
Available uses of Land
The Former Chlorine Plant Area will be returned to it's current use at the Weyerhaeuser
facility. The institutional controls will prevent future residential land and groundwater use. The
area is expected to remain an active industrial facility in the future.
Former Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September. 2003 75
• •
N. Statutory Determination
The purpose of this section is to provide a description of how Alternative 4 satisfies the
statutory requirements of CERCLA §121 (as required by NCP §300.430 (f)(S)(ii)) and explain
the Five-Year Review requirements for the Former Chlorine Plant Area. ·
I. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 4 is protective of human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling risk posed by the Former Chlorine Plant Area through containment of
contaminated soils, "targeted" excavation in the U-drains, groundwater monitoring and
institutional controls.
The containment of the contaminated soils is justified even though current concfiiions
have not resulted in a release posing risk.· There is a significant possibility that, absent remedial
action, a release of the large quantities of mercury present in on-site subsurface soils may occur,
resulting in an unacceptable risk. The significance of this potential risk was evaluated based on
the quantities of mercury (approximately 7,500 lbs) in soil as well as the environmental setting of
the Former Chlorine Plant Area adjacent to the Roanoke River (EPA, 1991 ). In addition, where
factors such as complex hydrogeology or contaminant characteristics constrain groundwater
restoration, EPA's approach is to emphasize removal or treatment of source materials,
containment of non-restorable source areas, and restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes
(EPA, 1995).
· The barrier wall containment system would effectively control the migration of mercury
. from the source area into groundwater and from migrating to the Roanoke River. Under this
Alternative, the mass flux of mercury from the Former Chlorine Plant Area to the Roanoke River
would be decreased by 94 percent, compared to the no further action Alternative. The potential
exposure pathway for groundwater would be eliminated by preventing installation of potable·
water wells in the vicinity of the Former Chlorine Plant Area.
By performing the "target" area excavations, treatment and disposal, Alternative 4
incorporates a treatment component as well a provides further protection of human health and the
environment. The mass removal would reduce potential future direct contact hazards as well as
decrease source area mercury mass that could impact groundwater and the Roanoke River.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and.Appropriate Requirements
Chemical Specific ARARS
Chemical-specific ARARs are federal and state requirements that define acceptable
exposure levels and might, therefore, be used in establishing remediation goals. No chemical-
specific ARARs are available for mercury in soil.
former Chlorine Plant Area of the Wcyerhac:user·company Site
Record of Decision
Manin County, NC
September, 2003 76
•·· ,· . ,. . --. • •
The following Table N-1 lists the state and federal chemical-specific mercury ARAR for
groundwater, and for groundwater discharge to the Roanoke River. The North Carolina
Maximum Allowable Concentration is Applicable, because the State of North Carolina considers
all waters not otherwise restricted to be potentially potable. The federal drinking water standard,
MCLs, is .relevant and appropriate rather than applicable since there is no currently completed
pathway for groundwater to be used as potable w~ter (i.e., groundwater is not used for drinking
water purposes). The North Carolina Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards area Applicable.
Mercury
Table N-1
Chemical-Specific ARARS
1.1 2.0 0.012
North Carolina Maximum Allowable Concentrations (North Carolina 2L standards) Title 15A NCAC Subchapter
2L.0IOI, .0102, .0103, .0105, .0106, .0109 .. 0110, .0111, .0112, .0113, .0114, .0201, .0202, and .0315-Applicable
2 Primary Drinking Water Standards or MCLs as promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)-
Relevanl and Appropriate
3 North Carolina Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters, Title 15A, NCAC Subchapter 28
.0110, .0200-Applicable
Location Specific ARARS
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration-of hazardous
substances or the conduct of activities solely on the basis of location. Examples of location-
specific ARARs include solid and hazardous waste facility siting criteria and state and federal
requirements to protect flood plains, critical habitats, and wetlands. A summary of location-
specific ARARs for Alternative 4 is presented in Table N-2.
Rmner Chlorine Plant Area of the Weyerhaeuse~ Company_Site
Record of Decision ·
Martin County. NC
September, 2003 77
Within 100-year flood plain
Area affecting coastal area waters
Table N-2
Location-Specific ARARs
Former Chlorine Plant
General Solid Waste Location Standard (15A
NCAC Chapter 13B)
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(NCGS Chapter 113 A, Article 7)
General location requirements for disposal
facilities.
Establishes criteria for protection, preservation,
and conservation of coastal areas.
t-F--e-''/1,.,.e""~iil'"-',--"'to"":':-,-,:;"'·.:··,:--li,-,.,.,.}S,:--•. ,.,.·i"'"'t~"'fi#""""··;,-,J,-:t;n-· '"'1a"'°;'·1;l'""\,"';';~f,,,::.i~~•;;et,"'_;~"'~"'•·"'.,k.,+.,,;,"'.;.;?,""lt:'."'~=="="" "'===
\•• ·,. '''-•··'='~'!-.. ,~.-_}J .. -'P , .. ""'~-.~r.-~,{.~(:,jf?f~....,...-t""'-ili.~-t..-===?=====
Flood Plain Management 40 CFR 6, Appendix A In 100-year flood plains, actions must be taken
National Historic Preservation Act
78
10 CFR 1022
40 CFR 122
to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, and restore
and preserve the natural and beneficial values of
flood plains.
In areas that potentially erode or release
sediment, controls and best management
practices are to be used to control runoff from
construction activities.
16 USC 470 Requires federal agencies to take into account
1-
4
0_FR_
6
__ -
30
-
1
(-b-) ___________ _, the effect of any federally assisted undertaking
1----------------------1 of licensing in any district site building,
36 CFR Part 800 structure, or object that is included in, or
eligible for inclusion in, the National Register
of Historic Places.
•
•
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Historic Sites, Buildings_, and Antiquities Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Endangered Species Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
79
Table N-2 (Continued)
Location-Specific ARARs
Fonner Chlorine Plant
16 USC469
16 USC 461-467
16 USC 661-666
Establishes procedures to provide for
preservation of historical and archaeological
data that might be destroyed through alteration
of terrain as a result of a federal construction
project of a federally licensed activity or
program.
Requires federal agencies to consider the
existence and location of landmarks on the
National Registry of Landmarks to avoid
undesirable impacts on such landmarks.
Requires consultation when activities modify
any stream or other water body adequate for
protection of fish and wildlife resources.
16 USC 1531 Requires action to conserve endangered species
1-5-0-C_FR_P_a_rt-2-0-0---------------1 within critical habitats on which endangered
species depend and includes consultation with
50 CFR Part 402 Department of Interior.
16 USC 1451 In coast zone areas, requires conducting
activities in accordance with site-approved
management program.
•
• •
.Action Specific ARARS
Action-specific ARARs are technology-or activity-based requirements or limitations on
remedial actions that are implemented at the site. These requirements are triggered by the
particular remedial activities that are selected to accomplish a remedy. Table N-3 presents the
Action Specific ARARS for Alternative 4.
3. Cost-Effectiveness
This section describes how Alternative 4 meets the statutory requirement that all
. Superfund remedies be cost-effective. A cost-effective remedy is one whose "costs are
proportional to its overall effectiveness" (NCP §400.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). The overali effectiveness
cif a remedial alternative is determined by evaluating three of the five balancing criteria }l.~ed in
the detailed analysis of alternatives: (1) Long-term effectiveness; (2) Reduction of toxicity,
mobility and volume; and (3) Short-term effectiveness. The overall effectiveness is then
compared to the cost. In addition, the cost effectiveness of each alternative in relation to one
another is also compared. Table K-1 summarized the cost-effectiveness comparison of the
remedial alternatives for the Former Chlorine Plant Area. Through this comparison, EPA has
determined that Alternative 4 is a cost-effective remedy for the Former Chlorine Plant Area.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to
the Maximum Extent Practicable
Alternative 4 is primarily a containment remedy. The excavation and off-site treatment
of a limited quantity of the mercury contaminated soils in Areas I and 2 will provide permanent
removal of only about 3% of the total mass of mercury in on-site soils. However, the
containment barrier system will effectively contain the majority of the mass of mercury in place
at the site, and will permanently reduce the mass flux of mercury to the groundwater and
ultimately the Roanoke River by an estimated 97%.
As demonstrated during the treatability study work conducted for the site, treatment of
mercury in groundwater is difficult and even when the use of sequential systems the effluent can
not be reliably reduced to below surface water discharge standards. The residual groundwater
contamination outside of the containment system will be reduced by natural processes within a
reasonable period of time, but will not be effective in limiting future exposure to human
receptors without the use of institutional controls. The same would hold true for all of the
alternatives evaluated because each had some residual groundwater contamination which requires
long-term monitoring.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Alternative 4 is primarily a containment alternative, but does include some limited
excavation and treatment within the source Areas I and 2. Contaminants in soils and
-FOrmer Chlorine Plant Ar_ea of the Weyerhaeuser Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 80
Identification and listing of hazardous waste
Table N-3
Action-Specific ARARs
Fonner Chlorine Plant
Title I 5A NCAC Subchapter l 3A.0006
Requirements for hazardous waste generators Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 13A.0I07
Requirements for a hazardous waste transporter Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 13A.0I08
Requirements for a hazardous waste treatment, Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 13A.0I09
·storage, or disposal facility
Requirements for an interim status hazardous Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 13A.01 lO
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility
Treatment standards Title !SA NCAC Subchapter 13A.0112
Classification and water quality standards
applicable to surface water and wetlands in
North Carolina
Effluent limitations
81
Title !SA NCAC Subchapter 2B.0100 and
.0200 .
Title I SA NCAC Subchapter 2B.0400
Provides numerical criteria to determine those
solid wastes that are subject to regulations as
hazardous wastes.
Establishes standards for generators of
hazardous wastes.
Establishes standards for transporters of
hazardous wastes.
Establishes standards for treaters, starers, or
disposers of hazardous wastes.
Establishes. standards for interim status treaters,
storers, or disposers of hazardous wastes.
Provides numerical treatment standards for
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste extracts
before land disposal is allowed.
Establishes a series of numerical standards for
surface water and wetland quality,
Establishes basic permitting and wastewater
treatment requirements for effluent discharge.
•
•
I !
/§J~~fRi'.Q·• ·_-: •· :::::Jilili''' ...
'.:S¥.,J7,f~i{q;f ' '..:: ,,:·~ '
Ambient air quality standard
Emission control standards
Control of toxic air pollutants
Requirements forfogitive non-process dust
emissions
Dredging
Requirements for wastewater discharge to
surface water
General provisions
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act
Classification and water quality standards
applicable to surface water and wetlands in
North Carolina
Note:
Table N-3 (Continued)
Action-Sp~cific ARARs01
Fonner Chlorine Plant
•• 1,
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D Settion .0400
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D Section 0.500
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D Section. 1100
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D Section .0540
15A NCAC Chapter 4
ISA NCAC Chapter 2B
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2H.0100
Title 15 NCAC Subchapter 13B.0!OO
NCGS 130 A, Article 9
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 2B.0IOO and
. 0200
111 Potential action-specific ARARs will be refined through~ul the FS and RD/RA process.
82
Establishes ambient air quality standards for
sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates,
PM 10, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, etc.
Establishes emission standards for seven
contaminants -benzene, mercury, arsenic,
asbestos, beryllium, vinyl chloride, and
radionuclides.
Establishes air toxic threshold concentrations.
Establishes regulations for the release of
fugitive dust from specific sources and
activities.
Erosion and sediment control regulations.
Surface water and wetland standards.
Establishes requirements for the discharge of
effluent from point sources into surface waters.
State-level version of Federal NPDES Program.
Establishes standards and regulations for
generators of solid waste.
Requirements for solid waste generators,
treaters, disposers, and managers.
Establishes a series of numerical standards for
surface water and wetland quality .
'
• I
I
I I
I
l
I
I
I
i~~~t~·.' ., ..... ,,,, ... , ,•,, -'··=•·!,'."·"•,·:,, .• ,,;-·,,'.,_'r;:_:·.-i:·,·_-,.,;--•
:'FtiiJ'Ki/
Identification and listing of hazardous waste
Requirements for hazardous waste generators
Treatment standards
Point sources
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
National primary and secondary ambient air
qu.ality standard
· National emission standards for hazardous air.
pollutants
Dredge or fill requirements (Section 404)
Rivers ·and Harbors Act of 1889
Nole:
Table N-3 (Continued)
Action-Specific ARARs'll
Fonner Chlorine Plant
40 CFR 261 Subpart C
40CFR 262
40 CFR 268 Subpart D
40 CFR Part 400
CWA Part402
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 61
33 USC 1251
40 CFR 230, 231
33.USC 403
1'' Poteotial action-specific ARARs will be refined 1hroughou1 the FS and RD/RA process.
83
Provides numerical criteria to determine those
solid wastes that are subject to regulations as
hazardous wastes.
Establishes standards for generators of
. hazardous wastes.
Provides numerical treatment standards for
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste .extracts
before land disposal is allowed.
Establishes pretreatment concentrations.
Requires permits for the discharge of pollutants
from any point source waters of the United
States. ·
Sets primary and secondary air standards at
levels to protect public health and public
welfare.
Establishes emission standards for seven
contaminants -benzene, mercury, arsenic,
asbestos, beryllium, vinyl chloride, and
radionuclides.
lri areas encompassing aquatic ecosystems,
requires permits for discharge of dredged or fill
material into navigable waiers.
Requires permit for structures or work in or
affecting),avigable waters.
•
•
l::~r:&:m'': : '}~Q!'f : •"' , ... '.,.
:tit~¥iW:~lMi!t~itt.4ftf..
Worker health and safety
Tank systems
Wastewater discharge permits; effluent
guidelines, Best Available Technology (BAT)
and BMPPT
National emission siandards for hazardous air
pollutants
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
Note:
Table N-3 (Continued)
Action-Specific ARARs01
Fonner Chlorine Plant
29 CFR 1910.120
29 CFR.1926
40 CFR Pan 264/265 Subpan J
40 CFR Parts 122, 125,401
40CFR Pan 63
40CFR Pan6
111 Potential action-specific ARARs will be refined throughout the FS and RD/RA process.
84
· Training, personnel protection, medical
monitoring and other health and safety
requirements for employees engaged in
hazardous waste site operations.
Standards for general construction.
Tank systems for the treatment or storage of
hazardous wastes are to be designed and
operated in a manner to prevent releases to the
environment.
Permit requirements for local point source
discharges to waters of the United States;
establishes effluent standards and requirements
for preventing toxic releases.
Source-specific regulations that establish
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs).
Source-specific regulatio_ns with established
testing, control, monitoring, and reporting
requirements for new emission sources.
-,. •
•
•
Phase IV Suppl_emental Proposal on Land
Disposal of Mineral Processing Wastes ·
Requirements for management of hazardous
contaminated media
Off-site rule
U.S. Department of Transportation rules for
hazardous materials transport
No1c:
Table N-3 (Continued)
Action-Specific ARARs('I
Fonner Chlorine Plant
40 CFR Part 261 et al.
40 CFR Part 260 et al.
40 CFR 330.440
49 CFR Part 107 et seq.
111 Potential action•spccific ARARs will be refined throughout the FS and RD/RA process.
85
Supplemental Phase IV LOR rule (!)requires
that the waste residual meet certain lffSs, (ii)
prohibits storage except to facilitate treatment
or disposal, (iii) prohibits the use of dilution to
meet lffSs, and (iv) applies LOR paperwork
requirements to the waste.
Rule that addresses contaminated media that are
currently subject to regulation as hazardous
wastes under RCRA. Allows more flexible
management standards for wastes generated
during site cleanups. Modifies LOR treatment
requirements and gives the USEPA and
authorized states authority to remove certain
wastes from regulation as hazardous waste
under Subtitle C. · ·
Regulates the off-site management of wastes
from the remediation of CERCLA sites.
Provides Hazardous Materials Program
Procedures for transportation of hazardous
materials.
•
•
I .\
• •
groundwater do not combine to pose a potential risk several orders of magnitude greater than the
risk level that is acceptable for the current and reasonable anticipated industrial land use, given
exposure scenarios calculated in both the Human Health and the Ecological risk assessments.
However, there is a significant possibility that, absent remedial action, a release of the large
quantities of mercury present in on-site subsurlace soils may occur, resulting in an unacceptable
risk. The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA use treatment to address the principal
.threats posed by a site wherever practical (NCP §300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). The complex
environmental setting and the limitations of in-situ treatment technologies for the mercury in
soils and groundwater eliminated these treatment alternative. The majority of the so~rce
materials at the Former Chlorine Plant Area can be reliably contained in the long term.
6. Five-Year Reviews
-..
The NCP §300.430 (f)(4)(ii) requires a five-year review if the remedial action results in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This (these) reviews will be conducted every five-years,
and will evaluate whether the remedy remains protective, or will be protective, of human health
and the environment. Alternative 4 will result in hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants remaining in place at the Former Chlorine Plant Area. Pursuant to CERCLA
§ 121(c) and NCP §300.430 (f)(S)(iii)(C), a statutory five-year review is required five years from
the beginning of on-site construction at the Former Chlorine Plant Area site.
0. Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the Landfill No. I site was released for public comment on
July 3, 2003. The Proposes Plan identified Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative for the site.
EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. It
was determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed
Plan, were necessary or appropriate. The Responsiveness Summary is contained in Appendix A,
and the transcript of the Proposed Plan Public Meeting is contained in Appendix B.
F:onner Chlorine Plant Area Of the V(eyerhaeuscr Company Site
Record of Decision
Martin County, NC
September, 2003 86
• •
APPENDIXB
UNITED ST A TES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
ST A TEMENT OF WORK FOR RD/RA
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL VERSION
• •
APPENDIXB
ST A TEMENT OF WORK FOR THE FORMER CHLORINE PLANT AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS ·
Section
I. INTRODUCTION
Il OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY
Ill.
IV.
REMEDY COMPONENTS
PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES
TASK I -Community Relations
TASK Il -Remedial Design .
TASK ill -Remedial Action
A. Remedial Action Planning
B. Preconstruction Conference
C. Prefinal Construction Inspection
D. Final Construction Inspection
E. Interim Remedial Action Report
F. Final Remedial Action Report
TASK IV -Operation and Maintenance
References
A. Performance Standards Verification and
Operation and Maintenance Plan
Summary of Major Deliverables
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
IO
11
11
12
13
13
17
20
• •
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE FORMER CHLORINE PLANT AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMP ANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
I. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Work (SOW) outlines the work to be performed by Settling Defendant
at the Former Chlorine Plant Area (OU-3) at the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth
Wood Treating Plant site, Martin County, North Carolina ("the Site"). The work outlined
is intended to implement the remedy as described in the Record of Decision (ROD) for
OU-3, dated September 29, 2003, and to achieve the Performance Standards set forth in
the ROD, Consent Decree and this SOW. The requirements of this SOW will be further
detailed in work plans and other documents to be submitted by the Settling Defendant for
approval as set forth in this SOW. It is not the intent of this document to provide task
specific engineering or geological guidance. The definitions set forth in Section IV of
the Consent Decree shall also apply to this SOW unless expressly provided otherwise
herein.
Settling Defendant is responsible for performing the Work to implement the selected
remedy. EPA shall conduct oversight of the Settling Defendant's activities throughout
the performance of the Work. The Settling Defendant shall assist EPA in conducting
oversight activities.
Except w_here otherwise provided, EPA review or approval of a task or deliverable shall
not be construed as a guarantee as to the adequacy of such task or deliverable. If EPA
modifies a deliverable pursuant to Section XI of the Consent Decree, such deliverable as
modified shall be deemed approved by EPA for purposes of this SOW. A summary of
the major deliverables that Settling Defendant shall submit for the Work is attached.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY
THE OBJECTIVES OF TIDS REMEDIAL ACTION ARE TO:
Maintain acceptable levels of potential risk to human receptors associated with
exposure to mercury in soil and groundwater at the Former Chlorine Plant area;
Limit the migration of mercury from soil to groundwater and to the adjacent
Roanoke River; .
Reduce levels of mercury in groundwater at a point of compliance to a
concentration of I.I ug/1 in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L.0202(g)(9I) or the
alternative administrative provisions of the North Carolina groundwater 2L rules.
I
• •
ill. REMEDY COMPONENTS
The Remedy for.OU3 includes containment of contaminated soils within the footprint of
the Former Chlorine Plant using a barrier system, a surface cap containment system,
· shallow target area excavations, groundwater mo_nitoring and institutional controls. The
surface cap containment system will require the replacement of pavement over areas
disturbed by the barrier wall installation and the excavation areas, and placement of
pavement over surface soil adjacent to the river which lacks an impervious cover.
A. Components
The major components of the remedy are described in Section M, Selected
Remedy section, of the attached Record of Decision.
B. Performance Standards
Settling Defendant shall meet all Performance Standards, as defined in the
Consent Decree and refined in the Remedial Design, including clean-up levels
and Remedial Action Objectives set forth in the attached Record of Decision, and
in accordance with the Performance Standards Verification and Operation and
Maintenance Plan.
C. Compliance Testing
Settling Defendant shall perform compliance testing to ensure that the
Performance Standards are met. The soils and groundwater shall be tested in
accordance with the Performance Standard Verification and Operation and
Maintenance Plan, developed pursuant to Task IV of this SOW. If monitoring of
the groundwater indicates that the Performance Standards as set forth in Section
M of the Record of Decision, the Consent Decree, and the Performance Standards
Verification Plan are not being achieved, EPA may reevaluate the effectiveness of
the Former Chlorine Plant Area barrier as a source control remedy.
IV PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES
The specific scope of this work shall be documented by Settling_Defendant in the
Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan. Plans, specifications, submittals, and other
deliverables shall be subject to EPA review and approval in accordance with Section XI
of the Consent Decree.
Settling Defendant shall submit a technical memorandum documenting any need for
additional data along with the proposed Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) whenever such
requirements are identified. Settling Defendant is responsible for fulfilling additional
data and analysis needs identified by EPA during the RD/RA process consistent with the
general scope and objectives of the Co.nsent Decree, including this SOW.
2
• •
The major deliverables that are to be developed for this scope of work shall be submitted
in draft form for USEPA review and comment. Final documents shall then be submitted
for USEPA review and approval.
Settling Defendant shall perform the following tasks with respect to implementation of
the remedy specified in the ROD for OU-3:
TASK I -COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The development and implementation of community relations activities are the
responsibility of EPA. At t.he Remedial Design stage EPA is required to review the
Community Relations Plan developed for the RI/FS, and to amend the plan as
appropriate. Although implementation of the community relations plan is the
responsibility of EPA, if requested by EPA, the Settling Defendant shall assist EPA by
providing information regarding the history of OU-3 and participating in public
meetings. In addition, upon request by EPA, the Settling Defendant shall prepare a plan
(hereinafter referred to as the Technical Assistance Plan or TAP). The Tap shall be a
joint TAP for both OU-3 and OUl (the Former No. 1 Landfill) prepared, funded, and
implemented in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the Consent Decree for RD/RA for
OUI.
The extent of the Settling Defendant's involvement in community relations activ'ities is
left to the discretion of EPA. In addition to devising and administering the Technical
Assistance Plan, all other community relations responsibilities EPA may assign to the
Settling Defendant shall be specified in the community relations plan. All community
relations activities conducted by Settling Defendant shall be subject to oversight by EPA.
TASK II -REMEDIAL DESIGN
The Remedial Design shall provide the technical details for implementation of the
Remedial Action in accordance with currently accepted environmental protection
technologies and standard professional engineering and construction practices.
The development of the detailed Remedial Design for the remedy outlined in the ROD,
the Consent Decree and this SOW, \\/ill be initiated by the Settling Defendant within 30
days after receipt of notice of the authorization to proceed. The design shall include
clear and comprehensive design plans and specifications. The-final-design will be
submitied to EPA for review and approval as an attachment to the Remedial Action Work
Plan described in Task ill.
Any pre-design data collection activities associated with this SOW will be performed
following plans developed and utilized during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study activities conducted under Administrative Order by Consent (EPA Docket No: 98-
10-C), and in particular, the approved Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, the approved
Quality Assurance Project Plan, and the reviewed.Health and Safety Plan. Settling
3
• •
Defendant shall provide EPA with 10 days notice prior to performing field sampling
activities.
TASK ill -REMEDIAL ACTION
Remedial Action shall be performed by Settling Defendant to implement the response
actions selected in the ROD. It is possible that the implementation of the schedule for
this SOW will coincide with the remedial actions for OU 1. Should such a situation arise,
EPA will allow revi~ion of the schedule for RA implementation to offset major
construction activities associated with the implementation of the remedies for OUl and
OU3. The Preconstruction Conference for OU3 will be scheduled after the Prefinal
Construction Inspection for OU 1.
A. Remedial Action Planning
Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of the authorization to proceed, Settling
Defendant shall commence submittal of monthly progress reports and continue
such reports until ttie draft RA Work Plan has been submitted. The reporting
schedule will then revert to the interval noted in the requirements for the project
management plan. The monthly reports shall be consistent with the format noted
in Section X of the Consent Decree.
Within 90 days of receipt of the notice of the authorization to proceed, Settling
Defendants shall meet or participate in a conference call with EPA to discuss the
current status of the RD/RA deliverables.
Within 180 days of receipt of the notice of the authorization to proceed, Settling
Defendant shall submit a draft Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan (including the
Remedial Design), a Project Delivery Strategy, a Construction Management Plan,
a Construction Quality Assurance Plan, and a Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingency Plan. The RA Work Plan (and associated Remedial Design), a
Project Delivery Strategy, Construction Management Plan, and Construction
Quality Assurance Plan must be reviewed and approved by EPA and the
Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan reviewed by EPA prior to
the initiation of the Remedial Action.
Upon approval of the RA Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall implement the RA
Work Plan in accordance with the construction management schedule,
Significant field changes to the RA as set forth in the RA Work Plan shall not be
undertaken without the approval of EPA. The RAshall be documented in enough
detail to produce as-built construction drawings after the RA is complete.
Deliverables shall be submitted to EPA for review and approval in accordance
with Section XI of the Consent Decree. Review and/or approval of submittals
does not imply acceptance of later submittals that have not been reviewed, nor
that the remedy, when constructed, will meet Performance Standards.
4
• •
1. RA Work Plan
A Work Plan which provides a detailed plan of action for completing the
RA activities shall be submitted to EPA for review and approval. The
objective of this work plan is to provide for the safe and efficient
completion of the RA. The Work Plan shall be developed in conjunction
with the Project Delivery Strategy, Construction Management Plan, the·
Construction·Quality Assurance Plan, and the Construction Health and
Safety Plan/Contingency Plan. These plans may be appended or delivered
under separate cover. The Work Plan shall include a comprehensive
description of the work to be performed and the Final Construction
schedule for completion of each major activity and submission of each
deliverable.
Specifically, the RA Work Plan shall present the following:
a. A statement of the problem(s) and potential problem(s) posed
by OU-3 and the objectives of the RD/RA.
b. A background summary that references the approved RI, and
FS reports and presents a synopsis of applicable .information
including:
1) A brief description of OU-3 including the geographic
location and·site features.
2) A brief synopsis of the history of OU-3 including past
disposal practices and a description of previous work
conducted.
c. A brief summary of the existing data including physical and
chemical characteristics of the contaminants identified and
including new information and data that is collected after initiation
of the RD/RA activities, and their distribution in erivironmental
media at OU-3.
d. A detailed description of the tasks to be performed and a
description of the work products to be submitted to EPA. This
includes the deliverables set forth in the remainder of Task III.
e. A schedule for completion of each required activity and
. submission of each deliverable required by the Consent Decree,
including those in this SOW. This schedule shall also include
information regarding timing, initiation and completion of all
critical path milestones for each activity and/or deliverable
including EPA document review and approval. The schedule shall
5
• •
incorporate the uncertain length of agency review activities by
reflecting in the work plan schedule the trigger date for revisions
as the date of receipt of agency comments plus a specified number
of days to address comments.
f. A project management plan, including provision for quarterly
reports ( monthly reports during design and construction) to EPA.
EPA's Project Coordinator and the Settling Defendant's Project ·
Coordinator will meet, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis, unless
EPA determines that such meeting is unnecessary. The data
management plan shall address the requirements for project
management systems, including tracking, sorting, and retrieving
the data along with an identification of the software to be used,
minimum data requirements, data format and backup data
management. The plan shall address both data management and
document control for all activities conducted during the RD/RA.
g. A description of the community relations support activities to
be conducted during the RD/RA, consistent with the EPA prepared
community relations plan. At EPA's request, Settling Defendant
shall assist EPA in preparing and disseminating information to the
public regarding the RD/RA work to be performed.
h. An attachment, which presents the remedial design, which shall
include the following:
1. Results of Data Acquisition Activities
Data gathered during the design phase, if any, shall be compiled,
summarized, and submitted along with an analysis of the impact of
the results on design activities. Surveys conducted to establish
topography, rights-of-way, easements, and utility lines shall be
documented. Utility requirements and acquisition of access,
through purchases or easements, that are necessary to implement
· the RA shall also be discussed.
11. . Plans and Specifications
A complete set of construction drawings and specifications for all
components of the Remedial Action shall be prepared and.
submitted. All plans and specifications shall conform with the
Construction Specifications Institute Master Format, and the scope
of the technical specifications shall be outlined in a manner
reflecting the final specifications. Design calculations shall be
included. All Final Design documents shall be certified by a
6
• •
Professional Engineer registered in the State of North Carolina.
EPA written approval of the Final Design is required before
initiating the RA, unless specifically authorized by EPA.
iii. · Plan for Satisfying Permitting Requirements
All activities must be performed in accordance with the
requirements of applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
Any off-site disposal shall be in compliance with the requirements
set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Consent Decree. The plan shall
identify the off-site disposal/discharge permits that are required,
the time required to process the permit applications, and a schedule
for submittal of the permit applications.
1 v. Construction Schedule
Settling Defendant shall develop and submit a Construction
Schedule to EPA for approval. The Schedule will include the
construction and implementation of the remedial action and will
identify the timing for initiation and completion of all critical path
tasks. Settling Defendant shall specifically identify dates for
completion of the project and major milestones.
2. Project Delivery Strategy
Settling Defendant shall submit a document to EPA for review and
approval describing the strategy for delivering the project. This document
shall address the management approach for implementing the Remedial
Action, including procurement methods and contracting strategy, phasing
alternatives, and contractor and equipment availability concerns. If the
construction of the remedy is to be accomplished by Settling Defendant's
"in-house" resources, the document shall identify those resources.
3. Construction Management Plan
A Construction Management Plan shall be developed to _indicate how the
col)struction activities are to be implemented and coordinated with EPA
during the RA. Settling Defendant shall designate a person to be a
Remedial_ Action Coordinator and its representative on-site during the
Remedial Action, and identify this person in the Plan. This Plan shall also
identify other key project management personnel and lines of authority,
and provide descriptions of the duties of the key personnel along with an
organizational chart. In addition, a plan for the administration of
construction changes and EPA review and approval of those changes shall
be included.
7
• •
4. Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Settling Defendant shall develop and implement a Construction Quality
Assurance. Program to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that
the completed Remedial Action meets or exceeds all design criteria, plans
and specifications, and Performance Standards. The Construction Quality
Assurance Plan shall incorporate relevant provisions of the Performance
Standards Verification Plan (see Task V). At a minimum, the·
Construction Quality Assurance Plan shall include the following elements:
a. A description of the quality control organization, including
a chart showing lines of authority, identification of the
members of the Independent Quality Assurance Team
(IQAT), and acknowledgment that the IQAT will
implement the control system for all aspects of the work
specified and shall report to the project coordinator and
EPA. The !QA T members shall be representatives from
testing and inspection organizations and/or the Supervising
Contractor and shall be responsible for the QA/QC of the
. Remedial Action.· The members of the IQAT shall have a
good professional and ethical reputation, previous
experience in the type of QA/QC activities to be
implemented, and demonstrated capability to perform the
required activities. They shall also be independent of the
construction contractor.
b. The name, qualifications, duties, authorities, and
responsibilities of each person assigned a QC function ..
c. Description of the observations and control testing that will
be used to monitor the construction and/or installation of
the components of the Remedial Action. This includes .
information which certifies that personnel and laboratories
performing the tests are qualified and the equipment and
procedures to be used comply with applicable standards.
Any laboratories to be used shall be specified. ·
Acceptance/Rejection criteria and plans for implementing
corrective measures shall be addressed.
d. A schedule for managing submittals, testing, inspections,
and any other QA function (including those of contractors,
subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, purchasing agents,
etc.) that involve assuring quality workmanship, verifying
compliance with the plans and specifications, or any other
8
5.
• •
QC objectives. Inspections shall verify compliance with all
environmental requirements and include, but not be limited
to, air quality particulate monitoring records and waste
disposal records, etc.
e. Reporting procedures and reporting format for QA/QC
activities including such items as daily summary reports,
schedule of data submissions, inspection data sheets,
problem identification and corrective measures reports,
evaluation reports, acceptance reports, and final
documentation.
f. · A list of definable features of the work to be performed. A .
definable feature of work is a task which is separate and
distinct from other tasks and has separate control
requirements.
Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan
Settling Defendant shall prepare a Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingency Plan in conformance with Settling Defendant's health
and safety program, and in compliance with OSHA regulations. The
Construction Health and Safety Plan shall include a health and safety risk
analysis, a description of monitoring and personal protective equipment,
medical monitoring, and site control. EPA will not approve Settling
Defendant's Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan, but
rather EPA will review it to ensure that all necessary elements are
included, and that the plan provides for the protection of human health and
the environment. This plan shall include a Contingency Plan and
incorporate Air Monitoring and Spill Control and Countermeasures Plans .
if determined by EPA to be applicable for OU-3. The Contingency Plan is
to be written for the on-site construction workers and the local affected
population. It shall include the following items:
a. Name of person who will be responsible for coordinating
responses in the event of an emergency incident.
b. Plan for initial OU-3 construction safety indoctrination and
training for all employees/contractors, etc., participating in
the RA, name of the person who will give the training and
the topics to be covered.
c. Plan and daie for a pre-construction meeting or conference
call (if requested by EPA) to brief the local community,
9
B.
• •
including local, state and federal agencies involved in the
cleanup, as well as the local emergency squads and the
local hospitals, regarding the schedule and expected
activities to be conducted on-site.
d. A list of the first aid and medical facilities including,
location of first aid kits, names of personnel trained in first
aid, a clearly marked map with the route to the nearest
medical facility, all necessary emergency phone numbers
conspicuously posted at the job site (i.e., fire, rescue, local
hazardous material teams, National Emergency Response
Team, etc.)
e. Plans for protection of public and visitors to the job site.
f. A Spill Control and Countermeasures Plan which, if
determined to by EPA to be applicable, shall include the
following:
I) Contingency measures for potential spills and
discharges from materials handling and/or transportation.
2) A description of the methods, means, and facilities
required to prevent contamination of soil, water,
atmosphere, and uncontaminated structures, equipment, or
material by spills or discharges.
3) A description of the equipment and personnel necessary
to perform emergency measures required to contain any
spillage and to remove spilled materials and soils or liquids
that become contaminated due to spillage. This collected
spill material must be properly disposed of.
4) A description of the equipment and personnel to
perform decontamination measures that may be required
for previously uncontaminated structures, equipment, or
material.
Preconstruction Conference
A Preconstruction Conference shall be held after selection of the construction
contractor but before initiation of construction. This conference shall include
Settling Defendant, EPA and NCDENR and may include other appropriate
federal, state and local government agencies. The conference shall:
10
• •
I. Define the roles, relationships, and responsibilities of all parties;
· 2. Review methods for documenting and reporting inspection data;
3. Review methods for distributing and storing documents and
reports;
4. Review work area security and safety protocols;
5. Review the Construction Schedule;
6. Conduct a site reconnaissance to verify that the design criteria and
the plans specifications are understood and to review material and
equipment storage locations.
The Preconstruction Conference must be documented, including names of people
in attendance, issues discussed, clarifications made, special instructions issued,
etc.
C. Prefinal Construction Inspection
Upon preliminary project completion Settling Defendant shall notify EPA for the
purpose of conducting a Prefinal Construction Inspection. Participants should
include the Project Coordinators, Supervising Contractor, Construction
Contractor, Natural Resource Trustees and other federal, state, and local agencies
with a jurisdictional interest. The Prefinal Inspection shall consist of a walk-
through inspection of the OU-3 project site. The objective of the inspection is to
determine whether the construction is complete and consistent with the Consent
Decree. Any outstanding construction items discovered during the inspection
shall be identified and noted on a punch list. Additionally, treatment equipment
shall be operationally tested by Settling Defendant. Settling Defendant shall
certify that the equipment has performed to effectively meet the purpose and
intent of the specifications. Retesting shall be completed where deficiencies are
revealed. A Prefinal Construction Inspection Report shall be submitted by
Settling Defendant which outlines the outstanding construction items, actions
required to resolve the items, completion date for the items, and an anticipated
date for the Final Inspection.
D. Final Construction Inspection (if requested by EPA)
Upon completion of all outstanding construction items, Settling Defendant shall
submit an amended Prefinal Constructi.on Inspection Report with a new section to
document the response actions taken to resolve outstanding construction items
identified during the Prefinal Construction Inspection. If EPA determines that
the outstanding construction items are resolved, EPA shall approve the amended
11
--------·------------------------------tt • •
Prefinal Construction Inspection Report in lieu of performing a Final
Construction Inspection.
IfEPA determines that a Final Construction Inspection is appropriate; EPA shall
notify the Settling Defendant for the purpose of conducting a Final Construction
Inspection. The Final Construction Inspection shall consist of a walk-through
inspection of the OU-3 project site. The Prefinal Construction Inspection Report
shall be used as a check list with the Final Construction Inspection focusing on·
the outstanding construction items identified in the Prefinal Construction
Inspection. All tests that were originally unsatisfactory shall be conducted again.
Confirmation shall be made during the Final Construction Inspection that all
outstanding items have been resolved. Any outstanding construction items
discovered during the inspection still requiring correction shall be identified and
noted on a punch list. If any items are still unresolved, the inspection shall be
considered to be a Prefinal Construction Inspection requiring another Prefinal
Construction Inspection Report and subsequent Final Construction Inspection.
E. Interim Remedial Action Report
Within sixty (60) days following the (i) cqnclusion of the Final Construction
Inspection or (ii) date upon which Settling Defendant receives notice that the
Prefinal Construction Inspection Report is approved, and that a Final
Construction Inspection will not be required, Settling Defendant shall submit an
Interim Remedial Action (RA) Report. EPA will review the draft report and will
provide comments to Settling Defendant. The Interim RA Report shall be
generally.consistent with EPA guidance for preparing the report (Close Out
Procedures for National Priorities List Sites, EPA, OSWER Directive 9320.2-
09A-P) and include the following:
1. Introduction, providing a brief history_ and description of the site
2. Operable Unit Background
3. Construction Activities
4. Chronology of Events, including a projection of when clean-up
levels for the groundwater will be achieved
5. Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control
6. Final Inspection and Certifications
7. Operation and Maintenance Activities
12
• •
After EPA review, Settling Defendant shall address any comments and submit a
revised report. The Remedial Action shall be complete when EPA approves the
Interim RA Report. However, the long term remedial action will not be
considered complete until all cleanup goals have been achieved. Further details
can be found in the following Section F.
F. Final Remedial Action Report
Within thirty days (30) days following the receipt of sampling data documenting
the achievement of all cleanup goals specified in the ROD, the Settling Defendant
shall submit a Final Remedial Action (RA) Report. EPA will review the draft
report and will provide comments to Settling Defendant. The Final RA Report
shall be consistent with EPA guidance for preparing the report (Close Out
Procedures for National Priorities List Sites, EPA, OSWER Directive 9320.2-
09A-P). When an interim RA report has already been prepared, the interim RA
report can be simply amended to create the final RA report. The amendment
would add information on activities that occurred after the interim RA report was
completed.
TASK IV -PERFORMANCE STANDARDS VERIFICATION AND OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
Settling Defendant shall submit a Performance Standard Verification and
Operation and Maintenance Plan (PSV/OM Plan) 30 days after EPA approval of
the RA workplan. The PSV/OM Plan must be reviewed and approved by EPA
prior to initiation of Operation and Maintenance activities. If necessary, the
PSV/OM Plan shall be modified to incorporate any design modifications
implemented during the Remedial Action. Performance Standard Verification
and Operation and Maintenance shall be performed in accordance with the
approved PSV/OM Plan.
Upon approval of the PSV/OM Plan, Settling Defendant shall implement the
PSV/OM Plan in accordance with the schedule contained therein. This plan shall
describe start-up procedures, operation, troubleshooting, training, and evaluation
activities that shall be carried out by Settling Defendant. The plan shall address
the following components:
A. Operation and Maintenance Plan
1. Description of normal operation and maintenance;
a. Description of tasks required for barrier and cap system
maintenance;
13
• •
b. Schedule showing the required frequency for each O&M
task.
2. Description of potential operating problems;
a. Description and analysis of potential maintenance
problems;
b. Sources of information regarding problems; and
c. Common remedies or anticipated corrective actions.
3. Safety Plan;
4.
5.
6.
a. Description of precautions to be taken and required health
and safety equipment, etc., for site personnel protection.
Description of equipment;
a. Equipment identification;
b. Installation of monitoring components;
C. Maintenance of site equipment; and
d. Replacement schedule for equipment and installation
components.
Records and reporting;
a. Laboratory records;
b. Records of operating cost;
C. Mechanism for reporting emergencies;
d. Personnel and Maintenance Records; and
e. Quarterly reports to State/Federal Agencies.
Description of monitoring and laboratory testing;
a. Description of monitoring tasks, (including performance
standards verification as described in the following section)
14
• •
b. Description of required laboratory tests and their
interpretation;
c. · Required QA/QC; and
d. Schedule of monitoring frequency and date, if appropriate,
when monitoring may ceas~.
B. Performance Standards Verification Component of the Plan
Performance monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that both short-term
and long-term Performance Standards for the Remedial Action are met.
Guidances used in developing the Sampling and Analysis Plans during prior
RI/FS or RD activities at the Site shall be used. Once approved, Settling
Defendant shall implement the Performance Standards Verification monitoring on
the approved schedule. The Performance Standards Verification Component of
the Plan shall include:
1. Direction for all fieldwork by defining in detail the sampling and
data gathering methods to be used. It shall include sampling
objectives, sample location (horizontal and vertical) and
frequency, sampling equipment and procedures, and sample
handling and analysis. The information shall be written so that a
field sampling team unfamiliar with OU-3 would be able to gather
the samples and field information required.
2. Description of the quality assurance and quality control protocols
which will be followed in demonstrating compliance with
Performance Standards. Quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) protocols that shall be used to achieve the desired DQOs.
The DQOs shall, at a minimum, reflect use of analytical methods
for obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet National
Contingency Plan requirements as identified at 300.435 (b). In
addition, the QAPP shall address personnel qualifications,
sampling procedures, sample custody, analytical procedures, and
data reduction, validation, and reporting. These procedures must
be consistent with the Region IV Environmental Compliance
Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
Manual and with the guidances specified in Section VIII of the
Consent Decree. If a laboratory has not been previously approved
for use on the Site, Settling Defendant shall demonstrate in
advance and to EPA's satisfaction that the laboratory is qualified to
conduct the proposed work and meets the requirements specified
in Section VIII of the Consent Decree. EPA may require that
15
• •
Settling Defendant submit detailed information to demonstrate that
the laboratory is qualified to conduct the ·work, including
information on personnel qualifications, equipment and material
specification, and laboratory analyses of performance samples
(blank and/or spike samples). In addition, EPA may require
submittal of data packages equivalent to those generated by the
EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). If a selected laboratory
is not currently participating in the CLP, methods consistentwith
CLP methods that would be used at this site for the purposes
proposed and QNQC procedures approved by EPA, shall be used.
3. Specification of those tasks to be performed by Settling Defendant
to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Standards and a
schedule for the performance of these tasks.
16
•
REFERENCES
The following list, although not comprehensive, comprises many of the regulations and
guidance documents that apply to the RD/RA process. Settling Defendant shall review
these guidances and shall use the information provided therein in performing the RD/RA ·
and preparing all deliverables under this SOW.
I. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
Final Rule", Federal Register 40 CFR Part 300, March 8, 1990.
2. "Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook," U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, June 1995, OSWER Directive No.
9355.O-4B.
3. "Interim Final Guidance on Oversight of Remedial Designs and Remedial
Actions Performed by Potentially Responsible Parties," U.S. EPA, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, February 14, 1990, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.5-01.
4. "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
Under CERCLA, Interim Final," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, October 1988, OSWER Directive.No. 355.3-01.
5. "Interim Final Guidance on Data Quality Objectives Process for
· Superfund," U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
EPN540/G-93/07 l, September 1993, OSWER Directive No. 9335.9-01.
6. "Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project
Plans," U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH,
QAMS-004/80, December 29, 1980.
7. "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance
Project Plans," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
QAMS-005/80, December 1980.
8. "Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual," U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental
Services Division, February I, 1991, (revised periodically).·
9. '.'USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganics
Analysis," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July
1988.
17
• •
10. "Quality in the Constructed Project: A Guideline for Owners, Designers,
and Constructors, Volume 1, Preliminary Edition for Trial Use and
Comment," American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1988.
11. . "Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, July 9, 1987, OSWER Directive No. 9234.0-05.
12. "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual," Two Volumes, U.S.
EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, August 1988 (Draft),
OSWER Directive No. 9234.1-01 and-02.
13. "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at
Superfund Sites," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, (Draft), OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-2.
14. "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA," U.S. EPA,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Pre-publication Version.
15. "Health and Safety Requirements of Employees Employed in Field
Activities," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July
12, 1981, EPA Order No. 1440.2.
16. "Standard Operating Safety Guides," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, November 1984.
17. "Standards for General Industry," 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Health
and Safety Administration.
18. "Standards for the Construction Industry," 29 CFR 1926, Occupational
Health and Safety Administration.
19. "NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods," 2d edition. Volumes I -VII, or
the 3rd edition, Volumes I and II, National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health.
20. "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste
Site Activities," National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health/Occupational Health and Safety Administration/United States
Coast Guard/ Environmental Protection Agency, October 1985.
21. "TL Vs -Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for
1987 -88," American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
18
• •
22. "American National Standards Practices for Respiratory Protection,"
American National Standards Institute ZSS.2-1980, March 11, 1981.
19
• •
SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR DELIVERABLES FOR THE
REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMP ANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
DELIVERABLE EPA RESPONSE
TASK I COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Technical Assistance Plan (if necessary)
TASK II REMEDIAL DESIGN
TASKID REMEDIAL ACTION
RA Work Plan (4)
Remedial Design (4), including:
Results of Data Acquisition
Activities
Plan for Satisfying Permitting
Requirements
Plans and Specifications
Construction Schedule
Complete Design Analyses
Project Delivery Strategy (4)
Construction Management Plan (4)
Construction Quality Assurance
Plan (4)
Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingency Plan (4)
Prefinal Construction
20
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Comment
Review and Approve
•
Inspection Report (4)
Interim RA Report (5)
Final RA Report (5)
•
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
TASK IV PERFORMANCE STANDARD VERIFICATION AND OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
Performance Standard Verification and
Operation and Maintenance
Plan (4) Review and Approve
* NOTE: The number in parenthesis indicates the number of copies to be submitted by
Settling Defendant. Additional copies to be provided if requested by EPA .
. 21
• •
.APPENDIXC
MAP OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
WEYERHAEUSER SITE, PLYMOUTH, NC
NOTES
0
I
i I '
I /,----,
/'
·----tc.:__~:,,J_--,......;_____
1. f!.'SE MAP PRODUCED BY PI-IOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA SERVICES. INC.
2. ESTIMATED MERCURY ISOCONCENTRATIONS lN SUBSURFACE SOIL
DCT[RMINEO fROM FlCURE 5-1A Of THE REMEDIAL
\NV[STIGA.TlON REPORT· (RIIT 2000).
J. SUBSURfACE SOil MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS PRESiENTtD FOR
8 TO O FT. NCVD29. (0-8 FT BCS)
TARGET
AREA 1
·rr--I
I ~_)
. I/_,, --~ . ·,., ·--
'-i
TARGET
AREA2
. . .
•~-•-._··,.·,·,.
0 40•
SCALE: 1•.40•
.J,!31ENJ>:...___,~....,...,.,...,,,,,,.,,......,=,..,,..--APPROXIWAT[ LOCATION Of fORM[R [OUIPMCHT
AND SUBSURFACE UTILITIES
EXISTlHC EQUIPMENT
N'PROXIMAT[ EXT£NT or 4-fOOT DUP SOIL
EXCAVAOON (HI.A. 1g92)
BURIED CONCRETE SLABS
-10-ESTIW.T£D txTENT Of TOTAi.. MERCURY,
ISOCONCENTRATION IN SOil {mg/kg)
PROPOSED TARCCT AREA EXCAVATION UMl-r.i
-'PPROXIMAI[ txrENT or OISSOLVC[l MERCURY
;::: 1 ,,q/L IN CROUNOWATtR
fENC[ UN£
PROPOS[O BARRIER WALL AUCNMENl •
lmEND CCONTJ
...
TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRAllOHS IN SOIL
~1000'"9/lr.9
TOTAL MERCURY CONCf:NTRMlONS
;:tlOOmg/k9
TOTAL MERCIJRY CONCENTRATIONS
:tlOmtj!/kg
PROJ£CT, f'EMIIBIUTY SlUJY
IN~.l.
" son.
WEYEIHABJOEROQ
MARTlt OOtMTY. NORTH CAROUNA
SHEET TTflE: ALTERNATIV'E 4 • .
CONTAINIIBff WITH GROlNJWAlER COliFUANCE AND mecD IIIICNTDftlNG
.-,aor,(l) .,., SMI 00.TC ~ ~ .. =.,~..,=.e~,.,.,=-1 JUN 11 1003
lf!!'!I.~ ' •
. 1110. ll&ICILIJ
M0.!11~.!Jalll
Flgure J-2
4. GROUND SVRfACE (l£VAllON N'PROXl1""TnY 8 ru:T NG\ltl29.
~d .. dhi
" .... --------------------------------------~--..... ----
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing"'
July 28, 2004
Mr. Willie Hardison.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Water Quality Division, Groundwater Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Variance Request for Abandonment of Wells
Dear Mr. Hardison:
Corporate Headquarters
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Tel {153) 9141345
IDJil @Tfi~ rn\~1
l\f\1 AUG .,,_. S 2004 \~
SUPERFUND SECllON
Weyerhaeuser Company is requesting a variance to 15A NCAC 02C .0113(b)(1)(C) to allow two
groundwater monitoring wells to be abandoned without disinfecting the wells prior to abandonment.
TI1e two wells scheduled for abandonment are groundwater monitoring wells, CP-08-1 and CP-08-2,
for Weyerhaeuser's Former Chlorine Plant site in Martin County, Plymouth, North Carolina (see
attached figure).
As previously approved by EPA, these wells are to be abandoned and replaced since they are
currently located in an area where surface water occasionally accumulates after rainfall events.
Replacement wells will be located approximately 15 feet west of their current locations. Total well
depths and screened intervals of the replacement wells will be consistent with the existing wells.
Well abandonment and replacement will be conducted by Parratt-Wolff, Inc who will be under
contract with RMT, Inc., the EPA-approved Supervising Contractor for the Former Chlorine Plant.
This variance is requested since the introduction of hypochlorite into the abandoned wells will
change the redox condition of the groundwater, resulting in the unpredictable altering of dissolved
mercury concentrations that will be measured in the adjacent replacement wells. As such, we are
concerned that the generation of useful information on the fate of mercury at the site will be
questionable. For this reason, we are requesting a variance for the requirement for a disinfectant.
Given the local stratigraphy underlying the Former Chlorine Plant, we do not believe that
abandonment of these wells without chlorination will compromise potable water at the Plymouth mill
or vicinity. (Regional geology and hydrogeology for the Plymouth area is further described in the
EPA's Record of Decision for the Former Chlorine Plant, September 2003, and in the Former Chlorine
Plant Feasibility Study, RMT, Inc., June 2003.)
Weyerhaeuser would very much appreciate your verbal approval for our request before Wednesday,
August 4, when the wells are scheduled to be abandoned. I can be reached at 253-924-6650. Please
call rne or Kris Krause, RMT, Inc. (608-662-5178) if you have any questions. Thank you for your
assistance with our request.
• •
.J •
Sincerely, ~ :::;oo/ ~
Former Chlorine Plant Project Manager
KK/MS
Attachments: Figure
cc: Randy Bryant-USEPA
Nile Testerman -NCDENR
Kris Krause -RMT, Inc.
Bill Morris -Weyerhaeuser
John Gross -Weyerhaeuser
•
0 ""°"'
[[I
o.,,.....
pr:_, ··-···----~~-----. , '.,/D<.Jc11cw .. _._
L£GEND
r----, , ___ ,
....... .......
@CP-08-2
FORMER (OUIP!l(NT ANO SUBSURf'ACE ununrs
EXISTING EOOf>iJENT ...... OCEP SOIL BORING LQC.I.TION
GRQUNQW,1,TER t.lONllORING WELL LOCATJON
S£00,IENT SAMPLING LOCATION
MlNI-Pl(ZO~R LOCATION
EXTENT OF SOIL EXCAVATION (HlA 1992)
BURIED COl>lCRE fE SL>BS PORE WATER SAMPUNC LOCATION
GEOPROBE ~RING LOCATION ABANDONED t.lCrilTORJNG WEU
SURfACE SOIL ;AMPU~ LOCA.TlON
SHAU.OW SOL '30RlNG LOCATION
!!l SEDIMENT PROBE LOCATION (FOR DCPTH OF
SEDIMENT}
AREA Of INltR[Sl
CURRENT t.lONlrclRING W!:LL @CP-08-2R REPI..ACEWENT WON!TORING WELL LOCATION
TO BE ABANDONED
NOTES
BASE MAP PRODUCED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRJC DATA SERVICES,
INC.
DETAILS OF MAP DETERMINED FROM FIGURE 5 OFF HLA (1992),
WEYERHAEUSER 1951 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS OF THE FORMER
CHLORINE'·PLANT, AND FIELD MEASUREMENTS TAKEN BY
WEYERHAEUSER STAFF.
PROJECT:
I
0 30' 50·
I I
SCALE: 1 "-30'
WEYERHAEUSER CO,
MARTIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET TITLE: FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
WEU ABANDONMENT/REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS
DRAWN BY: MARTINT SCALE:
CHECKED BY: BSJ 1· = 30'
APPROVED BY: KOK
DATE: JULY 2004
DATE PRINTED:
1111 7 A ,nn,.
PROJ. NO. 05100.68
F1L£ NO. 51006802.DWG
FIGURE 1
.. a f:Ac-1ury -----------"--....
m E 7# Heartland Troil E a No<Jjson, W1 53717-1934
;
~z ii lfljlfflP
0
P.O. Box 8923 5J708-8923 oO N @CP-~1L<K'ATED 10· @FrH or SYM.OOL 'fJIIB Phon 608 831 .u.u
.!: 0 D vi Fax: ~OB-831-3334
~ls~
1
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ,._ ____________________________ _.
0011>0
-------'•L___----------1•,___ ___ _
A Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing™
June 1, 2004
Corporate Headquarters
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Tel {253) 924 2345
Mr. Randy Bryant
RemediaJ Project Manager
USEPA, Region N
Waste Management Division
SUPERFUND SECTION
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11 th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Subject: Consent Decree for Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA)
Former Chlorine Plant, Martin County, North Carolina
Weyerhaeuser Company, Plymouth, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Bryant:
Pursuant to· the Consent Decree for RDIRAfor OU3 (Section V 1-Performance of the
Work by Settling Defendant, paragraph l 0, Selection of Supervising Contractor),
Weyerhaeuser Company is notifying the USEPA that RMT North Carolina, Inc. will
serve as the Supervising Contractor.
RMT' s qualifications for this work include the prior implementation of the Consent
Decree for RD/RA for Operable Unit l at the Plymouth landfill site. RMT is prepared to
begin implementing this Consent Order for Operable Unit 3 immediately, in accordance
with all requirements.
Please contact me at 253-924-6650 if you have any questions or need additionaJ
information.
s~~
Melody SyQw
Environmental Manager
Weyerhaeuser Company
Cc: John Gross, Weyerhaeuser
Joe Jackowski, Weyerhaeuser
Kathy Huibregtse, RMT
Kris Krause, RMT
{S,,i'/1 t17cn·1'.S ( l, / 2 / a •-t)
--•t------1•1-------
A. Weyerhaeuser
The future is growing'
June 9, 2004
Mr. Randy Bryant
Remedial Project Manager
USEPA, Region IV
Waste Management Division
61 Forsyth Street S.W., l Ith Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Corporate Headquarters
PO Box 9777
Federal Way WA 98063-9777
Tel [phone]
Subject: Consent Decree for Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Former Chlorine Plant, Martin County, North Carolina
Weyerhaeuser Company, Plymouth, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Bryant:
In accordance with Section XII, paragraph 41 of the Consent Decree for RD/RA for OU3,
the purpose of this letter is to provide you with information about the individuals
designated as Weyerhaeuser's Project Coordinator and Alternate Project Coordinator for
the remedial work at the Former Chlorine Plant. The names, addresses, and phone
numbers of these designees is provided below.
Project Coordinator
Melody Sydow
Weyerhaeuser Company
Mail Stop EC2 2C I
PO Box 9777
Federal Way, WA 98063-9777
Alternate Project Coordinator
Bill Morris
Weyerhaeuser Company
NC Highway 149 North
Plymouth, NC 27962
These individuals have the technical expertise sufficient to adequately oversee all aspects
of the Work, and are submitted for your review subject to disapproval by EPA. Please
call me (253-924-6650) if you have any questions.
;:z·~
Melody Syd
Environme al Manager
cc: John Gross -Weyerhaeuser
Bill Morris -Weyerhaeuser
Joe Jackowski -Weyerhaeuser
Kris Krause -RMT Inc.
Kathy Huibregtse -RMT
• I. I< \
IN THE UN1TED ST ATES DISTRJCT COURT i i · "' ··"·•--
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJCT OF NORTH CAROLINA__ _ -;1r/1'f&, ( ( ;-,ei:
EASTERN DNISION ,, 1\ " ~--,,\1,,,,,.·.-., .. : ~;,£-::.--~
! --~. \~ ~1c.c1,o~ UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA
Plaintiff,
V.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
Defendant.
) CNIL ACTION N0~3eG\':!90(H)(3)
)
)
)
)
)
-------------)
(E:: Qiiiill!IJ ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Enter the proposed Consent Decree between
the United States of America and Weyerhaeuser Company, and the briefs submitted by the
parties in support thereof, if any, it is this rt, of fivr~ 2003,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign and enter the
. ; ~
Consent Decree as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58.
-.: '~~-~: ::-,:., ~·-;:~ ' -'
:··;:\:_:;'(_,:,.; ;'·\/';·;:: ---~---.>--
·. ··-.,· .•.. __ ,..,. ,_.;· ~ ... --::' .. , .. ,,-.. ·.::.:.--:.:.-~.--/
DATE:
• U.S. Department -stice
Janice McKenzie Cole
United States Attorney
. Eastern District of North Carolina
Terry Sanford Federal Building -U.S. Courthouse
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1461
M E M O R A N D U M
August 21, 2003
Telephone [phone]
Criminal FAX[phone] ·
Civil FAX [phone] /
www.usdoj.gov/wao/nce
TO: Amy R. Gillespie, Trial Attorney (Federal Express)
Environmental Enforcement Section
FROM:
RE:
Environment & Natural Resources Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
P. 0. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
FRANK D. WHITNEY, United States Attorney
BY: R. A. RENFER, JR., ADSA
Civil Division, Raleigh, NC 27601-1461
USA v. Weyerhaeuser Company
No. 4:03-CV-90-H(3)
USAO# 2003V0666
Transmitted herewith for your use and information in the
above-captioned action is a copy of the fol_lowing document (s) :
sb
Encls.
Order filed 8/18/03
Consent Decree for RD/RA FOR OUl filed 8/18/03.
cc: Elizabeth Davis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
(W/cpy of encls)
David Stearns, FLU
• •
IN THE UN1TED ST ATES DISTRJCT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CARO
. EASTERN DIVISION
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERJCA
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4,:03:f!V-9o-//(3)
V.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE FOR RD/RA FOR OUJ
, .
' -
I.
II.
ill.
IV.
V.
VJ.
VII.
vm.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
xm.
XIV.
xv ..
XVI.
XVII.
xvm.
XIX.
xx.
XXI.
XXII.
xxm.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
xxvm.
XXIX.
XXX ..
XXXI ..
XXXII.
xxxm.
XXXIV.
XXXV.
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND .............................................. · ......... I
JURISDICTION .................. : .................................... 2
PARTIES Bornm ..................................................... 2
DEFINITIONS ........................................................ 3 ·
GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................. 5
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANT ..................... 7
REMEDY REVIEW .................................................... 10
QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DAT A ANALYSIS .................... 11
ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ................................. 12
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 16
EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS ....................... 17
PROJECT COORDINATORS .............................................. 18
ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK ............................. 19
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION ........................................ 19
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................... 21
PAYMENTS FOR RESPONSE COSTS ....................................... 21
lNDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ..................................... 23
FORCE MAJEURE ..................•................................. 24
DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............... · ................................. 25
STIPULATED PENALTIES .............................................. 27
COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY PLAINTIFF ......... .-................ :· ....... 30
COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANT .................................. 32
EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION ............... : ...... 33
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ..................... , ........ , ............... 34
RETENTION OF RECORDS ...................... ;_ ................. · ...... 35
NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS ...................... · ...................... 35
EFFECTIVE DATE ............................ : .... : .................. .36
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION .......................................... 36
APPENDICES ....................................................... 37
COMMUNrrY RELATIONS ........................................... ~ .. 37
MODIFICATION ...................................................... 38
LODGING AND OpPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ........................ 38
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES FOR SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE ............... ·. 38
SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................... 39
FINAL JUDGMENT ................................................... 39
•
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJCT OF NORTH CARO
. EASTERN DNISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA
Plaintiffs,
v.
CNIL ACTION NO. 4,:03-ev-t?o-ll{,j
WEYERHAEUSER COMP ANY,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE FOR RD/RA FOR OUJ
I.
Il.
ill.
IV.
V.
VI.
Vil.
vm.
IX.
X .
. XI.
xn.
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
XVI.
xvn.
xvm.
XIX.
xx.
XXL
xxn.
xxm.
XXIV.
XXV ..
XXVJ.
. XXVII.
xxvm.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
xxxrr .. -
XXXIII.
XXXIV.
XXXV.
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ....................... -................................ I
-JURJSDICTION ...................................... · ................. 2
PARTIES BOUND ..................................................... 2
DEFINITIONS ........................................................ 3 -
GENERAL PROVISIONS . : ............................................... 5
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANT ..................... 7
REMEDY REVIEW .................................................... 10
QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS .................... 11
ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ................................. 12
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 16
EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS ....................... 17
PROJECT COORDINATORS ............... -.............................. 18
ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK ............................. 19
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION ........................................ 19
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................. · .. 21
PAYMENTS FOR RESPONSE COSTS ... · .................................... 21
INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ..................................... 23
FORCE MAJEURE ................... , .................. • ............... 24
DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............... : ..................... : .......... 25
STIPULATED PENALTIES .............................................. 27
COVENANTS Nor TO SUE BY PLAINTIFF .......................... :· ....... 30
COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANT .................................. 32
EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRJBUTION PROTECTION ............... '. ...... 33
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ..................... f ........•............... 34
RETENTION OF RECORDS ...................... · ........................ 35
NOTICES AND·SUBMISSIONS ........................................... 35
EFFECTIVE DATE ............................. ' .................... : .. 36
RETENTION OF JURJSDICTION .......................................... 36
APPENDICES ....................................................... 37
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ......................... : ................. _-.. 37
MODIFICATION ...... : ........................... : ................... 38
LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ........................ 38
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES FOR SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE ................ 38
SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................... 39
FINAL JUDGMENT ................................................... 39
• •
I. BACKGROUND
A. The United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), filed a complaint in this matter
pursuant to Sections l06 and l07 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607.
B. The United States in its complaint seeks, inter alia: (I) reimbursement of costs
incurred by EPA and the Department of Justice for response actions at the Weyerhaeuser
Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in Martin County, North Carolina, together with
accrued interest; and (2) performance of studies and response work by the defendant at OU!
consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (as amended) ("NCP").
C. In accordance with the NCP and Section 12l(f)(l)(F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 9621 (f)(I )(F), EPA notified the State of North Carolina (the "State") on September 4, 2002, of
negotiations with the potentially responsible party regarding the implementation of the remedial
design and remedial action for the Former Landfill No. I, and EPA has provided the State with
an opportunity to participate in such negotiations and be a party to this Consent Decree.
D. In accordance with Section 1220)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 96220)(1 ), EPA
notified the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on September 4, 2002, of negotiations with the potentially
responsible party regarding the release of hazardous substances that may have resulted in injury
to the natural resources under Federal trusteeship and encouraged the trustees to participate in the
negotiation of this Consent Decree.
E. Ttie defendant that has entered into this Consent Decree ("Settling Defendant")
does not admit any legal conclusions, fault or liability to the Plaintiff or to any other p;rson or
en.tity arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the: complaini, nor does it
acknowledge that the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from OU I
constitutes an imminent or substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the
environment.
F. In response to a release or a substantial threat of a release of a hazardous
substance(s) at or from the Site, the Settling Defendant, commenced on March 24, I 998, a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("Rl/FS") for the Site pi.:rsuant to 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.430. This Rl/FS encompassed three source areas, including: (I) the Former Landfill No. I,
and the soils, groundwater, and surface water impacted by the Former Landfill No. J, (2) the
Former Chlorine Plant, and soils, sediments and groundwater impacted by that plant, and (3) the
sediments and surface water contained in· Welch Creek and associated wetlands .. For the
purposes of this Consent Decree, these three source areas will be considered three Operable Units
. ("OUs"), and the Former Landfill No. I, which is the subject of this Consent Decree, is termed
"OU!".
G. The Settling Defendant completed the Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report and
the Feasibility Study ("FS") for OU! on March 14, 2002.
H. Pursuant to Section 117 of CERCLA, 42 U,S.C. § 9617, EPA published notice of
the completion of the FS and of the proposed plan for remedial action for OU I on March 27,
2002, in a major local newspaper of general circulation. EPA provided an opportunity for
•
written and oral comments from the public on the proposed plan for remedial action. A copy of
the transcript of the public meeting is available to the public as part of the adrninistrative record
upon which the Regional Administrator based the selection of the response action.
I. The decision by EPA on the remedial accion to be implemented for OU! is·
embodied in a final Record of Decision ("ROD"), executed on June 19, 2002, on which the State
has given its concurrence. The ROD includes a responsiveness summary to the public
comments. Notice of the final plan was published in accordance with Section 1 I 7(b) of
CERCLA.
J. Based on the information presently available to EPA, EPA believes that the Work
will be properly and promptly conducted by the Settling Defendant if conducted in accordance
with the requirements of this Consent Decree and its appendices.
K. Solely for the purposes of Section l 13(j) of CERCLA, the Remedial Action
selected by the ROD and the Work to be performed by the Settling Defendant shall constitute a
response action taken or ordered by the President.
L. The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that
this Consent Decree has been negotiated by t_he Parties in good faith and implementation of this
Consent Decree will expedite the cleanup of OU! and will avoid prolonged and complicated
litigation between the Parties, and that this Consent D.ecree is fair, reasonable, and in the public
interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:
II. ,)URISDICTION
I. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, of this actjon pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607, and 96r'3(b). This Court also has
personal jurisdiction over the Settling Defendant. Solely for the puTTJOSes of this Consent Decree
and the underlying complaint, Settling Defendant waives all objections and defenses that it may
have to jurisdiction of the Court or to venue in this District. Settling Defen_dant shall not
challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court's jurisdiction to enter and enforce this
Conse_nt Decree.
III. PARTIES BOUND
2. This Consent Decree applies to and is binding upon the United States and upon
Settling Defendant and its successors and assigns. Any change in ownership or corporate status
of Settling Defendant including, but not limited to, any transfer of assets or real or personal
property, shall in no way alter Settling Defendant's responsibilities under this Consent Decree .
. 3. Settling Defendant shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree to each contractor·
hired to perform the Work (as defined below) required by this Consent Decree and to each person
representing Settling Defendant with respect to OU! or the Work and shall condition all
contracts entered into hereunder upon performance of the Work in conformity with the terms of
this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant or its contractors shall provide written notice_ of the
Consent Decree to all subcontractors hired to perform any portion of the Work required by this
Consent Decree. Settling Defendant shall nonetheless be responsible for ensuring that its
2
• •
contractors and subcontractors perform the Work contemplated herein in accordance with this
Consent Decree. With regard to the activities undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree, each
contractor and subcontractor shall be deemed to be in a contractual relationship with the Settling
Defendant within the meaning of Section !07(b)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b)(3).
IV. DEFINITIONS
4. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Consent Decree
which are defined in CERCLA or in regulations promulgated under CERCLA shall have the
meaning assigned to them in CERCLA or in such regulations. Whenever terms listed below are
used in this Consent Decree or in the appendices attached hereto and incorporated hereun~er, the
following definitions shall apply:
"CERCLA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.
"Consent Decree" shall mean this Decree and all appendices attached hereto (listed in
Sectio_n XXIX). In the event of conflict between this Decree and any appendix, this Decree shall
control.
"Day" shall mean a calendar day unless expressly stated to be a working day. "Working
day" shall mean a day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. In computing any
period of time_ under this Consent Decree, where the.last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday,
or Federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next working day.
"Effective Date" shall be the effective date of this Consent Decree as provided in
Paragraph 99.
"EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency and any successor
departments or agencies of the United States. i
"NCDENR" shall mean the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and any successor departments or agencies of the State'.·
"Future Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including, but not limited to, direct and
indirect costs, that the United States incurs in reviewing or developing plans, reports and other
items.pursuant to this Consent Decree, verifying the Work, or otherwise implementing,
overseeing_, or enforcing this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, payroll costs,
contractor costs, travel costs, laboratory costs, the costs incurred pursuant to Sections VII, IX
(including, but not limited to, the cost of attorney time and any monies paid to secure access
and/or to secure or implement institutional controls including, but not limited to, the amount of
just compensation), XV, and Paragraph 82 of Section XXL Future Response Costs shall also
include all Interim Response Costs not reimbursed pursuant to Paragraph SO.a. ·
"Interim Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including direct and indirect costs,
(a) paid by the United States in connection with OU! between March 14, 2002, and the Effective
Date, or (b) incurred prior to the Effective Date but paid after that date.
"Interest," shall mean interest at the rate specified for interest on investments of the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund established by 26 U.S.C. § 9507, compounded annually on
October I of each year, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). The applicable rate of interest
3
• •
shall be the rate in effect at the time the interest accrues. The rate of interest is subject to change
on October 1 of each year.
"National Contingency Plan" or "NCP" shall mean the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9605, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and any amendments there:to.
"Operation and Maintenance" or ''O & M" shall mean all activities required to maintain
the effectiveness of the Remedial Action as required under the Operation and Maintenance Plan
approved or developed by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree and the Statement of Work
(SOW). ' . .
"Operable Unit l" or "OU l" shall mean the Former Landfill No.!, located in the
Northwest portion of the Weyerhaeuser Company Property located on State Road 1565, near the
Town of Plymouth in.Martin County, North Carolina, and the soils, groundwater and surface
water impacted by Former Landfill No. 1, which is depicted generally on the map attached as
Appendix C.
"Paragraph" shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by an arabic numeral
or an upper case letter.
"Parties" shall rnean the United States and the Settling Defendant.
"Past Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including, but not limited to, direct and
indirect costs, which pre-date the Administrative Order on Consent entered into betw~eil EPA
and Weyerhaeuser dated March 24, 1998, that the United States paid at or in connection with the
Site through March 23, 1998, plus Interest on all such costs which has accrued pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 9607(a) through such date.
' ' "Performance Standa_rds" shall mean the cleanup levels and other measures of
achievement of the.goals of the Remedial Action Objectives, sei forth in Sections J and M of the
ROD and Section ill of the SOW r
"Plaintiff" shall mean the United States.
_ "RCRA" shall mean the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et
seq. (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).
"Record of Decision" or "ROD" shall mean the EPA Record of Decision relating to OU!
signed on June 19, 2002, by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region_ 4, or his delegate, and all
attachments thereto. The ROD is attached as Appendix A:
"Remedial Action" shall mean those activities, except for Operation and Maintenance, to
be undertaken by the Settling Defendant to implement the ROD, in accordance with the SOW
and the final Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plans and other plans approved by
EPA.
"Remedial Action Work Plan" shall mean the document developed pursuant to
Paragraph 12 of this Consent Decree and approved by EPA, and any amendments thereto.
"Remedial Design" shall mean those activities to be. undertaken by the Settling Defendant
to develop the final plans and specifications for the Remedial Action pursuant to the Remedial
4
• •
Design Work Plan.
"Remedial Design Work Plan" shall mean the document developed pursuant to
Paragraph 11 of this Consent Decree and approved by EPA, and any amendments thereto.
"Response Costs" shall mean costs incurred by EPA in accordance with CERCLA 42
U.S.C. § 9601, et. seq., as amended.
"Section" shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by a Roman numeral.
"Settling Defendant" shall mean Weyerhaeuser Company.
"Site" shall mean the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site.
"State" shall mean the State of North Carolina.
"Statement of Work" or "SOW" shall mean the statement of work for implementation of
the Remedial Design, Remedial Action, and Operation and Maintenance at OU I, as set forth in
Appendix B to this Consent Decree and any modifications made in accordance with this Consent
Decree.
"Supervising Contractor" shall mean the principal contractor retained by the Settling
Defendant to supervise and direct the implementation of the Work under this Consent Decree.·
.
"United States" shall mean the United States of America.
"Waste Material" shall mean (I) any "hazardous substance" under Section 10 I (14) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14); (2) any pollutant or contaminant under Section 101(33), 42
U.S.C. § 9601(33); (3) any "solid waste" under Section 1004(27) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 6903(27).
' .
"Work" shall mean all activities Settling Defendant is required to perform under this
Consent Decree, except those required by Section XXV (Retention_ of Records).
V. GENERAL PROVISIONS ! .
5. Objectives of the Parties. The objectives of the Parties in entering into this
Cons~nt.Decree are to protect public health or welfare or the environment at the Site by the
design and implementation of response actions at OU I by the Settling Defendant, to reimburse
response costs of the Plaintiff, and to resolve the claims of Plaintiff against Settling Defendant as ·
provided in this Consent Decree.
6. Commitments by Settling Defendant. Settling Defendant shall finance and
perform the Work in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD, the SOW, and all work
plans and other plans, standards, specifications, and schedules set forth herein or developed by
Settling Defendant and approved by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant
shall also reimburse the United States for Past Response Costs and Future Response Costs as
provided in this Consent Decree.
7. Compliance With Applicable Law. All activities undertaken by Settling
Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Settling Defendant must
. also comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of all Federal and state
5
• •
environmental laws as set forth in the ROD and the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by EPA, shall be considered to be consistent with the NCP.
8. Permits,
a. As provided in Section 121 (e) of CERCLA and Section 300.400(e) of the
NCP, no permit shall be required for any portion of the Work conducted entirely on-site (i.e.,
within the areal extent of contamination or in very close proximity .to the contamination and
necessary for implementation of the Work). Where any portion of the Work that is not on-site
requires a federal or state permit or approval, Settling Defendant shall submit timely and
complete appiications and take all other actions necessary to obtain a_ll such permits or approvals.
b. The Settling Defendant may seek relief under the provisions of Section
XYill (Force Majeui-e) of this Consent Decree for any delay in the performance of the Work
resulting from a failure to obtain, or a delay in obtaining, any permit required for the Work.
c. · This Consent Decree is not, and shall not be construed to be, a permit
issued pursuant to any federal or state statute or regulation.
· 9. • Notice to Successors-in-Title.
a. Within 30-days after the entry of this Consent Decree, the Settling
Defendant shall submit to EPA for review and approval a notice to be filed with the office of the
Register of Deeds, Martin County, State of North Carolina, which shall provide notice to all
successors-in-title that OU! is part of the property, that EPA selected a remedy for OU! on June
19, 2002, and that the potentially responsible party has entered into a Consent Decree requiring
implementation of the remedy. Such notice(s) shall identify the United States District Court in
which the Consent Decree was filed, the name and civil action number of this case, and the date
the Consent Decree was entered by the Court. The Settling Defbndant shall record the notice(s)
within 30 days ofEPA's approval of the notice(s). The Settling Defendan·t shall provide EPA
with a certified copy of the recorde_d notice(s) within 20 days of recording such notice(s). . .
b. At least 30 days prior to the conveyance of any interest in property located
within OU! including, but not limited to, fee interests, leasehold interests, and mortgage
· interests, the Settling Defendant shall give the grantee written notice of (i) this Consent Decree,
(ii) any instrument by which an interest in real property has been conveyed that confers a right of
access to OU I (hereinafter referred to as "access easements") pursuant to Section IX (Access and
Institutional Controls), and (iii) any instrument by which an interest in real property has been
conveyed that confers a right to enforce restrictions on the use of such property (hereinafter
referred to as "restrictive easements") pursuant to Section IX (Access and Institutional Controls).
At least 30 days prior to such conveyance, the Settling Defendant shall also give written notice to
EPA and the State of the proposed conveyance, including the name and address of the grantee,
and the date on which notice of the Consent Decree, access easements, and/or restrictive
easements was given to the grantee.
c. In the event of any such conveyance, the Settling Defendant's obligations
under this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, its obligation to provide or secure access
and institutional controls, as well as to abide. by such institutional controls, pursuant to Section
IX (Access and Institutional Controls) of this Consent Decree, shall continue to be met by the
6
• •
. Settling Defendant. In no event shall the conveyance release or otherwise affect the liability of
the Settling Defendant to_ comply with all provisions of this Consent Decree, absent the prior
written consent of EPA. lfthe United States apprnves, the grantee may perform some or all of
the Work under this Consent.Decree.
VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANT
JO. Selection of Supervising Contractor.
a. All aspects of the Work to be performed by Settling Defendant pursuant to
Sections VI (Performance of the Work by Settling Defendant); Vil (Remedy Review), VIlI
(Quality Assurdnce, Sampling and Data Analysis), and XV (Emergency Response) of this
Consent Decree shall be under-the direction and supervision of the Supervising Contractor, the
. selection of which shall be subject to disapproval by EPA. Within JO days after the lodging of
this.Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall notify EPA_ in writing of the name, title, and
qualifications of any contractor proposed to be the Supervising Contractor. With respect to any
contractor proposed to be Supervising Contractor, Settling Defendant shall demonstrate that the.
proposed contractbr has a quality system that complies with ANSI/ ASQC E4-l 994,
"Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and
Environmental Technology Programs," (American National Standard, January 5, I 995), by .
submitting a copy of the proposed contractor's Quality Management Plan (QMP). The QMP
should be prepared in accordance with "EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans
(QA/R-2)" (EPN240/B-0J/002, March 2001) or equivalent documentation as determined by
EPA. EPA will issue a notice of disapproval or an authorization to proceed. If at any.time
thereafter, Settling Defendant proposes to change a Supervising Contractor, Settling Defendant
shall give such notice to EPA. and must obtain an auth_orization to proceed from EPA bcefore the
new Supervising Contractor performs, directs,-or supervises any Work under this Consent . . ~--,
b. If EPA disapproves a proposed Supervising Contractor, EPA will notify
Settling Defendant in writing. Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA a list of contractors,
including the qualifications of each contractor, that would be acceptable to them within 30 days
of receipt of EPA's disapproval of the contractor previously proposed. EPA will provide written
notice.of the names of any contractor(s) that it disapproves and an authorization to proceed with
respect to any of the other contractors. Settling Defendant may select any contractor from that
list that is not disapproved·and shall notify EPA of the name of the contractor selected within 30
days of EPA's authorization to proceed.
c. If EPA fails to provide written notice of its authorization to proceed or
disapproval as provided in this Paragraph and this failure preve'nts the Settling Defendant from
meeting one or more deadlines. in a plan approved by.the EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree,
Settling Defendant may seek relief under the provisions of Section XVIlI (Force Majeure) hereoL
11. . Remedial Design.
a. Within 60 days after EPA's issuance of an authorization to proceed
pursuant to Paragraph 10, Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State a work plan for
the design of the Remedial Action at OU I ("Remedial Design Work Plan" or "RD Work Plan").
The Remedial Design Work Plan shall provide for design of the remedy set forth in the ROD, in
7
• •
accordance with the SOW and for achievement of the Performance Standards and other
requirements set forth in the ROD, this Consent Decree and/o,· the SOW. Upon its approval by
EPA, the Remedial Design Work Plan shall be incorporated into and become enforceable under
this ConsentDecree. Wiihin 60 days after EPA's issuance of an authorization to proc_eed, the
Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State a Health and Safety Plan for field design
activities which conforms to the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
EPA requirements including, but n·ot limited to, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120.
b. The Remedial Design Work Plan shall include plans and schedules for
implementation of all remedial design and pre-design tasks identified in the SOW, including, but
not limited to, plans and schedules for the completion of: (I) design Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP) (including, but not limited to, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in accordance
with Section YID (Quality Assurance, Sampling and Data Analysis)); (2) a Construction Quality
Assurance Plan; (3) a conceptual design submittal; (4) a preliminary design submittal; and (5) a
pre-final/final design submittal. In addition, the Remedial Design Work Plan shall include a
schedule for completion of the Remedial Action Work Plan. ·
c. Upon approval of the Remedial Design Work Plan by EPA, after a
reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, and submittal of the Health and
Safety Plan for all field activities to EPA and the State, Settling Defendant shall implement the
Remedial Design Work Plan. The Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State all
plans, submittals and other deliverables required under the approved Remedial Design Work
Plan in accordance with the approved schedule for review and approval pursuant to Section XI
(EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Unless otherwise directed by EPA-, Settling
Defendant shall not commence further Remedial Design activities at OU! prior to approval of
the Remedial Design Work Plan.
d. The conceptual design submittal shall include, at a minimum, the
following: (I) results of additional field sampling and pre-design work, if any; (2) design criteria;
(3) basis of design; and (4) plans for satisfying permitting requin;ments. .
e. The preliminary design submittal shall include, at a minimum, the
following: (I) preliminary plans, drawings and sketches; (2) required specifications in outline
form; and (3) preliminary construction schedule. ·
f. The pre-final/final design submittal shall include, at a minimum, the
following: (I) final plans and specifications; (2) Operation and Maintenance Plan; (3)
Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan ("CQAPP"); (4) Field Sampling Plan (directed at
measuring progress towards meeting Performance Standards); and (5) Contingency Plan. Any
value engineering proposals must be identified and evaluated during this review. The CQAPP,
which shall detail the approach to quality assurance during construction activities at OU I; shall
specify a quality assurance official ("QA Official"), independent of the Supervising Contractor,
to conduct a quality assurance program during the construction phase of the project.
. 12. Remedial Action.
a. Within 30 days after the approval of the prefinal/final design, Settling
Defendant shall submit to EPA and the State a draft work plan for the performance of the
Remedial Action at OU! ("Remedial Action Work Plan"). The Remedial Action Work Plan
8
• •
shall provide for construction and implementation of the remedy set forth in the ROD and_
achievement of the Performance Standards, in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD,
the SOW, and the design plans and specifications developed in accordance with the Remedial
Design Work Plan and approved by EPA. Upon its approval by EPA, the Remedial Action Work.
Plan shall be incoJ1lorated into and become enforceable under this Consent Decree. At the same
time as it-submits the Re·medial Action Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA and
the State a Health and Safety Plan for field activities required by the Remedial Action Work Plan
which conforms to the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA
requirements including, but not limited to, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120.
b. The Remedial Action Work Plan shall include the following: (1)
description of tasks and deliverables with a schedule for completion of the Remedial Action; (2)
strategy for project delivery; (3) construction management plan, including the project
management team; and (4) a construction quality assurance plan, including relevant portions of
the performance standards verification plan. The Remedial Action Work Plan also shall include
the methodology for implementation of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan and a schedule
for implementation of all Remedial Action tasks identified in the final design submittal and shall
identify the initial formulation of the Settling Defendant's Remedial Action Project Team
(including, but not limited to, the Supervising Contractor). Additional details are included in the
Statement of Work.
c. Upon approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan by EPA, after a
reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, Settling Defendant shall implement
the activities required under the Remedial Action Work Plan. The Settling Defendant shall
submit to EPA and the State all plans, submittals, or other deliverables required under the
approved Remedial Action Work Plan in accordance with the approved schedule for review and
approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Unless
otherwise directed by EPA, Settling Defendant shall not commeAce physical Remedial Action
activities at OU! prior to approval of the Remedial Action Work P\an.
13. The Settling Defendant shall continue to implement the Remedial Action and
O&M until the Performance Standards are achieved and for.so long thereafter as is otherwise
required under this Consent Decree.
14. Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans.
a. IfEPA determines that modification to the work specified in the SOW
and/or in work plans developed pursuant to the SOW is necessary to achieve and maintain the
Performance Standards or to carry out and maintain the effectiveness of the remedy set forth in
the ROD, EPA may require that such modification be incOJ1lOrated in the SOW and/or such work
plans, provided, however, that a modification may only be required pursuant to this Paragraph to
the extent that it is consistent with the "scope of the remedy selected in the ROD".
b. For the puJ1loses of this Paragraph 14 and Paragraph 47 only, the "scope of
the remedy selected in the ROD" is: Cover system for the entire Former Landfill No. I, Natural
Recovery with monitoring of the wetlands and Institutional Controls for groundwater use.
c. If Settling Defendant objects to any modification determined by EPA to be
necessary pursuant to this Paragraph, it may seek dispute resolution pursuant to Section XIX
9
• •
(Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 65 (record review). The SOW and/or related work plans shall
be modified in accordance with final resolution of the dispute.
d. Settling Defendant shall implement any work required by any
modifications incorporated in the SOW and/or in work ;,Jans developed pursuant to the SOW in
accordance with this Paragraph.
e. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed to limit EPA's authority to
require performance of further response actions as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree.
IS. Settling Defendant acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Consent Decree,
the SOW, or the Remedial Design or Remedial Action Work Plans constitutes a warranty or
representation of any kind by Plaintiff that compliance with the work requirements set forth in
the SOW and the Work Plans will achieve the Performance Standards.
16. a. Settling Defendant shall, prior to any off-site shipment of Waste Material
from OU! to an out-of-state waste management facility, provide written notification to the
. appropriate state environmental official in the receiving facility's state and to the_ EPA Project
Coordinator of such shipment of Waste Material. However, this notification requirement shall
not apply to any such off-site shipments when the total volume of all such shipments will not
exceed IO cubic yards.
(I) The Settling Defendant shall include in the written notification the
following informadon; where available: (I) the name and location of the facility to which the
Waste Material is to be shipped; (2) the type and quantity of the Waste Material to be __ shipped;
(3) the expected schedule for the shipment of the Waste Material; and (4) the method of
transportation. The Settling Defendant shall notify the state in which the planned receiving
facility is located of major changes in the shipment plan, such as a decision to ship th1tWaste
Material to another facility within the same state, or to a facility in another state.
(2) The identity of the receiving facility.and state will be determined
by the Settling Defendant following the award of the contract for Remedial Action construction.
The Settling Defendant shall provide the information required by Paragraph 16.a as soon as
practicable after the award of the contract and before the Waste Material is actually shipped.
b. Before shipping any hazardous substances, pollutants, or c·ontaminants
from OU! to an off-site location, Settling Defendant shall obtain EPA's certification that the
proposed receiving facility is operating in compliance with the requirements of CERCLA Section
l2l(d)(3) and 40 C.F.R. 300.440. Settling Defendant shall only send hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants from OU I to an off-site facility that complies with the requirements
of the statutory provision and regulations cited in the preceding sentence.
VII. REMEDY REVIEW
17. Periodic Review. Settling Defendant shall conduct any studies and investigations
as requested by EPA, in order to permit EPA to conduct reviews of whether the Remedial Action
is protective of human health and the environment at least every five years as required by Section
l2l(c) of CERCLA and any applicable regulations.
18. EPA Selection of Further Response Actions. In accordance with Section 121(c)
10
• •
of CERCLA, if EPA determines, at any time, that the Remedial Action is not protective of
human health and the environment, EPA may select further response actions for OU! in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP.
19. Opportunity To Comment. Settling Defendant and, if required by Sections
113(k)(2) or 117 of CERCLA, the public, will be provided with an opportunity to comment on
any further response actions proposed by EPA as a result of the review conducted pursuant to
Section 12l(c) of CERCLA and to submit written comments for the record during the comment
period.
VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS
20. Settling Defendant shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain of
custody procedures for all design, compliance and monitoring samples in accordance with "EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QNRS)" (EPN240/B-01/003, March 2001)
"Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QNG-5)" (EPN600/R-98/018, February 1998),
and subsequent amendments to such guidelines upon notification by EPA to Settling Defendant
of such amendment. Amended guidelines shall apply only to procedures conducted after such
notification. Prior to the commencement of any monitoring project under this Consent Decree,
Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA for approval, after a reasonable opportunity for review
and comment by the State, a Quality Assurance Project Plan ("QAPP") that is consistent with the
SOW, the NCP and with the Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. If relevant to the proceeding, the Parties agree that
validated sampling data·generated in accordance with the QAPP(s) and reviewed and·approved
by EPA shall be admissible as evidence, without objection; in any proceeding under this Decree.
Settling Defendant shall ensure that EPA personnel and its authorized representatives Jre allowed
access at reasonable times to all laboratories utilized by Settling pefendant in implementing this
Consent Decree. In addition, Settling Defendant shall ensure that such laboratories shall analyze
all samples·submitted by EPA pursuant to the QAPP for quality ass_urance monitoring. Settling
Defendant shall ensure that the laboratories it utilizes for the analysis of samples taken pursuant
to this Decree.perform all analyses according to accepted EPA methods. Accepted EPA methods
consist of those methods which are documented in the "Contract Lab Program Statement of
War~ for Inorganic Analysis" and the "Contract Lab Program Statement of Work.for Organic
Analysis," dated February 1988, and any amendments made thereto d11ring the course of the
implementation of this Decree; however, upon approval by EPA, after opportunity for review and
comment by the State, the Settling Defendant may use other analytical methods which are as
stringent as or more stringent than the CLP-approved methods. Settling Defendant shall ensure
that all laboratories it uses for analysis of samples taken pursuant to this Consent Decree
participate in an EPA or EPA-equivalent QNQC program. Settling Defendant shall only use
laboratories that have a documented Quality System which complies with ANSUASQC E4-l994,
"Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and
Environmental Technology Programs," (American National Standard, January 5, 1995), and
"EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans (QNR-2)," (EPN240/B-01/002, March
2001) or equivalent documentation as determined by EPA. EPA may consider laboratories
accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) as
meeting the Quality System requirements. Settling Defendant shall ensure that all field
methodologies utilized in collecting samples for subsequent analysis pursuant to this Decree will
I I
• •
be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the QAPP approved by EPA.
21. Upon request, the Settling Defendant shall allow split or duplicate samples to be
taken by EPA or its authorized representatives. Settling Defendant shall nctify EPA not less than
21 days in advance of any sample collection activity uniess shorter notice is agreed to by EPA.
In addition, EPA shall have the right to take any additional samples that EPA deems necessary
and EPA will endeavor to provide seven (7) days notice to Settling Defendant in advance of any
such sample collection activity. Upon request, EPA shall allow the Settling Defendant to. take
split or duplicate samples of any samples it takes as part of the Plaintiffs oversight of the Settling
Defendant's implementation of the Work. EPA will make available to Settling Defendant a copy
of the validated results of any analysis made of such samples and the associated data validation
package.
22. Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA one (I) copy of the results of all validated
analytical data generated by the Settling Defendant with respect to the implementation of this
Consent Decree unless EPA agrees otherwise, and shall submit these results quarterly as
provided in Section X.
23. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States hereby
retains all of its information gathering and inspection authorities and rights, including
enforcement actions related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any other applicable statutes or
regulations.
IX. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
24. · If OU!, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are
needed to implement this Consent Decree, is owned or controlled by the Settling Defendant,
Settling Defendant shall:
a. commencing on the date of lodging of this Consent Decree, provide access .
to the United States and its representatives, including EPA and its,contrnctors, each endeavoring
to provide five (5) days notice to Settling Defendant, and·.with the presence of representatives of
Settling Defendant, and which representatives shall be made available at EPA's request at all
reasonable times to OU!, or such other property, for the purpose of conducting any activity
related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, the following activities:
(I).· Monitoring the Work;
(2) Verifying any data or information submitted to the United States;
(3) Conducting investigations relating to contamination at or near
OU!;
(4) Obtaining samples;
(5) Assessing the need for, planning, or implementing additional
response actions at or near OU I;
(6) Assessing implementation of quality assurance and quality control
· practices as defined in the approved Quality Assurance Project Plans;
(7) Implementing the Work pursuant to the conditions set forth in
12
• •
Paragraph 82 of this Consent Decree;
(8) Inspecting and copying records, operating logs, contracts, or other
documents maintained or generated by Settling Defendant or its agents, .:or.sistent with Section
XXIV (Access to Information);
(9) Assessing Settling Defendant's compliance with this Consent
Decree; and
(10) Determining whether OU 1 or other property is being used in a
manner that is prohibited or restricted, or that may need to be prohibited or restricted, by or
pursuant to this Consent Decree;
b. commencing on the date of lodging of this_ Consent Decree, refrain from
using OU 1, or such other property, in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed
pursuant to this Consent Decree. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to: prohibition
against the use of the groundwater on or near Fonner Landfill No. 1 as a potable drinking water
source; limitation of the Fonner Landfill No. 1 Surface area to industrial use; no disturbance of
soil is permitted, including for installation of utilities, without prior notification to and approval
from DENR or its successor in function, any sampling required by DENR, and submittal to
DENR or its successor in function of analyses of such sampling, along with plans and procedures
to protect human health and the environment during the proposed activities. Additionally, the
owner of OU 1 must annually submit a notarized Land Use Restrictions Update that c~_rtifies that
the Land Use Restrictions Document remains recorded at the office of the Register of Deeds in
its original form and place, and that the land use restrictions contained therein are being complied
with; and ·
' ,
c. Settling Defendant shall execute and record in the office of the Register of
Deeds of Martin County, State of North Carolina, an easement, runriing with the land, that (i)
grants a right of access for the purpose of conducting any activity'ielated to this Consent Decree
including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree, and
(ii) grants the right to enforce the land/water use restrictions listed in Paragraph 24.b of this
Cons~nt Decree, or other restrictions that EPA determines are necessary to implement, ensure
non-interference with, or ensure the protec)iveness of the remedial m~asures to be performed
pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant shall grant the access rights and the rights to
enforce the land/water use restrictions to (i) the United States, on behalf of EPA, and its
representatives, (ii) the State and its representatives, (iii) one or more of the following grantees,
as determined by EPA: USFWS and NOAA. Settling Defendant shall, within 60 days of EPA's
request, submit to EPA for review and approval with respect to such property:
(1) a draft easement, in substantially the form to be provided by EPA,
that is enforceable under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
(2) a current title insurance commitment or some other evidence of
title acceptable to EPA, which shows title to the land described in the easement to.be free
and clear of all prior liens and encumbrances (except when those liens or encumbrances
are approved by EPA or when, despite best efforts, Settling Defendant is unable to obtain
release or subordination of such prior liens or encumbrances).
13
• •
Within 30 days of EPA's approval and acceptance of the easement and the title evidence, Settling
Defendant shall update the title search and, if it is determined that nothing has occurred since the
effective date of the commitment to affect the title adversely, record the easement with the office
of the Register of Deeds of Martin County. Within 30 days of recording the easement, such
Settling Defendant shall provide EPA with a final title insurance policy;or other final evidence
of title acceptable to EPA, and a certified copy of the original r~corded easement showing the
clerk's recording stamps. The easement and title evidence (including final title evidence) shall be
prepared in accordance with the U.S. Department of Justice Title Standards 200 I, and approval
of the sufficiency of title must be obtained as required by 40 U.S.C. § 255.
25. If OU 1, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are
needed to implement this Cqnsent Decree, is owned or controlled by persons other than the
Settling Defendant, Settling Defendant shall use best efforts to secure from such persons:
a. an agreement to provide access thereto for Settling Defendant, as well as
for the United States on behalf of EPA, and the State, as well as their representatives (including
contractors), for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including,
but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree;
b. an agreement, enforceable by the Settling Defendant and the United States,
to refrain from using OU!, or such other property, in any manner that would interfere.with or
adversely affect the implementation, integrity, or proiectiveness of the remedial measures to be
performed pursuant to this Consent Decree. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to:
prohibition against the use of the groundwater on or near Former Landfill No. I as a potable
drinking water source;.limitation of the Former Landfill No. I Surface area to industrial use; no
disturbance of soil is permitted, including for installation of utilities, without prior notification to
and approval from DENR or its successor in function, any sampling requireg by DENR, and
submittal to DENR or its successor in function of analyses of such sampling, along with plans
and procedures to protect human health and the environment during the proposed activities.
Additionally, the owner of OU! must annually submit a notarized'Land Use Restrictions Up.date
that certifies that the Land Use Restrictions Document remains recorded at the office of the
Register of Deeds in its original form and place, and that the land use restrictions contained
therein are being complied with; and . .
c. the execution and recordation in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Martin County, State of North Carolina, of an easement, running with the land, that (i) grants a
right of access for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree
including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Paragraph 24.a of this Consent Decree, and
(ii) grants the right to enforce the land/water use restrictions listed in Paragraph 24.b of this
Consent Decree, or other restrictions that EPA determines are necessary to implement, ensure
non-interference with, or ensure the protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed
pursuant to this Consent Decree. The access rights and/or rights to enforce land/water use
restrictions shall be granted to (i) the United States, on behalf of EPA, and its representatives, (ii)
the State and its representatives, (iii) one or more of the following grantees, as determined by
EPA USFWS and NOAA. Within 60 days of entry cif this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant
shall submit to EPA for review and approval with respect to such property:
(I) a draft easement, in substantially the form to be provided by EPA,
14
• •
that is enforceable under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
(2) a current title insurance commitment, or s.ome other evidence of
title acceptable to EPA, which shows title to the land described in the easement to be free
and clear of all prior liens and encumbrances (except when those liens or encumbrances
are approved by EPA or when, despite best efforts, Settling Defendant is unable to obtain
release or subordination of such prior liens or encumbrances)
Within 30 days of EPA's approval and acceptance of the easement and the title evidence, Settling
Defendant shall update the title search and, if it is deterrnined that nothing has occurred since the
effective date of the commitment to affect the title adversely, the easement shall be recorded with
the office of the Register of Deeds of Martin County. Within 30 days of the recording of the
easement, Settling Defendant shall provide EPA with a final title insurance policy, or other final
evidence of title acceptable to EPA, and a certified copy of the original recorded easement
showing the clerk's recording stamps. The easement and.title evidence (including final title
evidence) shall be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Department of Justice Title Standards
2001, and approval of the sufficiency of title must be obtained as required by 40 U.S.C. § 255.
26. For purposes of Paragraphs 24 and 25 of this Consent Decree, "best efforts"
includes the payment of reasonable sums of money in c.onsideration of access, access easements,
land/water use restrictions, restrictive easements, and/or an agreement to release or subordinate a
prior lien or encumbrance. If (a) any access or land/water use restriction agreements required by
Paragraphs 25.a or 25.b of this Consent Decree are not obtained within 60 days of the date of
entry of this Consent Decree, (b) any access easements or restrictive easements required by
Paragraph 25.c of this Consent Decree are not submitted to EPA in draft forrn within 60 days of
the date of EPA's request, or (c) Settling Defendant is unable to obtain an agreement pc1rsuant to
Paragraph 24.c.(l) or Paragraph 25.c.(l) from the holder of a pri9r lien or encumbrance to release
or subordinate such lien or encumbrance to the easement being created pursuant to this consent
decree within 60 days of the date of entry of this consent decree, Se_ttling Defendant shall
promptly notify the United States in writing, and shall include in that notification a summary of
the steps that Settling Defendant has taken to attempt to comply with Paragraph 24 or 25 of this
Consent Decree. The United States may, as it deems appropriate, assist Settling Defendant in
obtainjng access or land/water use restrictions, either in the forrn of contractual agreements or in
the forrn of easements running with the land; or in obtaining the releafe or subordination of a.
prior lien or encumbrance. Settling Defendant shall reimburse the United States in accordance
with the procedures in Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs), for all costs incurred,
direct or indirect, by the United States in obtaining such access, land/water use resirictions,
and/or the release/subordination of prior liens or encumbrances including, but not limited to, the
.cost of attorney time and the ainount of monetary consideration paid or just compensation.
27. If EPA deterrnines that land/water use restrictions in the forrn of state or local
laws, regulations, ordinances or other governmental controls are needed to implement the remedy
selected in the ROD, ensure the integrity and protectiveness thereof, or ensure non-interference
therewith, Settling Defendant shall cooperatewith EPA's and the State's efforts to secure such
governmental controls.
28. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States retains
all of its access authorities and rights, as well as all of its rights to require land/water use
15
•
•
restrictions, including enforcement authorities related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any
other applicable statute or regulation.
X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
29. In addition to any other requirement or this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant
shall submit to EPA I (one) copy of written quarterly progress reports that: (a) describe the
actions which have been taken toward achieving compliance wit_h this Consent Decree during the
previous quarter; (b) include a summary of all results of sampling and tests and all other
validated data received or generated by Settling Defendant or its contractors or agents in the
previous quartP-r; (c) identify all work plans, plans and other deliverables required by this
Consent Decree completed and submitted during the_ previous quarter; (d) describe all actions,
including, but not limited to, data collection and implementation of work plans, which are
scheduled for the next 3 months and provide other information relating to the progress of
construction, including, but not limited to, critical path diagrams, Gantt charts and Pert charts; (e)
include information regarding percentage of completion, unresolved delays encountered or
anticipated that may affect the future schedule for implementation of the Work, and a description
of efforts made to mitigate those delays or anticipated delays; (f) include any modifications to the
work plans or other schedules that Settling Defendant has proposed to EPA or that have been
approved by EPA; and (g) describe all activities undertaken in support of the Community
Relations Plan during the previous quarter and tho_se-!o be undertaken in the next 3 months.
Settling Defendant shall submit these progress reports to EPA and the State by the fifteenth day
of the next quarter following the lodging of this Consent Decree until EPA notifies the Settling
Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 47 of Section XIV (Certification of Completion) or until EPA
notifies Settling Defendant that less frequent reporting is appropriate. If requested by EPA,
Settling Defendant shall also provide briefings for EPA to discuss the progress ·of the Work.
' 30. The Settling Defendant shall notify EPA of any c~ange in th~ schedule described
in the quarterly progress report for the performance of any activity, including, but not limited to,
data collection and implementation of work plans, no later than seven days prior to the
performance of the activity.
31. Upon the occurrence of any event during performance of, and related to, the Work
that Settling Defendant is required to report pursuant to Section I 03 of CERCLA or Section 304
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPC~A), Settling Defendant
shall within 24 hours of the onset of such event orally notify the EPA Project Coordinator. or the
Alternate EPA Project Coordinator (in the event of the unavailability of the EPA Project
Coordinator), or, in the event that neither the EPA Project Coordinator or Alternate EPA Project
Coordinator is available, the Emergency Response Section, Region 4, United States
Environmental Protection Agency. These reporting requirements are in addition to the reporting
required by CERCLA Section 103 or EPCRA Section 304.
32. Within 30 days of the onset of such an event, Settling Defendant shall furnish to
Plaintiff a written report, signed by the Settling Defendant's Project Coordinator, setting forth the
events which occurred and the measures taken, and to be taken, in response thereto. Within 45
days of the conclusion of such an event, Settling Defendant shall submit a report setting forth all
actions taken in response thereto.
16
• •
33. Settling Defendant shall submit 3 copies of all plans, reports, and data required by
the SOW, the Remedial Design Work Plan, the Remedial Action Work Plan, or any other
approved plans to EPA in accordance with the schedules set forth in such plans. Settling
Defendant shall simultaneously submit I copy of all such plans, reports and data to the State.
Upon request by EPA Settling Defendant shall submit in electronic form all portions of any
report or oth~r deliverable Settling Defendant is ·required to submit pursuant to the provisions of
this Consent Decree.
34. All reports and other documents submitted by Settling Defendant to EPA (other
than the quarterly progress reports referred to above) which purport to document Settling
Defendant's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree shall be signed by an authorized
representative of the Settling Defendant.
XI. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS
35. After review of any plan, report or other item which is required to be submitted
for approval pursuant to this Consent Decree, EPA, after reasonable opportunity for review and
comment by the State, shall: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) approve the
submission upon specified conditions a_fter verbal notification of such conditions to Settling
Defendant; (c) modify the submission to cure the deficiencies; (d) disapprove, in whole or in
part, the submission, directing that the Settling Defendant modify the submission; or (e) any
combination of the above. However, EPA shall not modify a submission without first providing
· Settling Defendant at least one notice of deficiency and an opportunity to resolv.e or cure within
60 days, except where to do so would cause serious disruption to the Work or where previous
submission(s) have been disapproved due to material defects and the deficiencies in the
submission under consideration indicate a bad faith lack of effort to submit an acceptable
deliverabl.e. ,
i
36. In the event of approval, approval upon conditions, or modification by_EPA,
· pursuant to Paragraph 35(a), (b), or (c), Settling Defendant shall proceed to take any action
required by the plan, report, or other item, as approved or modified by EPA subject only to its
right to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution)
with respect to the modifications or conditions made by EPA. In the event that EPA modifies the
submission to cure the deficiencies pursuant to Paragraph 35(c) and the submission has a
material defect, EPA retains its right to seek stipulated penalties, as pr0vided in Section XX
(Stipulated Penalties).
37. Resubmission of Plans.
a. Upon receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to Paragraph 35(d),
Settling Defendant shall, within 45 days or such longer time as specified by EPA in such notice,
correct the deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report, or other item for approval. Any stipulated
penalties applicable to the submission, as provided in Section XX, shall accrue during the 45 day
period or otherwise specified period but shall not be payable unless the resubmission is
disapproved or modified due to a material defect as provided in Paragraphs 38 and 39.
b. Notwithstanding the receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to
Paragraph 35(d), Settling Defendant shall proceed, at the direction of EPA, to take any action
required by any non'deficient portion of the submission. Implementation of any non-deficient
17
• •
portion of a submission shall not relieve Settling Defendant of any liability for stipulated
penalties under Section XX (St_ipulated Penalties) for deficient items.
38. In the event that a resubmitted plan, report or other item, or µortion thereof, is
disapproved_by EPA, EPA may again require the Settling Defen_dant to correct the deficiencies,
in accordance with the preceding Paragraphs. EPA also retains the right to modify or develop the
plan, report or other item. Settling Defendant shall implement any such plan, report, or item as
modified or developed by EPA, subject only to its right to invoke the procedures set forth in
Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).
· 39. If upon resubmission, a plan, report,-or item is disapproved or modified by EPA
due to a material defect, Settling Defendan·t shall be deemed to have failed to submit such plan,
report, or item timely and adequately unless the Settling Defendant invokes the dispute resolution
procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and EPA's action is overturned
pursuant to that Section. The provisions of Section XIX ·(Dispute Resolution) and Section XX
(Stipulated Penalties) shall govern the implementation of the Work and accrual and payment of
any stipulated penalties during Dispute Resolution.' If EPA's disapproval or modification is
upheld, stipulated penalties shall accrue for such violation from the date on which the initial
submission was originally required, as provided in Section XX. -
40. All plans, reports, and other items reqµired to be submitted to EPA under this
Consent Decree shall, upon approval or modification by EPA, be enforceable under this Consent
Decree. In the event EPA approves or modifies a portion of a plan, report, or other item required
to be submitted to EPA under this Consent Decree, the approved or modified portion shall be
· enforceable under this Consent Decree.
XII. PROJECT COORDINATORS
'
41. Within 20 days of lodging this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant and EPA will
notify each other, in writing, of the name, address and telephone number of their respective
designated Project Coordinators and Alternate Project Coordinators. If a Project Coordinator or
Alternate Project Coordinator initially designated is changed, the identity of the successor will be
given to the other Parties at least 5 working days before the changes occur, unless impracticable,
but in no _event later than the actual day the change is made. The Settling Defendant's Project
Co9rdinator shall be subject to disapproval by EPA and shall have the technical expertise
sufficient to adequately oversee all aspects of the Work. The Settling Defendant's Project .
Coordinator shall not be an attorney in this matter. He or she may assign other representatives,
including other contractors, to serve as a representative for oversight of performance of daily
operations during remedial activities at OU!.
42. Plaintiff may designate other representatives, including, but not limited to, EPA
and State employees, and federal contractors and consultants, to observe and monitor the .
progress of any activity undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree. EPA's Project Coordinator
and Alternate Project Coordinator shall have the authority lawfully vested in a·Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) and an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) by the National Contingency Plan, 40
C.F.R. Part 300. In addition, EPA's Project Coordinator or Alternate Project Coordinator shall
have authority, consistent with the National Contingency Plan, to halt any Work required by this
Consent Decree and to take any necessary response action when s/he determines that conditions
18
• •
at OU l constitute an emergency situation or may present an immediate threat to pt1blic health or
welfare or the environment due to release or threatened release of Waste Material.
XIII. ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK
43. Within 30 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall establish
and maintain financial security in the amount of $11,935,000.00, in one or more of the following
forms:
a. A surety bond guaranteeing performance of the Work;
b. One or more irrevocable letters of credit equaling the total estimated cost
of the Work;
c. A fully funded trust fund.
The financial security mechanisms created pursuant to a~c above must be in form and substance
satisfactory to the United States.
44. In the event that EPA determines at any time that the financial assurances
provided pursuant to this Section are inadequate, Settling Defendant shall, within 30 days of
receipt of notice of EPA's determination, obtain and present to EPA for approval one of the other
forms of financial assurance listed in Paragraph 43 of this Consent Decree._ Settling Defendant's
inability to demonstrate financial ability to complete the Work shall not excuse performance of
any activities required under this Consent Decree.
45. If Settling Defendant can show that the estimated cost to complete the remaining
Work has diminished below the amount set forth in Paragraph 43 above after entry of this
Consent Decree, Settling Defendant may, on any anniversary date of entry of this Consent
Decree, or at any other time agreed to by the Parties, reduce the amount of the financial security
provided under this Section to the estimated cost of the remaining work to be performed.
Settling Defendant shall submit a proposal for such reduction to ~PA, in accordance with the
requirements of this Section, and may reduce the am·ount of the :,;ecurity upon approval by EPA.
In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendant may reduce the amount of the security in accordance
with the final administrative or judicial decision resolving the dispute.
46. Settling Defendant may change the form of financial assurance provided under
this Section at any time, upon notice to and approval by EPA, provided that the new form of
assurance meets the _requirements of this Section. In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendant
may change the form of the financial assurance only in accordance with the final administrative
or judicial decision resolving the dispute.
XIV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
47. Completion of the Work.
a. Within 90 days after Settling Defendant concludes that all phases of the
Work (including O & M), have been fully performed, Settling Defendant shall schedule and
conduct a_pre-certification inspection to be attended by Settling Defendant and EPA. If, after the
pre-certification inspection, the Settling Defendant still believes that the Work has been fully
performed, Settling Defendant shall submit a written repon by a registered professional engineer
19
• •
stating that the Work has been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of this Consent
Decree. The report shall contain the following statement, signed by a responsible corporate
official of Settling Defendant or the Settling Defendant's Project CoordinaiOr:
To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying this submission is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations. >
If, after review of the written report, EPA, after reasonable opportunity. to review and comment
by the State, determines that any portion of the Work has not been completed in accordance with
this Consent Decree, EPA will notify Settling Defendant in writing of the activities that must be
undertaken by Settling Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree to complete the Work,
provided, however, that EPA may only require Settling Defendant to perform such activities
pursuant to this Paragraph to the extent that such activities are consistent with the "scope of the
remedy selected in the ROD," as that term is defined in Paragraph 14.b. EPA will set forth in the
notice a schedule for performance of such activities consistent with the Consent Decree and the
SOW or require the Settling Defendant to submit a schedule to EPA for approval pursuant to
Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Settling Defendant shall perform
all activities described in the notice in accordance wiih the specifications and schedules
established therein, subject to its right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in
Section XIX (Dispute Resolution). ··
b. IfEPA concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent request for
Certification of Completion by Settling Defendant and after a re.;sonable opportunity for review
and comment by the State, that the Work has been performed in accordance with this Consent
Decree, EPA will so notify the Settling Defendant in writing.
XV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE.·
48. In the event of any action or occurrence during the performance of the Work
which causes or threatens a release of Waste Material from OU I that constitutes an emergency
situation· or may present an immediate threat to public health or welfare or the environment,
Settling Defendant shall, subject to Paragraph 49, immediately take all appropriate action to
prevent, abate, or minimize such release or threat of release, and shall immediately notify the
EPA's Project Coordinator, or, if the Project Coordinator is unavailable, EPA's Alternate Project
Coordinator. Settling Defendant shall notify the State in accordance with applicable state and
federal law. If neither EPA official is available, the Settling Defendant shall notify the EPA
Emergency Response Unit, Region 4. Settling Defendant shall take such actions in consultation
with EPA's Project Coordinator or other available authorized EPA officer, and in accordance
with all applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Plans, the Contingency Plans, and any
other applicable plans or documents developed pursuant to the SOW. Settling Defendani shall
consult the State in accordance with applicable state and·federal law. In the event that Settling
Defendant fails to take appropriate response action as required by this Section, and EPA takes
such action instead, Settling Defendant shall reimburse EPA for all costs of the response action
not inconsistent with the NCP pursuant to Section XVI (Payments for Response Costs).
20
• •
49. Nothing in the preceding Paragraph or in this Coment Decree shall be deemed to
limit any authority of the United States or the State a) to take all appropriate action to protect •
human health and the environment or to prevent, abate, respond to, or minimize an actual or
threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from OTJ l, orb) to direct or order such action, or
seek an order from the Court, to protect human health and the environment or to prevent, abate,
respond to, or minimize an actual or threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from OU I,
subject to Section XXI (Covenants Not.to Sue by Plaintiff).
XVI. PAYMENTS FOR RESPONSE COSTS
50. Payments for Past Response Costs.
a. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Settling Defendant shall pay to EPA
$14,507.54 in payment for Past Response Costs. Payment shall be made by FedWire Electronic
Funds Transfer ("EFT") to the U.S. Department of Justic·e account in accordance with current
EFT procedures, referencing USAO File Number __ , EPA Site/Spill ID Number 04·1B, and
DOJ Case Number 90-11-3-07838. Payment shall be _made in accordance with instructions
provided to the Settling Defendant by the Financial Litigation Unit of the United States
Attorney's ·office for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Any payments received by the
Department of Justice after 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) will be credited on the next business day.
b. At the time of payment, Settling Defendant shall send notice that payment
has been made to the United States, to EPA and to the Regional Financial Management Officer,
in accordance with Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions).
c. The total amount to be ·paid by Settling Defendant pursuant to ' Subparagraph SO.a shall be deposited in the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating
Plant site Special Account within the EPA Hazardous SubstanceiSuperfund'to be retained and
· used to conduct or finance response actions at or in connection with the Site, or to be transferred
by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund.
51. Payments for Future Response Costs.
a. Settling Defendant shall pay to EPA all Future Response Costs not
inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan. On an annual basis _the United States will send
Settling Defendant a bill requiring payment that includes a full accounting supporting the bill,
including an EPA SCORPIOS Report and the DOJ-prepared cost summary which reflects costs
incurred by DOJ and its contractors. Failure to submit a bill in one fiscal year does not prevent
EPA from submitting an accounting for that year in a subsequent fiscal year. If Settling
Defendant has specific questions with regard to the bill, Settling Defendant may request in
writing copies of vouchers and other documents evidencing expenditures and materials acquired
in connection with expenditures at OU! which are the basis of the demand ("supporting
documentation"). EPA will produce such supporting documentation, in response to a request
regarding a specific question Settling Defendant has with the bill. Settling Defendant shall make
all payments within 30 days of Settling Defendant's receipt of each bill requiring payment, or in
the event supporting documentation is requested, within 30 days of receipt of the supporting
documentation, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 53. Settling Defendant shall make all
payments required by this Paragraph by a certified or cashier's check or checks made payable to
"EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund," referencing the name and address of the party making
21 .
• •
the payment, EPA Site/Spill ID Number 04 I B, and DOJ Case Number. Settling Defendant shall
send the check(s) to: U.S. EPA, Region 4, Superfund Account Box 100142, Atlanta, GA 30384,
Attn Superfund Collections Office.
b. At the time of payment, Settling Defendant shall send notice that payment
has been made to the United States, to EPA and to the Regional Financial Management Officer,
in accordance with Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions).
c. The total amount to be paid by Settling Defendant pursuant to Paragraph
51 shall be deposited in the Weyerhaeuser Company PlyfTiouth Wood Treating Plant site Special
Account within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or
finance response actions at or in connection with the Site, or to be transferred by EPA to the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund.
52. Settling Defendant may contest payment of any Future Response Costs under .
Paragraph 51 if it determines that the United States has made an accounting error or if it alleges
that a cost item that is included represents costs that are outside the scope or terms of this
Consent Decree or are inconsistent with the NCP. Such objection shall be made in writing
within 30 days of receipt of the bill or the supporting documentation and must be sent to the
United States pursuant to Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions). Any such objection shall ·
specifically identify the contested Future Response Costs and the basis for objection. In the
event of an objection, the Settling Defendant shall within the 30 day period pay all uncontested
Future Response Costs to the United States in the manner described in Paragraph 51.
Simultaneously, the Settling Defendant shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in a
federally-insured bank duly chartered in the State of North Carolina and remit to that escrow
account funds equivalent to the amount of the contested Future Response Costs. The Settling
Defendant shall send to the United States, as provided in Section XXVI (Notices and
Submissions), a copy of the transmittal letter and check paying the uncont~sted Future Response
Costs, and a copy of the correspondence that establishes and funds the escrow account, including,
but not limited to, information containing the identity of the bank and bank account under which
the escrow account is established as well as a bank statement showing the initial balance of the
escrow account. Simultaneously with establishment of the_ escrow account, the Settling
Defendant shall initiate the Dispute Resolution procedures in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).
If the United States prevails in the dispute; within 5 days of the resol~tion of the dispute, _the
Settling Defendant shall pay the sums due (with accrued interest) to the United States in the
manner described in Paragraph 51. If the Settling Defendant prevails concerning any aspect of
the contested costs, the Settling Defendant shall pay that portion of the costs (pius associated
accrued interest) for which it did not prevail to the United States in the manner described in
Paragraph 51; Settling Defendant shall be disbursed any balance of the escrow account. The
dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Paragraph in conjunction with the procedures set
forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) shall be the exclusive mechanisms for resolving
disputes regarding the Settling Defendant's obligation to reimburse the United States for its
Future Response Costs.
53. In the event that the payment required by Paragraph 50 is not made within 30 days
of the Effective Date, or the payments required by Paragraph 5 I are not made within 30 days of
the Settling Defendant's receipt of the bill or supporting documentation, Settling Defendant shall
22
• •
pay Interest on the unpaid balance. The Interest to be paid on Past Response Costs under this
Paragraph shaH begin to accrue on the 30th day after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree.
The Interest on Future Response Costs shall begin to accrue 30 days after Settling Defendant
received the bill, or 30 days after Settling Defendant received the requested supporting
documentation pursuant to Paragraph 51 (a). The Interest shall accrue through the date of the
Settling Defendant's payment. Payments of Interest made under this Paragraph shall be in
addition to such other remedies or sanctions available to Plaintiff by virtue of Settling
Defendant's failure to make timely payments under this Section including, but not limited to,
payment of stipulated penalties pursuant to Paragraph 68. The Settling Defendant shall make all
payments required by this Paragraph in the manner described in Paragraph 51.
I
54. Balance of Special Account Funds. After EPA notifies Settling Defendant in.
writing that the Work has been performed in accordance with this Consent Decree; if any funds
remain in the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site Special Account, EPA
may transfer such funds to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. Any transfer of funds to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund shall not be subject to challenge by Settling Defendant pursuant
to the dispute resolution provisions of this Consent Decree or in .any other forum.
XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
55. Settling Defendant's Indemnification-of the United States .
a. The United States does not assume any liability by entering into this
agreement or by virtue of any designation of Settling Defendant as EPA's authorized·
representative under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Settling Defendant shall indemnify, save and
hold harmless the United States and its officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors,
or representatives for or from any and all claims or causes of action to the extent they :irise from,
or on account of; negligent or other wrongful.acts or omissions o,f Settling Defendant, its officers,
directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any persons acting on its behalf or
under their control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree, including, but not
.limited to, any claims to the extent they arise from any designation of Settling Defendant as
EPA's authorized representatives under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Further, the Settling
Defendant agrees to pay the United States all costs it incurs including, but not limited to,
attom'eys fees and other expenses of litigation and settlement arising from, or on account of,
claims made against the United States based on negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of
Settling Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any
persons acting on its behalf or under its control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent
Decree. The United States shall not be held out as a party to any contract entered into by or on
-behalf of Settling Defendant in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree. Neither
the Settling Defendant nor any such contractor shall be considered an agent of the United States.
b. The United States shall give Settling Defendant notice of any claim for
which the United States plans to seek indemnification pursuant to Paragraph 55, and shall _consult
with Settling Defendant prior to settling such claim.
56. Settling Defendant waives all claims against the United States for damages or
reimbursement or for set-off of any payments made or to be made to the United States arising
from or on iccount of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between the Settling Defendant
23
• •
and any person for performance of Work on or relating to OU 1, including, but not limited to,
claims on account of construction delays. In addition, Settling Defendant shall indemnify and
hold harmless the United States with respect to any and all claims for damages or reimbursement
arising from or on account of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between the Settling
Defendant and any person for performance of Work on or relating to OUl, including, but not
· limited to, claims on account of construction delays. ·
57. Settling Defendant shall secure, or shall require that its Supervising Contractor
and its primary construction contractor acquire and maintain, until the completion of the
construction of the remedy, comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of one million
dollars, combined single limit; and automobile liability insurance with limits of one million
dollars, combined single limit, naming the Uriited States as an additional insured. In addition, for
the duration of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall satisfy, or shall ensure that its
contractors or subcontractors satisfy, all applicable laws and regulations regarding the provision
of worker's compensation insurance for all persons performing the Work on behalf of Settling
Defendant in furtherance of this Consent Decree. Prior to commencement of the Work under this
.Consent Decree, Settling Defendant shall provide to EPA certificates of such insurance and a
copy of each insurance policy. Settling Defendant shall resubmit such certificates and copies ·of
policies within 30 days of any subst_antial or material change in such policy. Settling Defendant
shall provide any portion of the insurance described a_bove which is not maintained by the
Supervising Contractor and its primary construction contractor. ·
XVIII. FORCE MA JEURE
58. "Force majeure," for purposes of. this Consent Decree, is defined as any event
arising from causes beyond the control of the Settling Defendant, of any entity controlled by
Settling Defendant, or of Settling Defendant's contractors, that delays or prevents the ·
performance of any obligation under this Consent Decree despite Settling Defendant's best efforts
to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Settling Defendant exercise "best efforts to
fulfill the obligation" includes using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event
and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (I) as it is occurring
and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to the
greatest extent possible. "Force Majeure" does not include financial inability to complete the
Work or a failure to attain the Performance Standards.
59. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any
obligation under this Consent Decree, whether or not caused by a force majeure event, the
Settling Defendant shall notify orally EPA's Project Coordinator or, in his or her absence, EPA's
Alternate Project Coordinator or, in the event both ofEPA's designated representatives are
unavailable, the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, within ten days of
when Settling Defendant first knew that the event might cause a delay. Within ten days
thereafter, Settling Defendant shall provide in writing to EPA an explanation and description of
the reasons for 'the delay; the anticipated duration of the delay; all actions taken or to be taken to
prevent or minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures to be taken to
prevent or mitigate the delay or the effect of the delay; the Settling Defendant's rationale for
attributing such deiay to a force majeure event if it intends to assert such a claim; and a statement
as to whether, in the opinion of the Settling Defendant, such event may cause or contribute to an
24
• •
endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment. The Settling Defendant shall include
with any notice all available documentation supporting its claim that the delay was attributable to
a force majeure. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall preclude Settling
Defendant from asserting any claim of force majeure for that event for the period of time of such.
failure to comply, and for any additional delay caused by such failure. Settling Defendant shall
be deemed to know of any circumstance of which Settling Defendant, any entity controlled by
Settling Defendant, or Settling Defendant's contractors knew or should have known.
60. If EPA agrees that the delay or anticipated delay is attributable to a force majeure
event, the time for performance of the obligations under this Consent Decree that are affected by
the force maje'.lre event will be extended by EPA for such time as is necessary to complete those
obligations. EPA will consider extending the delay of the performance of the obligations
affected by the force majeure event by not less than the actual duration of the delay caused by the
force majeure event. An extension of the time for performance of the obligations affected by the
· force majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time for performance of any other obligation.
IfEPA does not agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a force
majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendant in writing of its decision. If EPA agrees
that the delay is attributable to a force majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendant in
writing of the length of the extension, if any, for performance of the obligations affected by the
force majeure event.
6 I. If the Settling Defendant elects to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set
forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), it shall do so no later than 20 days after receipt of
EPA's notice. In any such proceeding, Settling Defendant shall have the burden of deinonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused
by a force majeure event, that the duration of the delay or the extension sought was or will be
warranted under the circumstances,. that best efforts were exercis()d to avoid.and mitigate the
effects of the delay, and that Settling Defendant complied with th'e requirements of Paragraphs 58
and 59, above. If Settling Defendant carries this burden, the delay at issue shall be deemed not to
be a violation by Settling Defendant of the affected obligation of this Consent Decree identified _
to EPA and the Court.
XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
62. · Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Consen'. Decree, the dispute
resolution procedures of this Section shall be the exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes arising
under or with respect to this Consent Decree. However, the procedures set forth in this Section
shall not apply to actions by the United States to enforce obligations of the Settling Defendant ·
that have not been disputed in accordance with this Section ..
63. Any dispute which arises under or with respect to this Consent Decree shall in the
· first instance be the subject of informal negotiations between the parties to the dispute. The
period for informal negotiations shall not exceed 30 days from the time the dispute arises, unless
it is modified by written agreement of the parties to the dispute. The dispute shall be considered
to have arisen when one party sends the other party a written Notice of Dispute.
64. Statements of Position.
a. In the event that the parties cannot resolve a dispute by informal
25
• •
negotiations under the preceding Paragraph, then the position advanced by EPA shall be.
considered binding unless, within 30 days after the conclusion of the infonnal negotiation period,
Settling Defendant invokes the formal dispute resolution procedures of this Section by serving on
the United States a written Statement of Position on the matter in dispute, including, but not
limited to, any factual data, analysis or opinion supporfr,g that position and any supporting
documentation relied upon by the Settling Defendant. The Statement of Position shall specify
the Settling Defendant's position as to whether formal dispute resolution should proceed under
Paragraph 65 or Paragraph 66.
b. Within 30 days after receipt of Settling Defendant's Statement of Position,
EPA will serve on Settling Defendant its Statement of Position, including, but not limited to, any
factual data, analysis, or opinion supporting that position and all supporting documentation relied
upon by EPA. EPA's Statement of Position shall include a statement as to whether fonnal
dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 65 or 66. Within 20 days after receipt of·
. EPA's Statement of Position, Settling Defendant may submit a Reply.
c. If there is disagreement between EPA and the Settling Defendant as to
whether dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 65 or 66, the parties to the dispute
shall follow the procedures set forth in the paragraph detennined by EPA to be applicable.
However, if the Settling Defendant ultimately appeals to the Court to resolve the dispute, the
Court shall determine which paragraph is applicable in accordance with the standards of
applicability set forth in Paragraphs 65 and 66.
65. Fonnal dispute resolution for disputes pertaining to the selection or adequacy of
any response action and all other disputes that are accorded review on the administrative record
under applicable principles of administrative law shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures
set forth in this Paragraph. For purposes of this Paragraph, the adequacy of any respon.;e action
includes, without limitation: (1) the adequacy or appropriateness 9f plans, procedures to
implement plans, or any other items requiring approval by EPA under this Consent Decree; and
• (2) the _adequacy of the perfonnance of response actions taken pursuant to this Consent Decree.
Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to allow any dispute by Settling Defendant
regarding the validity of the RO D's provisions.
a. . An administrative record of the dispute shall be maintained by_EPA and
shall contain all statements of position, including supporting documentation, submitted pursuant
to this Section. Where appropriate, EPA may allow submission of supplemental statements of
position by the parties to the dispute.
b. The Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will
issue a final administrative decision resolving the dispute based on the administrative record
described in Paragraph 65.a. This decision shall be binding upon the Settling Defendant, subject
only to the right to seek judicial review pursuant to Paragraph 65.c and d.
c. Any administrative decision made by EPA pursuant to Paragraph 65.b
shall be reviewable by this Court, provided that a motion for judicial review of the decision is
filed by the Settling Defendant with the Court and served on all Parties within 14 days of receipt
of EPA's decision. The motion shall include a description of the matter in dispute, the efforts
made by the parties io resolve it, the relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the
26
• •
dispute must be resolved to ensure orderly implementation of this Consent Decree. The United
States may file a response to Setiling Defendant's motion.
d. In proceedings on any dispute governed by this Paragraph, Settling
Defendant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the Waste Management
Division Director is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. Judicial
review of EPA's decision shall be on the administr_ative record compiled pursuant to
Paragraph 65.a.
66. Formal dispute resolution for disputes that neither pertain to the selection or
adequacy of any response action nor are otherwise accorded review on the administrative record
under applicable principles of administrative law, shall be governed by this Paragraph.
a. Following receipt of Settling Defendant's Statement of Position submitted
pursuant to Paragraph 64, the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will
. issue a final decision resolving the dispute. The Waste Management Division Director's decision
shall be binding on the Settling Defendant unless, withinl4 days of receipt of the decision, the
Settling Defendant files with the Court and serves ori the parties a motion for judicial review of
the decision setting forth the matter in dispute, the efforts made by the parties to resolve it, the
relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the dispute must be resolved to ensure
orderly implementation of the Consent Decree. The. United States may file a response to Settling
Defendant's motion. ·
b.. Notwithstanding Paragraph K of Section I (Background) of this Consent
Decree, judicial review of any dispute governed by this Paragraph shall be governed.by
applicable principles of law.
67. The invocation of formal dispute resolution procedures under this Section shall
not extend, postpone cir affect in any way any obligation of the ~ettling Defendant under this
. Consent Decree, not directly in dispute, unless EPA or the Court agrees otherwise. Stipulated
penalties with respect to the disputed matter shall continue to accrue but payment shall be stayed
pending resolution of the dispute as provided in Paragraph 76. Notwithstanding the stay of
payment, stipulated penalties shall accrue from the first day of noncompliance with any
applicable provision of this Consent Decree. · In the event that the Settling Defendant does not
prevail on the disputed issue, stipulated penalties shall be assessed and paid as provided in
· Section XX (Stipulated Penalties).
XX. STIPULATED PENALTIES
68. Settling Defendant shall be liable for stipulated penalties in the amounts set forth
in Paragraphs 69 and 70 to the United States for failure to comply with the requirements of this
Consent Decree specified below, unless excused under·section XVID (Force Majeure).
"Compliance" by Settling Defendant shall include completion of the activities under this Consent
Decree or any work plan or other plan approved under this Consent Decree identified below in
accordance with all applicable requirements of law, this Consent Decree, the SOW, and any
plans or other documents approved by EPA pursuant to this.Consent Decree and within the
specified time schedules established by and approved under this Consent Decree.
69. Stipulated Penalty Amounts -Work.
27
• •
a. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per vii>lation per day for
any noncompliance identified in Subparagraph 69.b:
Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncomplianci;_
1st through 14th day
15th through 44th day
45th day and beyond
$ 1,250.00
$2,500.00
$5,000.00
b. Compliance Milestones.
(I) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any and all draft and
final Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plans;
(2) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any significant
deliverables as identified in the EPA approved Remedial Design and Remedial Action
Work Plans;
(3)
Action Work Plans;
Implementa_tion of the approved Remedial Design and Remedial
(4) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of Preliminary, Pre-final
and Final Remedial Design and any significant deliverables as identified in the EPA-
approved Final Remedial Design;
(5) Completion of the Remedial Action required under this.Consent
Decree and the SOW;
. (6) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of Remedial Action
Reports as required by SOW Tasks ill E and F; /
Manual;
(7) Submittal and, if necessary, modifica_tion of O&M Plan and O&M
(8) Establishment of financial assurance as required by Paragraphs 43
• and 44;
(9) . Procurement or proof of insurance;
(10) Submittal and, if necessary, modification of any Work Plan(s) for
further response actions and additional Work pursuant to Sections VI, VII, Vill, or IX,
hereof;
(11) Implementation of further response actions and additional Work
pursuant to Sections VI, VII, Vill, or IX, hereof;
(12) Payment of all monies required to be paid pursuant to Section XVI;
(13) Recording of Consent Decree, applicable Deed Restrictions and
Notices required in Section V, Paragraph 9, and Section IX.
70. Stipulated Penalty Amounts -Reports.
28
• •
a. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per day for
failure to submit timely or adequate reports or other written documents pursuant to this Consent
Decree:
Penalty Per Violation Per Day
$ 500.00
$ 1500.00
$ 3000.00
Period of Noncompliance
1st through 14th day
15th through 44th day
45th day and beyond
71. In the event that EPA assumes performance of a portion or all of the Work
pursuant to Paragraph 82 of Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff), Settling Defendant
shall be liable for a stipulated penalty in the amount of $25,000.00.
72. All penalties shall begin to accrue on the day after the complete performance is
due or the day a violation occurs, and shall continue to accrue through the final day of the
correction of the noncompliance or completion of the activity. However, stipulated penalties
shall not accrue: (I) with respect to a deficient submission under Section XI (EPA Approval of
Plans and Other Subrnissions), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day after EPA's
receipt of such submission until the date that EPA notifies Settling Defendant of any deficiency;
(2) with respect to a decision by the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4,
under Paragraph 65 or 66 of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), during the period, if any,
beginning on the 21st day after the date that Settling Defendant's reply to EPA's Statement of
Position is received until the date that the Director issues a final decision regarding such dispute;
or (3) with respect to judicial review by this Court of any dispute under Section XIX (Dispute
Resolution), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day"after the Court's rece;pt of the
· final submission regarding the dispute until the date that the Cotjrt issues a final decision
regarding such dispute. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate
penalties for separate violations of this Consent Decree. , .
73. Following EPA's determination that Settling Defendant has failed to comply with
a requirement of this Consent Decree, ·EPA may give Settling Defendant written notification of
the same and describe the noncompliance. EPA may send the Settling Defendant a written
demand for the payment of the penalties. However, penalties shall accrue as provided in the
preceding Paragraph regardless of whether EPA has notified the Settling Defendant of a
violation.
74. All penalties accruing under this Section shall be due and payable to the United
States within 30 days of the Settling Defendant's receipt from EPA of a demand for payment of
the penalties, unless Settling pefendant invokes the Dispute Resolution procedures under Section
XIX (Dispute Resolution). All payments to the United States under this Section shall be paid by
certified or cashier's check(s) made payable to "EPA Hazardous Substances Superfund," shall be
mailed to: U.S. EPA, Region 4, Superfund Account Box 100142, Atlanta, GA 30384, Attn
Superfund Collections Office, shall indicate that the payment'is for stipulated penalties, and shall
reference the EPA Region and Site/Spill ID #04Bl, the DOJ Case Number 90-11-3-07838, and
the name and address of the party making payment. Copies of check(s) paid pursuant to this
Section, and any accompanying transmittal letter(s), shall be sent to the United States as provided
29
• •
in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions), and to Ms. Paula Batchelor, Waste Management
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303.
75. The payment of penalties shall not alter in any way Settling Defendant's obligation
to complete the performance of the Work required under this Consent Decree.
76. Penalties shall continue to accrue as provided in Paragraph 72 during any dispute
resolution period, but need not be·paid until the following:
a. If the dispute is resolved by agreement or by a decision of EPA that is not
appealed to this Court, accrued penalties determined to be owing shall be paid to EPA within 30
days of the agr~ement or the receipt of EPA's decision or order;
b. If the dispute is appealed to this Court and the United States prevails in
whole or in part, Settling Defendant shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the Court to be
owed to EPA within 60 days of receipt of the Court's decision_or order, except as provided in
Subparagraph c below;
c. If the District Court's decision is appealed by any Party, Settling Defendant
shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the District Court to be owing to the United States
into an interest-bearing escrow account within 60 days of receipt of the Court's decision or order.
Penalties shall be paid into this account as they continµe to accrue, at least every 60 days. Within
15 days of receipt of the final appellate court decision, the escrow agent shall pay the balance of
the account to EPA or to Settling Defendant to the extent that they prevail.
77. If Settling Defendant fails to pay stipulated penalties when due, the United States
may institute proceedings to collect the penalties, as well as interest. Settling Defendant shall
pay Interest on the unpaid balance, which shall begin to accrue on the date of demand r.tade
pursuant to Paragraph 7_4.
78. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as prohibiting, altering, or in
any way limiting the ability of the United States to seek any other _remedies or sanctions available
by virtue of Settling Defendant's violation of this Decree or of the· statutes and regulations upon
which it is based, including, but not limited to, penalties pursuant to Section 122(1) of CERCLA,
provided; however, that the United States shall not seek ci vii penalties pursuant to Section 122(1)
of CERCLA for any violation for which a stipulated penalty is provided herein, except in the
case of a willful violation of the Consent Decree. '
79. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the United States may, in its
unreviewable discretion, waive any portion of stipulated penalties that have accrued pursuant to
this Consent Decree.
XXI. Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff
80. In consideration of the actions that will be performed and the payments that will
be made by the Settling Defendant under the terms of the Consent Decree, and except as
specifically provided in Paragraph 81 of this Section, the United States covenants not to sue or to
take administrative action against Settling Defendant pursuant to Sections 106 and l07(a) of
CERCLA for performance of the Work and for recovery of Past Response Costs and Future
Response Costs. These covenants not to sue shall take effect upon the receipt by EPA of the
30
• •
payments required by Paragraph SO.a of Section XVI (Payments for Response Costs). These
covenants not to sue are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance by Settling Defendant of
its obligations under this Consent Decree. These covenants not to sue extend only to the Settling
Defendant and do not extend to any other person.
8 I. General reservations of rights. The United States reserves, and this Consent
Decree is without prejudice to, all rights against Setiling Defendant with respect to all matters not
expressly included within Plaintiffs covenant not to sue. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Consent Decree, the United States reserves all rights against Settling Defendant with respect
to:
a. · claims based on a failure by Settling Defendant to meet a requirement of
this Consent Decree;
b. liability arising from the past, pres.en!, or future disposal, release, or threat
of release of Waste Material outside of OU!;
c. liability based upon the Settling Defendant's ownership or operation of
OU!, or upon the Settling Defendant's transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal, or the
arrangement for the transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of Waste Material at or in
connection with OU!, other than as provided in the ROD, the Work, or otherwise ordered by
EPA, after signature of this Consent Decree by the Settling Defendant;
d. liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources, and for the costs of any natural resource damage assessments;
e. criminal liability;
f. liability for violations of federal or state la;w which occur during or after
implementation of the Remedial Action; and •
g. liability, prior to Certification of Completion of the Work, foi-addit_ional
response actions that EPA determines are necessary to achieve Pe'rformance Standards, but that
cannot be required pursuant to Paragraph 14 (Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans);
h. previously incurred costs of response above the amounts reimbursed
pursuant to Paragraph SO.a;
t. liability for other operable units at the Site;
j. liability for costs that the United States will incur related to the Site, but
are not within the definition of Future Response Costs;
k. liability for costs incurred or to be incurred by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry relate"d to the Site.
82. Work Takeover. In the event EPA determines that Settling Defendant has ceased
implementation of any portion of the Work, is seriously or repeatedly deficient or late in its
performance of the Work, or is implementing the Work in a manner which may cause an
endangerment ·10 human health or the environment, EPA may assume the performance of all or
any portions of the Work as EPA determines nece.ssary. Settling Defendant may invoke the
procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 65, to dispute EPA's
31
• •
detennination that takeover of the Work is warranted under this Paragraph. Costs incurred by the
United States in perfonning the Work pursuant to this Paragraph shall be considered Future.
Response Costs that Settling Defendant shall pay pursuant to Section XVI (Payment for
Response Costs).
83. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United States
retains all authority and reserves all rights to take any and all response actions authorized by law.
XXII. COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANT
. 84. Covenant Not to Sue. Subject to the reservations in Paragraph 85, Settling
Defendant hereby covenants not to sue and agrees not to assert any claims or causes of action
against the United States with respect to the Work, past response actions, and Past and Future
Response Costs as defined herein or this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to:
a. any direct ·or indirect claim related_ to OUI for reimbursement from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (established pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.
§ 9507) through CERCLA Sections 106(b)(2), 107, 111, 112, 113 or any other provision of law;
b. any claims against the United States, including any department, agency or
instrumentality of the United States under CERCLA Seciions I 07 or 113 related to OU I; or
c. any claims arising out of response actions at or in connection with OU I,
including any claim under the United States Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution,' the
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as amended, or
at common law. · ·
Except as provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claims Against De Micromis Parties),
and Paragraph 92 (waiver of Claim-Splitting Defenses), these covenants not to sue sha"/1 not
apply in the event that the United States brings a cause of action or issues an order pursuant to
the reservations set forth in Paragraph 81 (b) -(d) or 81 (g) -(k), but only to the extent that
Settling Defendant's claims arise from the same response action, response costs, or damages that ,
the United States is seeking pursuant to the applicable reservation.
85. The Settling Defendant reserves, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to,
claims ag.ainst the United States, subject to the provisions of Chapter 171 of Title 28 of the
United States Code, for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death • caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the United States while
acting within the scope of his office or employment under circumstances where the United
States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place
where the act or omission occurred. However, any such claim shall not include a claim for any
damages caused, in whole or in part, by the act or omission of any person, including any
contractor, who is not a federal employee as that tennis defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2671; nor shall
any such claim include a claim based on EPA's selection of response actions, or the oversight or
approval of the Settling Defendant's plans or activities. The foregoing applies only to claims
which are brought pursuant to any statute other than CERCLA and for which the waiver of
sovereign immunity is found in a statute other than CERCLA.
86. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deeme.d to constitute preauthorization of
a claim within the meaning of Section 111 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 961 I, or 40 C.F..R.
32
• •
§ 300.700(d).
87. Settling Defendant agrees not to assert any claims and to waive all claims or
causes of action that it may have for all matters relating to OU!, including for contribution,
against any person where the person's liability to Settling Defendant with n:spect to OU! is
based solely on having arranged for disposal or treatment, or for transport for disposal or
treatment, of hazardous substances at OU!, or having accepted for transport for disposal or
treatment of hazardous substances at OU I, if:
a. the materials contributed by such person to OU l containing hazardous .
substances did not exceed the greater of (i) 0.002% of the total volume of waste at OU!, or (ii)
110 gallons of liquid materials or 200 pounds of solid materials.
b. This waiver shall not apply to any claim or cause of action against any
person meeting the above criteria if EPA has determined that the materials contributed to OU! by
such person contributed or could contribute significantly to the costs of response at OU!. This
waiver also shall not apply with respect to any defense, claim, or cause of action that a Settling
Defendant may have against any person if such person asserts a claim or cause of action relating
to OU I against such Settling Defendant.
XXIII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION
. 88. Except as provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claiins Against De Micromis
Parties), nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to create any rights in, or grant any
cause of action to, any person not a Party to this Consent Decree. The preceding sentence shall
not be construed to waive or nullify any rights that any person not a signatory to. this decree may
have under applicable law. Except as.provided in Paragraph 87 (Waiver of Claims Against De
Micromis Parties), each of the Parties expressly reserves any and all rights (including, '.Jut not
limited to, any right to contribution), defenses, claims, demands, and causes.of action which each
Party may have with respect to any matter, transaction, or occurrbnce relating in any way to the
Site against any person not a Party hereto:
89. The Parties agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds; that the
Settling Defendant is entitled, as of the Effective Date, to protection from contribution actions or
claims as· provided by CERCLA Section 113(1)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(1)(2) for matters addressed
in this Consent Decree. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the "matters addressed" are the
Remedial Design and Remedial Action for OU I (Former Landfill No. 1) and all Past, Interim and
Future Costs, as defined herein.
90. The Settling Defendant agrees that with respect to any suit or claim for
contribution brought by it for matters related to this Consent Decree it will notify the United
States in writing no later than 60 days prior to the initiation of such suit or claim.
91. The Settling Defendant also agrees that with ~espect tci any suit or claim for·
contribution brought against it for matters related to this Consent Decree it wil! notify in writing
the United States within 14 days of service of the complaint on it. In addition, Settling
Defendant shall notify the United States within 14 days of service or receipt ·of any Motion for
Summary Judgment and within I 4 days of receipt of any order from a court setting a case for
trial.
33
• •
92. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United
States for injunctive relief, recovery of response costs, or other appropriate relief relating to the
Site, Settling Defendant shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon
the principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim-splitting, or
other defenses based upon any contention that the clairr,s raised by the United States in the
subsequent proceeding were or should have been brought in the instant case; provided, however,
that nothing in this Paragraph affects the enforceability of the covenants not to sue set forth in
Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff).
XXIV. ACCESS TO INFORMATION
93. Settling Defendant shall provide to EPA, upon request, copies of all documents
and information within its possession or control or that of its contractors or agents relating to
activities at OU! or to the implementation of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to,
sampling, analysis, chain of custody records, manifests, \ruck.ing logs, receipts, reports, sample
traffic routing, correspondence, or other documents or information related to the Work. Settling
Defendant shall also make available to EPA; for purposes of investigation, information gathering,
or testimony, its employees, agents, or representatives with knowledge of relevant facts
concerning the performance of the Work.
94. Business Confidential and Privileged Documents.
a. Settling Defendant may assert business confidentiality claims covering
part or all of the documents or information submitted to Plaintiff under this Consent Decree to
the extent permitted by and in accordance with Section !04(e)(7) of CERCLA, 42 U8.C.
§ 9604(e)(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b). Documents or information determined io be confidential
by EPA will-be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no.claim of
confidentiality accompanies documents or information when they are submitted to EPA, or if
EPA has notified Settling Defendant that the documents or information are
0
not confidential under
the standards of Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA or 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, the public may be
given access to such documents or information without further notice to Settling Defendant.
b. The Settling Defendant may assert that certain documents, records and
other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendant asserts such a privilege in lieu of providing
documents, it shall provide the Plaintiff with the following: (!) the title of the document, record,
or information; (2) the date of the document, record, or information; (3) the hame and title of the
author of the document, record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and
recipient; (5) a description of the contents of the document, record, or information; and (6) the
privilege asserted by Settling Defendant. However, no documents, reports or other information
.created or generated pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on the
grounds that they are privileged.
95. No claim of confidentiality shall be made with respect to any data generated in the
performance of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, all sampling, analytical, .
monitoring, hydrogeologic, scientific, chemical, or engineering data, or any other documents or
information evidencing conditions at or around OU I.
34
• •
XXV. RETENTION OF RECORDS
96.· Until 10 years after the Settling Defendant's receipt ofEPA's notification pursuant
to Paragraph 47 .b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion of the Work), the Settling
. Defendant shall preserve and retain all records and documents (including records or documents
in electronic form unless there is a hard copy of such documents) now 1n its possession or control
or which come into its possession or control that relate in any manner to its liability under
CERCLA with respect to OU 1, the performance of the Work, or to the liability of any other
person under CERCLA with respect to OU!. The Settling Defendant must also instruct its
contractors and agents to preserve, for the same period of time specified above all documents or
records (including documents or records in electronic form unless there is a hard copy of such
documents) now in its possession or control or which come into its possession or control that
relate in any manner to the performance of the Work. Each of the above record retention ·
requirements shall apply regardless of any corporate retention policy to the contrary. ' .
97. At the conclusion of this document retention period, Settling Defendant shall
notify the United States at least 90 days prior to the destruction of any such records or
documents, and, upon request by the United States, Settling Defendant shall deliver any such
records or documents to EPA. The Settling Defendant may assert that certain documents, records
and other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendant asserts such a privilege, it shall provide the
Plaintiff with the following: ( 1) the title of the document, record, or information; (2) the date of
the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of the author of the document,
record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and recipient; (5) a description of
the subject of the document, record, or information; and (6) the privilege asserted by Settling
Defendant. However, no documents, reports or other information created or generated,pursuant
to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on t~e grounds that they are
. I • privileged. '
XXVI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS-. I
98. Whenever, under the terms of this Consent Decree, written notice is required to be
given or a report or other document is required to be sent by one Party to another, it shall be
directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless those individuals or: their
successors give notice of a change to the other Parties in writing. All notices and submissions
shall be considered effective upon receipt, unless otherwise provided. Written notice as specified
herein shall constitute complete satisfaction of any written notice requirement of the Consent
Decree with respect to the United States, EPA, and the Settling Defendant, respectively.
As to the United States:
and
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section
.Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Re: DJ # 90-11-3-07838
Winston A. Smith, Director
35
•
As to EPA:
•
Waste Management. Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Jennifer Wendel
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
As to the Regional Financial Management Officer:
As to the State:
As to the Settling Defendant:
Carol A. Williams
Financial Management Officer
P.O. Box 100142
Atlanta, GA 30084
Nile Testerman
State Project Coordinator
40 I Oberlin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
, .
Rodney G. Proctor
Director Environmental Health & Safety
Weyerhaeuser Company
Mail Stop EC2-2Cl
33810 Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way WA 98001
XXVII. EFFECTIVE DATE
· 99. The effective date of this Consent Decree shall be the date upon which this
Consent Decree is entered by the Court, except as otherwise provided herein.
XXVIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
100. This Court retains jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this Consent Decree
and. the Settling Defendant for the duration of the performance of the terms and provisions of this
Consent Decree for the purpose of enabling any of the Parties to apply to the Court at any time
for such further order, direction, and relief as may be necessary or appropriate for the
36
• •
construction or modification of this Consent Decree, or to effectuate or enforce compliance with
its terms_, or to resolve disputes in accordance with Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) hereof.
XXIX. APPENDICES
JO I. The following appendices are attached tc, and incorporated into this Consent
Decree:.
"Appendix A" is the ROD.
"Appendix B" is the SOW.
"Appendix C" is the description and/or map of OU I.
XXX. Community Relations
102. Settling Defendant shall propose to EPA its participation in the community
relations plan to be developed by EPA. EPA will determine the appropriate role for the Settling
Defendant under the Plan. Settling Defendant shall also cooperate with EPA in providing
information regarding the Work to the public. As requested by EPA, Settling Defendant shall
participate in the preparation of such information for dissemination to the public and in public
meetings which may be held or sponsored by EPA to explain activities at or relating to OU!.
103. Within 30 days of a request by EPA, Settling Defendant shall provide a draft
Technical Assistance Plan (TAP) in accordance with Task I of the SOW. Under the TAP,
Settling Defendant shall provide and administer $50,000 of its own funds to be used by selected
representatives ofthe community to hire technical assistance during the response activities
conducted pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendant will provide and administer any
additional amounts needed if the selected community group demonstrates such a need imrsuant to
· 40 C.F.R. 35.4065, as determined by EPA. EPA may approve, disapprove, require revisions to,
. or modify the draft TAP in whole or in part. IfEPA requires revisions, Settling Defendant shall
submit a revised TAP within 30 days of receipt of EPA's notification of the required revisions.
Settling Defendant shall implement the TAP as approved in writing by EPA. Once approved, or
approved with modifications, the TAP and any subsequent modifications shall be incorporated
into and become fully enforceable under this Consent Decree.
XXXI. MODIFICATION
104. Schedules specified in this Consent Decree for completion of the Work may be
modified by agreement of EPA and the Settling Defendant. All such modifications shall be made
in writing.
JOS. Except as provided in Paragraph 14 (Modification of the SOW or Related Work
Plans), no material modifications shall be made to the SOW without written notification to and
written approval of the United States, Settling Defendant, and the Court, if such modifications
fundamentally alter the basic features of the selected remedy within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.
300.435(c)(2)(B)(ii). Prior to providing its _approval to any modification, the United States will
provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to-review and comment on the proposed
modification. Modifications to the SOW that do not materially alter that document, or material
modifications to the SOW that do not fundamentally alter the basic features of the selected
remedy within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.300.435(c)(2)(B)(ii), may be made by written agreement
37
'
• • •
between EPA, after providing the State with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on
the proposed modification, and the Settling Defendant.
106. Nothing in this Decree shall be deemed to alter the Court's power to enforce,
supervise or approve modifications to this Consent Decree.
XXXII. LODGING AND OPPORTUNiTY FOR PuBLIC COMMENT
107. This Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period·of not less than
thirty (30) days for public notice and comment in accordance with Section 122(d)(2) ,of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(2), and 28 C.F.R. § 50.7. The United States reserves the right to
withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments ·regarding the Consent Decree disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Settling Defendant consents to the entry of this Consent Decree without further notice.
108. If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the
form presented, this agreement is voidable at the sole discretion of any Party and the terms of the
agreement may not be used as evidence in any litigation between the Parties.
XXXIII. AGREEMENT OF PARTIES FOR SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE
1 JO. Settling Defendant acknowledges and stipulates that for the purposes of l 13(g)(l)
of CERCLA, it agrees not to assert a challenge to the.United States' natural resource damages
claims based on the running of the statute of limitations for three-years after the completion of
the remedial actions, excluding operation and maintenan_ce, taken at the Site.
111. Settling Defendant agrees not to challenge, either directly or indirectly;-through an
officer, employee, or corporate affiliate, any listing or proposed listing of the Site on the NPL, if
EPA has determined that Settling Defendant is in "noncompliance" at OUI°because Senling
Defendant: I) has ceased implementation of any portion of the Vfork; 2) is seriously or
repeatedly deficient or late in its performance of the Work; or 3) is implementing the Work in a_
manner which may cause an endangerment to human health or the environment, and which '. noncompliance constitutes bad faith on the part of Settling Defendant.
112. If EPA makes a determination of noncompliance pursuant to Paragraph 111, then
EPA shafl notify Settling Defendant ~f such determination in writing. EPA's written
determination shall be final and unreviewable, unless Settling Defendant invokes dispute
resolution pursuant to Section XIX. The dispute shall be limited solely to whether pursuant to
Paragraph 111, Settling Defendant is in "noncompliance" at OUI and shall be reviewable under
Paragraph 66. Dispute resolution· pursuant to this Section shall not have any affect on the
Settling Defendant's obligations pursuant to this Consent Decree, including but not limited to,
Settling Defendant's obligation to perform the Work and reimburse EPA for Past and Future
Response Costs.
113. IfEPA proposes the Site for listing or lists the Site on the NPL without first.
making a determination of noncompliance pursuant to the preceding Paragraph, then Settling
Defendant reserves all rights, except as provided in Paragraph 114, that it may have to challenge
the listing or proposed listing of the Site on th·e NPL. EPA's decision to propose the Site or
listing or to list the Site on the NPL pursuant to this Section shall not have any affect on the
Defendant's obligations ·pursuant to this Consent Decree.
38
• •
114. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 111-113, Settling Defendant agrees not to seek
judicial review of a decision to list the Site on the NPL, or to submit comments on a proposal tci
list the Site, directly or indirectly through a third party, anytime after the Effective Date of this
Consent Decree, based on a claim that changed conditions at OU I that result from this Consent
Decree in any way affect the basis for listing the Site on the ·NPL.
XXXIV. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE
113. Each undersigned representative of the Settling Defendant to this Consent Decree
and the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division•of the
Department of Justice certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and
conditions of this Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind such Party to this document.
114. The Settling Defendant hereby agrees not to oppose entry of this Consent Decree
by this Court or to challenge any provision of this Consent Decree unless the United States has
notified the Settling Defendant in writing that it no longet supports entry of the Consent Decree.
I 15. The Settling Defendant shall identify, on the attached signature page, the name,
address and telephone number of an agent who is authorized to accept service of process by mail
on behalf of that Party with respect to all matters arising under or relating to this Consent Decree.
Settling Defendant hereby agrees to accept service ih_ that manner and to waive the formal service
requirements set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local
· rules of this Court, including, but not limited to, service of a summons. The parties agree that
Settling Defendant need not file an answer to the complaint in this action unless or until the court
expressly declines to enter this Consent Decree.
XXXV. FINAL JUDGMENT
116. This Consent Decree and its appendices constitute the final, ~omplete, and
exclusive agreement and understanding among the parties with respect to the settlement
embodied in the Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that there are no representations, .
agreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than· those expressly contained in
this Consent Decree .
. 117. Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent .
Decree shall constitute a final judgment between and among the United States and the Settling
Defendant. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters this
judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58.
-;-1.
so ORDERED THJ.S!f D';_Y OF /rv1..;.1/:20'1> "3> -, -
United States District Judge
·_' ·,~·;_':~:tr:':;:-:;,·_';,;.-'''-;.":,.•_;:,
), ,,?.' ... ;:_.';!; . '/:_;,>-.:_: .•.
39
• •
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Landfill No. I (OU!) c,fthe Weyerhaeuser Company •
Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina.
6.3.03
Date
Date
((1/41
Date
FOR THE UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Thomas L. Sansonetti
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Environrn. ntal Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Assistant United States A orney
Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. Department of .Justice
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-146 I
40
., • •
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Landfill No. I (OU!) of the Weyerhaeuser Company
Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina.
~//o-r ~
~l16laj
Date
Winston A. Smith
Director, Waste Management Division
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
YJ/irj·
Elizabeth E. Davis
Associate Regional Counsel
· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
41
•
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters irito this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, relating to the Landfill No. l (OU I) of the Weyerhaeuser Company
Plymouth Wood Treating Plant site in, Martin County, North Carolina.
FOR WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
{Y-o 3
Date
Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Ab_ove-signed Party:
Name (print): \Joseph . Jac.kol.U'S~
Title: 5<2rt ,or
Address: 331,(,3 ·l,i $::,.
Ph. Number:
42
•
APPENDIXB
UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR RD/RA
FORMERLANDFILLNO.IAREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA·
• •
APPEl\'DIX B
STATEMENTOFWORKFORTHEFORMERLANDFILLNO.lAREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
Pl..ANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
Section
I.
II
ill.
JV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY
REMEDY COMPONENTS
PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES ·
TASK_! -Community Relations
TASK II -Remedial Design
A. Remedial Design Planning
B. Conceptual Design
C. Preliminary Design ·
D. Prefinal/Final design
TASK ill -Remedial Action
A. Remedial Action Planning
B. Preconstruction Conference
C. Prefinal Construction Inspection
D. Final Construction Inspection
E. Interim Remedial Action Report
TASK JV -Operation arid Maintenance
A. · Operation and Maintenance Plan
B. Operation and Maintenance Manual
TASK V -Performance Monitoring
A. Performance Standards Verification Plan
References
Summary of Major Deliverables
Page
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
7
8
8
9
9
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
20
• •
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE FORMER LANDFILL NO. I AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
I. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Work (SOW) outlines the work to be performed by Settling Defendant at the
Fonner Landfill No. I Area (OU-I) at the Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Wood Treating
Plant site, Manin County, Nonh Carolina ("the Site"). The work outlined is intended to
implement the remedy as described in the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-I, dated June 19,
2002, and to achieve the Performance Standards set fonh in the ROD, Consent Decree and this
SOW. The requirements of this SOW will be funher detailed in work plans and other documents
to be submitted by the Settling Defendant for approval as set fonh in this SOW. It is not the
intent of this document to provide task specific engineering or geological guidance. The
definitions set fonh in Section IV of the Consent Decree shall also apply to this SOW unless
expressly provided otherwise herein.
Settling Defendant is responsible for performing the Work to implement the selected remedy.
EPA shall conduct oversight of the Settling Defendant's activities throughout the performance of
the Work. The Settling Defendant shall assist EPA in conducting oversight activities.
Except where otherwise provided. EPA review or approval of a task or deliverable shall not be
construed as a guarantee as to the adequacy of such_ task or deliverable. If EPA modifies a
deliverable pursuant to Section XI of the Consent Decree, such deliverable as modified shall be
deemed approved by EPA for purposes of this SOW. A summary of the major deliverables that
Settling Defendant shall submit for the Work is attached. · --
Il. OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY .
THE OBJECTIVES OF TJ-IlS REMEDIAL ACTION ARE TO:
Eliminate or reduce the potential risks to human health frol)l-exposure to Dioxin TEQ in
cover soils within the footprint of the Former Landfill No. '1 Area;
Eliminate or reduce the potential risks to site specific ecological receptors exposed to
Dioxin TEQ and inorganic contaminants of concern identified in the ROD; in cover soils
within the footprint of the Former Landfill No. I Area;
Prevent or reduce the potential release of hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants from OU-I to surface water bodies and sediments in the wetlands adjacent
to the _Former Landfill No. I Area;
Eliminate or reduce the potential risks to ecological receptors exposed to mercury and
chromium in wetlands soils adjacent to the Former Landfill No. I Area; and
. Monitor acceptable levels of potential risk to hypothetical future residential receptors·
exposed to Dioxin in groundwater in the vicinity of the Former Landfill No. I Area.
• •
m. REMEDY COMPONENTS
The remedy includes containment of contaminated cover soils further defined in the Remedial
Design and located within the footprint of the Former Landfill No. I Area, Institutional Controls,
. Natural Recovery of the Wetlands soils adjacent to the Former Landfill No. I Area, and
groundwater monitoring.
A. Components
The major components of the remedy are described in Section M, Selected Remedy
section of the attached Record of Decision.
B. Performance Standards
Settling Defendant shall meet all Performance Standards, as defined in the Consent
Decree and refined in the Remedial Design, inciuding clean-up levels and Remedial
Action Objectives set forth _in the attached Record of Decision, and in accordance with
the Performance Standards Verification Plan.
C. Compliance Testing
Settling Defendant shall perform complianc~ testing to ensure.that the Performance
Standards are met. The cover soils, wetland soils and groundwater shall be tested in
accordance with the Performance Standard Verification Plan and Operation and
Maintenance Plan, developed pursuant to Tasks IV and V of this SOW. After ..
confinnation of compliance, routine monitoring of OU-! will be discontinued. If
monitoring of the wetlands soils indicates that the Perfonnance Standards as set forth in
Section M of the Record of Decision, the Consent Decree, and the Performance ,
Standards Verification Plan are not being achieved, EPA may reevaluate the effectiveness
of the Fonner Landfill No. I Area cove_r as a ~ource control remedy.
IV PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES
The specific.scope of this work shall be documented by'Settling Defendant in a Remedial Design
(RD) Work Plan and a Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan. Plans, specifications, submittals, and
Q.ther deliverables shall be subject to EPA review and approval in accordance with Section XI of
the Consent Decree.
Settling Defendant shall submit a technical memorandum documenting any need for additional
data along with the proposed Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) whenever such requirements are
identified. Settling Defendant is responsible for fulfilling additional data and analysis needs
identified by EPA during the RD/RA process consistent with the general scope and objectives of
the Con·sent Decree, including this SOW.
Settling Defendant shall perfonn the following tasks with respect to implementation of the
remedy specified in the ROD for OU-!:
2
• •
TASK I -COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The development and implementation of community relations activities are the responsibility of
EPA. At the Remedial Design stage EPA isrequired to re.view the Community Relations Plan.
developed for the Rl/FS, and to amend the plan as appropriate. Although implementation of the
community relations plan is the responsibility of EPA, if requested by EPA, the Settling
Defendant shall assist EPA by providing information regarding the history of OU-I and
participating in public meetings. In addition, upon request by EPA, the Settling Defendant shall
prepare a plan (hereinafter referred to as the Technical Assistance Plan or TAP), equivalent to and
consistent with the EPA Technical Assistance Program as set forth in 40 C.F.R. §§ 35.4000 et.
sec. and subject to EPA 's approval, for providing and administering $50,000.00 of the Settling
Defendant's money to fund a qualified community group to hire independent technical advisors
to help interpret and comment on OU-I-related documents developed under this SOW.
As part of the Technical Assistance Plan, the Settling Defendant must propose a method,
including an application process and eligibility criteria, for awarding and administering the funds
above. Any eligible community group must meet the requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R .. §30.21,
40 C.F.R .. §§35.4045 and 35.4020 (a)(2) and (a)(3), and must be I) a representative group of
individuals potentially affected by OU-I , 2) incorporated as a nonprofit organization for the
purposes of OU-I or established as a charitable organization that operates within the geographical
range of OU-I and is already incorporated as a nonprofit organization. Any group is ineligible if
it fails to meet any of these requirements or if it fall,; within any of the categories listed in 40
C.F.R. §35.4020(b). Selection criteria should be consistent with 40 C.F.R .. §35.4155. Funds
may be awarded to only one qualified group for purposes of this Consent Decree and Statement
of Work.
Also as part of.the TAP, Settling Defendant shall include a proposed plan for documenting the
eligibility of the selected community group, and informing the group and EPA if it believes any
individual member is ineligible (consistent with 40 C.F.R. §35.4030) to participate in the group.
· Settling Defendant shall also include a plan for informing the sele'cted group of the activities.that
it can and cannot undertake with Settling Defendant's funds. The list of eligible and ineligible
activities should be consistent with 40 C.F.R. §§35.4070 and 35.4075, respectively. The TAP
shall also include a proposal for offering and, if accepted, transferring up to $5,000 to the selected
group to co~er its estimated need for funds for an initial start-up period.
Also as part of the TAP, Settling Defendant must include a plan for providing assistance to the
selected community group in the solicitation for an independent Techni~al Advisor. As long as
the group documents its selection and the advisor selected by the group satisfies the requirements
specified in 40 C.F.R .. §§35.4190 and 35.4195, Settling Defendant must accept the group's
choice. Finally, Settling Defendant must include a proposed plan for negotiating a contract with
the selected community organization. The contract must specify the duties of the Settling
Defendant and the community group, respectively, and establish a dispute resolution process.
Settling Defendant will provide to EPA a copy of the final contract.
The Settling Defendant may hire a third party to coordinate and administer the TAP.
Additionally, the Settling Defendant must designate within thirty (30) days ofEPA's approval of
the TAP an Outreach Coordinator who will be responsive to the public's inquiries and questipns
about OU!, including information about the application process and the administration of the
TAP. Settling Defendant must also propose a plan for arranging for and hosting meetings
3
•
between its Outreach Coordinator, the community group, the Technical Advisor, and other
interested individuals.
If the community group demonstrates, consistent with the criteria specified in 40 C.F.R.
§35.4065, that it needs additional funds for TAP activ,ty, then Senling Defendanl will provide the
additional monies needed.
"The extent of che Settling Defendant's involvement in community relations accivities is left to the
discretion of EPA. In addition to devising and administering the Technical Assistance Plan, all
other community relations responsibilities EPA may'assign to the S_ettling Defendant shall be.
specified in the community relations plan. All community relations activities conducted by
Settling Defendant shall be subject to oversight by EPA.
TASK II -REMEDIAL DESIGN
The Remedial Design shall provide the technical details for implementation of the Remedial
Action in accordance with currently accepted environmental protection technologies and standard
professional engineering and construction practices. The design shall include clear and
comprehensive design plans and specifications.
A. Remedial Design Planning
Within 60 days after EPA's issuance of an auihorization to proceed pursuant to Paragraph
10 of the Consenl Decree, Settling Defendant shall submit a draft RD Work Plan, a
Sampling and Analysis Plan, and a Health and Safety Plan to EPA. To the extent.
possible, these plans may incorporate the sampling and analysis plan, quality assurance
project plan and health and safety plan prepared for the Rl/FS activities. The RD Work
Plan and the Sampling and Analysis Plan must be reviewed and approved by EPA'' and '
the Health and Safety Plan reviewed and commented on by EPA prior·to the initiation of
field activities. Upon approval of the RD Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall implement
the RD Work Plan in accordance with the design managemen_t schedule contained
therein. Plans, specifications, submittals, and other deliverables shall be subject to EPA
review and approval in accordance with Section XI of the Consent Decree. Review
and/or approval of design submittals only allows Settling Defendant to proceed to the
next step of the design process. It _does not imply accepcance of later design submittals
that have not been reviewed, nor _that the remedy, when constructed, will meet
Performance Standards.
I. RD Work Plan
Settling Defendant shall submic a Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan to EPA for
review and approval. The Work Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the
Sampling and Analysis Plan, and the Health and Safety Plan,-although each plan
may be delivered under separate cover. The Work Plan shall include a
comprehensive description of the additional data collection and evaluation
activities to be performed, and the plans and specifications to be prepared. A
comprehensive design management schedule for completion of each major
activicy and submission of each deliverable shall also be included.
Specifically, the RD Work Plan shall present the following:
4
• •
a. A statement of the problem(s) and potential problem(s) posed by
OU-1 and the objectives of the RD/RA.
a. A background summary that references the approved RI. BERA and
FS repons and presents a synopsis of applicable information
including:
1) A brief description of OU-1 including the
geographic location and site features.
2) A brief synopsis of the history of OU-1 including
past disposal practices.
3) A brief summary of the existing data including
physical and chemical characteristics of the
contaminants identified and their distribution in
environmental media at OU-!.
c. · A list and detailed description of the tasks ·10 be perfomied,
· information needed for each task, and information to be produced
during and at the conclusion of each task. The specific issues to
address will include refinement of the existing cover thickness and
configuration, an update ground survey and assessment of potential
wetlands monitoring locations.
d. A description of the work 'products that shall be submitted to EPA.
This description shall include the deliverables set fonh in. the
remainder of Task II. ·
e. A list of the required dra_,,;ings, including preliminary sketches and
layouts, ·describing conceptual aspects of the design, as approp;iate,
along with an outline of the required specifications, including a
preliminary discussion of Performance Standards.
f. A schedule for completion of each reqwred activity and submission
of each deliverable required by the Consent Decree and this SOW.
This schedule shall also include information regarding timing,
initiation and completion of all critical path milestones for each
activity and/or deliverable including EPA document review and
approval. The schedule shall incorporate the uncenain length of
agency review activities by reflecting in the work plan schedule the
trigger date for revisions as the date of receipt of agency comments
plus a specified number of days to address comments.
g. A project management plan, including a data management plan, and
provision for quarterly repons to EPA, and meetings and
presentations to EPA at the conclusion of each major phase of the
RD/RA. The data management plan shall address the requirements
for project management systems, including tracking, soning, and
retrieving the data along with an identification of the software to be ·
used, minimum data requirements, data format and backup data
5
•
management. The plan shall address both data management and
document control for all activities conducted during the RD/RA.
h. A description of the community relations support activities to be
conducted during the R.D in a manner consistent with EPA's
community relations plan developed separately. At EPA's request,
Senling Defendant will assist EPA in preparing and disseminating
information to the public regarding the RD work to be performed.
2. Sampling and Analysis Plan
Senling Defendant shall prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to ensure
that sample collection and analytical activities are conducted in accordance with
technically acceptable protocols and that the data generated will meet the DQOs
established. The SAP shall include a Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP)
and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QA.PP).
The FSAP shall define in detail ·the sampling and data-gathering methods that
shall be used on the project. It shall include sampl_ing objectives, sample location
(horizontal and vertical) and frequency, sampling equipment and procedures, and
sample handling and analysis. The Field Sampling and Analysis.Plan shall be .
wrinen so that a field sampling team_unfamiliar with OU-I would be able to
gather the samples and field information required. The QAPP shall describe the
project objectives and organization, functional activitie~, and quality assurance
and quality control (QNQC) protocols that shall be used to achieve the desired
DQOs. The DQOs shall, at a minimum, reflect use of analytical method; for
obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet National Contingency Plan
requirements as identified at 300.435 (b). In addition, the QAPP shall adCress
personnel qualifications, sampling procedures, sample custody, analytical ' procedures, and data reduction, validation, and reporting. These procedures must
be consistent with the Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manµal and with the guidances
specified in Section YID of the Consent Decree. '
If a laboratory has not been previously approved for use on th, Site, Settling
Defendant shall demonstrate in advance and to EPA's satisfaction that the
laboratory is qualified to conduct the proposed work an1 meets the requirements
specified in_ Section YID of the Consent Decree. EPA may require that Settling
Defendant submit detailed information to demonstrate that the laboratory is
qualified to conduct the work, including information on personnel qualifications,
equipment and material specification, and laboratory analyses of performance
samples (blank and/or spike samples). In addition, EPA may require submittal of
data packages equivalent to those generated by the EPA Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP). If a selected laboratory is not currently participating in the CLP,
methods consistent with CLP methods that would be used at this site for the
purp!)ses proposed and QNQC procedures approved by EPA, shall be used.
6
• •
3. Health and Safety Plan
A Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared in conformance with Settling
Defendant's health and safety program. and in compliance with OSHA
regulations. The Health and Safety Plan shall include an ·appropriate health and
safety risk analysis, a description of monitoring and personal protective
equipment. medical monitoring, and provisions for site control. EPA will not
approve Settling Defendant's Health and Safety Plan, but rather EPA will review
it to ensure that all necessary elements are included, and that the plan provides
for the protection of human health and the environment.
B. Conceptual Design
Conceptual Design shall begin with data collection activities and shall end with the plan
for satisfying permitting requirements as detailed below At this stage, Settling
Defendant shall field verify, as necessary, the existing conditions of OU-I. The technical
requiremenis of the Remedial Action shall be addressed and outlined so that they may be
reviewed to detennine if the final design will provide an effective remedy. Supponing
data and documentation shall be provided with the design documents defining the
functional aspects of the project. EPA approval of the Conceptual Design is required
before proceeding with furiher_design work, unless _specifically authorized by EPA. In
accordance with the design management schedule established in the approved Remedial
Design Work Plan. Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA the Conceptual Design
submittal which shall consist of the following: ·
I. Results of Data Acquisition Activities
Data gathered during the project planning P.hase, if any, shall be compiled:
summarized, and submitted along with an analysis' of the impact of the results on
design activities. In additi_on, surveys conducted to establish topography. rights-
of-way, easements, and utility lines shall be documented. Utility requirements
and acquisition of access, through purchases or easements, that are necessary to
implement the RA shall also be discussed.
2. Design Criteria Repon
The concepts supporting the technical aspects of the design shall be defined in
detail and presented· in this report. Specifically, the Design Criteria Report shall
include the preliminary design assumptions and parameters, including:
a. Cover system configuration
b. Area of Former Landfill No. I cover soils requiring" containment
c. Area of Wetlands which will be monitored and locations of
stations
d. Numbers and locations of groundwater monitoring wells
e. Materials and equipment
f. Perfonnance Standards
g. Long-term monitoring"requirements
7
C.
• •
3. Basis of Design
The evaluations conducted to select the design approach shall be described.
Design calculations shall be included.
4. Plan for Satisfyi~g Permitting Requirements
All activities must be perfonned in accordance with the requirements of
applicable.federal and state laws and regulations. Any off-_site disposal shall be
in compliance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Consent
Decree. The plan shall identify any off'site disposal/discharge permits that are
required, the time required to process the permit applications, and a schedule for
submittal of the permit applications
Preliminary Desirn
Preliminary design shall begin with approval of the conceptual design and shall end with
the completion of approximately 60 percent of the design effort. Draft plans and
specifications as well as an approach to addressing pennitting requirements will be
included in this submittal. Depending upon the sequencing approach, EPA approval of
the Preliminary Design is required before proceeding with further work, unless
specifically authorized by EPA. In accordan_ce with the design management schedule
established in the approved Remedial Design·Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall submit
to EPA the Preliminary Design submittal which shall consist of the following:
D.
I. Draft Plans and Specifications
Draft construction drawings and specifications for all components of the
Remedial Action shall be prepared and presented., All plans a_nd specifications
shall ·conform with the Construction Specifications Institute Master Format, and
the scope of the technical specifications shall be outlined in a manner reflecting
the final specifications.
2. Draft Construction Schedule
. Settling Defendant shall develop a Draft Construction Schedule for construction
and implementation of the remedial action which identifies timing for initiation
and completion of all critical path tasks. ·Settling Defendant shall identify
estimated schedules for completion of the project and major milestones.
Prefinal/Final Design
The Settling Defendant shall submit the Prefinal Design when the design work is
approximately 90 percent complete in accordance with the approved design management
schedule. The Prefinal Design shall function as the draft version of the Final Design. The
Prefinal Design shall consist of a continuation and expansion of the Preliminary Design
submittal as may be modified by any value engineering recommendations adopted by
Settling Defendant. Any additional value engineering recommendations adopted by
Settling Defendant shall be summarized in a .report submitted with the Prefinal Design.
8
• •
EPA comments on the Preliminary Design and a memorandum indicating how EP A's
comments were incorporated shall be included in the Prefmal/Final Design. After EPA
review and comment on the Prefinal Design, the Final Design ~hall be submitted along
with a memorandum indicating how the Prefinal Design comments were incorporated
into the Final Design. All.Final Design documents shall be cenified by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Nonh Carolina. EPA written approval of the Final
Design is required before initiating the RA, unless specifically authorized by EPA. The
following i_tems shall be submitted with or as pan of the Prefinal/Final Design:
I. Complete Design Analyses
The selected design shall be presented along with an analysis supponing the
design approach. Design calculations shall be included.
2. Final Plans and Specifications
A complete set of construction drawings and.specifications shall be submitted
which describe the selected design.
3. Final Construction Schedule
Settling Defendant shall submit a filial construction schedule to EPA for
approval. ·
TASK ill -REMEDIAL ACTION
Remedial Action shall be performed by Settling Defendant to implement the response actions
selected in the ROD. · '
i
A. Remedial Action Planning '
Within thiny (30) days of EPA.approval of the Final Design; Settling Defendant shall
submit a draft Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan, Project Delivery Strategy. a
Construction Management Plan; a Construction Quality Assurance Plan, and a
Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan. The RA Work Plan, Project
Delivery Strategy, Construction Management Plan, and Construction Quality Assurance
Plan must be reviewed and approved by EPA and the Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingen·cy Plan reviewed by EPA prior to the initiation of the Remedial Action.
Upon approval of the RA Work Plan, Settling Defendant shall implement the RA Work
Plan in accordance with the construction management schedule. Significant field
changes to the RA as set fonh in the RA Work Plan shall not be undenaken without the
approval of EPA. The RA shall be documented in enough detail to produce as-built
construction drawings after the RA is complete. Deliverables shall be submitted to EPA
for review and approval in accordance with Section XI of the Consent Decree. Review
and/or approval of submittals does not imply acceptance of later submittals that have not
been reviewed, nor that the remedy, when constructed. will meet Performance Standards.
9
•
L RA Work Plan
A Work Plan which provides a detailed plaffof action for completing the RA
activities shall be submitted to EPA for review and approval. The objective of
. this work plan is to provide for the safe and effic.ient completion of the RA. The
Work Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the Project Delivery Strategy,
Construction Management Plan, the Construction Quality Assurance Plan, and
the Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan. These plans may be
appended or delivered under separate cover. The Work Plan shall include a
comprehensive description of the work to be performed and the Final
Construction schedule for completion of each major activity and submission of
each deliverable.
Specifically, the RA Work Plan shall present the following:
a. A detailed description of the tasks to be performed and a
description of the work products to be submitted to EPA. This
includes the deliverables set forth in the remainder of Task ill.
b. A schedule for completion of each required activity and
submission of each deliverable required by this Consent Decree,
including those in this SOW. ·
c. A project management plan, including provision for monthly
reports to EPA during construction. EPA's Project Coordinator
and the Settling Defendant's Project Coordinator will meet, at a
minimum, on a quarterly basis, unless EPA determines th~t such
meeting is unnecessary.
I
d. A description of the community ;elations support activities to be
conducted during the RA, consisten\ with the EPA prepared
community relations plan. At EPA's request, Settling Defendant
shall assist EPA in preparing and disseminating information to
the public regarding the RA work to be performed.
2. Project Delivery Strategy
Settling Defendant shall submit a document to EPA for review and approval
describing the strategy for delivering the project. This document shall address
the management approach for implementing the Remedial Action, including
procurement methods and contracting strategy, phasing alternatives, and
contractor and equipment availability concerns. If the construction of the remedy
is to be accomplished by Settling Defendant's "in-house" resources, the document
shall identify those resources.
3. Construction Management Plan
A Construction Management Plan shall be developed to indicate how the
construction activities are to be implemented and coordinated with EPA during
10
• •
the RA. Settling Defendant shall designate a person to be a Remedial Action
Coordinator and its representative on-site during the Remedial Action, and
identify this person ~ the Plan. This Plan shall also iden:ify other key project
management personnel and lines of au:hority, and provide descriptions of the duties of the key personnel along with an organizational chart. In addition. a
plan for the administration of construction changes and EPA review and ·approval
of those changes shall be included .
. 4. Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Settling Defendant shall develop and implement a Construction Quality
Assurance Program to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the
completed Remedial Action meets or exceeds all design criteria, plans and
specifications, and Performance Standards. The Construction Quality Assurance
Plan shall incorporate relevant provisions of the Performance Standards
Verification Plan (see Task V). At a minimum, the Construction Quality
Assurance Plan shall include the following elements:
a.· A description of the quality control organization, including a
chart showing lines of authority, identification of the members of
the Independent Quality Assurance Team (IQAT), and
. acknowledgment that the !QA Twill implement the control
system for all aspects of the work specified and shall report to
the project coordinator and EPA. The !QA T members shall be
representatives from testing and inspection organizations and/or
the Supervising Contractor and shall be responsible for the
QA/QC of the Remedial Action. The members of the !QA T
shall have a good professional and ethical reputation, pre~ious
experience in the type of QA/QC.activities to be implemented,
and demonstrated capability to perform the required activities.
They shall also be independent of the construction contractor. ,·
b. The name, qualifications;duties, authorities, and responsibilities
of each· person assigned a QC function.
c. Description cif the observations and control testing that will be
used to monitor the construction andlor'insta)lation of the
components of the Remedial Action. This includes information
which certifies that personnel and laboratories performing the
tests are qualified and the equipment and procedures to be used
comply with applicable standards. Any laboratories to be used
shall be specified. Acceptance/Rejection criteria and plans for
implementing corrective measures shall be addressed.
d. A schedule for managing submittals, testing, inspections, and
any other QA function (including those of contractors,
subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, purchasing agents, etc.)
that involve assuring quality workmanship, verifying compliance
with the plans and specifications, or any other QC objectives.
11
• •
Inspections shall verify compliance with all environmental
requirements and include, but not be limited to, air quality
particulate monitoring records and waste disposal records, etc.
e. Reporting procedure,s and reporting fonnat for QNQC activities
including such items as daily summary reports, s.chedule of data
submissions, inspection data sheets, problem identification and
corrective measures reports, evaluation reports, acceptance
reports, and final documentation.
f. A list of definable features of the work to be performed. A
definable feature of work is a task which is separate and distinct
from other tasks and has separate control requirements.
5. Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan
Settling Defendant shall prepare a Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingency Plan in confonnance with Settling Defendant's health and
safety program, and in compliance with OSHA regulations. The Construction
Health and Safety Plan shall include a health and safety risk analysis, a
description of monitoring and personal protective equipment, medical
monitoring, and site control. EPA ~ill not approve Settling Defendant's
Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan, but rather EPA will
review it to ensure that all necessary elements are included, and that the plan
provides for the protection of human health and the environment. This plan shall
include a Contingency Plan and incorporate Air Monitoring and Spill Control
and Countenneasures Plans if determined by EPA to be applicable for OU-1.
The Contingency Plan is to be written for the on-site construction workers and
the local affected population, It shall include the
0
;following items:
a. Name of person who will be responsible for coordinating
responses in the event of an emergency incident.
b. Plan for initial OU-1 construction safety indoctrination and
training for all employees/contractors, etc., participating in the
RA, name of the person who will give the training and the topics
to be covered.
c. Plan and date for a pre-construction meeting or conference call
to brief the local community, including local, state and federal
agencies involved in the cleanup, as well as the local emergency
squads and the local hospitals, regarding the schedule and
expected activities to be conducted on-site.
d. .A list of the first aid and medical facilities including, location of
firsi aid kits, names of personnel trained in first aid, a clearly
marked map with the route to the nearest medical facility, all
necessary emergency phone numbers conspicuously posted at
12
B.
• •
the job site (i.e., fire, rescue, local hazardous material teams;
National Emergency Response Team, etc.)
e. Plans for protection of public and visitors to the job site.
f. A Spill Control and Countermeasures Plan which, if determined
to by EPA to be applicable, shall include the follo)"ing:
I) Contingency measures for potential spills and discharges
from_ materials handling and/or transponation.
2) A description of the methods, means, and facilities required
to preveni contamination of soil, water, atmosphere, and
uncontaminated· structures, equipment, or material by spills or
discharges.
3) A description of the equipment and personnel necessary to
perform emergency measures required to contain any spillage
and to remove spilled materials.and soils or liquids that become
contaminated due to spillage. This collected spill material must
be properly disposed of.
4) A description of the equipment and personnel to perform
decontamination measures that may be required for previously
uncontaminated structures. equipment, or material.
Preconstiuction Conference
A Preconstruction Conference shall be held after selection/of the construction contractor
but before initiation of construction. This conference shall include Settling Defendant,
EPA and NCDENR and may include other appropriate federal, state and local
government agencies. The conference shall: / ,
I. Define the roles, relationships, and responsibilities of all panies:
. 2. Review methods for documenting and reponing inspection data:
3. ·Review.methods for distributing and storing documents and repons;
4." Review work area security and safety protocols;
5. Review the Construction Schedule:
6. Conduct a site reconnaissance to verify that the design criteria and the
plans specifications are understood and to review material and equipment
storage locations.
The Preconstruction Conference must be documented, including names of people in
attendance, issues discussed, clarifications made: special instructions issued, etc.
'
13
• •
C. Prefinal Construction Inspection
Upon preliminary project completion Senling Defendant shall notify EPA for the purpose
of conducting a Prefinal Construction Inspection. Panicipants should include the Project
Coordinators, Supervising Contractor, Construction Contractor, Natural Resource
Trustees and other federal, state, and local agencies with a jurisdictional interest. The
Prefinal Inspection shall consist of a walk-thr_ough inspection of the OU-I project site. The objective of the inspection is to determine whether the construction is complete and
consistent with the Consent Decree. Any outstanding construction items discovered
during the inspection shall be identified and noted on a punch list. Additionally,
treatment equipment shall be operationally tested by Senling Defendant. Senling
Defendant shall cenify that the equipment has performed to effectively meet the purpose and intent of the specifications. Retesting shall be completed where deficiencies are
revealed. A Prefinal Construction Inspection Report shall be submined by Senling
Defendant which outlines the outstanding c_onstruction items, actions required to resolve the items, completion date for the items, and ari anticipated date for the Final Inspection.
D . Final Construction Inspection
. Upon completion of all outstanding construction items, Settling Defendant shall notify
EPA for the purpose of conducting a Final Construction Inspection. The Final
Construction Inspection shall consist of a walk-through inspection of the OU-I project
site. The Prefinal Construction Inspection Repon shall _be used as a check list with the Final Construction Inspection focusing on the outstanding construction items identified in the Prefinal Construction Inspection. All tests that were origin.ally unsatisfactory shall be conducted again. Confirmation shall be made during the Final Construction Inspection that all outstanding items have been resolved. Any outsta~ding const~ction items discovered during the inspection still requiring correction :shall be identified and noted on a punch list. If any items are still unresolved. the inspection _shall be considered to be a Prefinal Construction Inspection requiring another Prefinal, Construction Inspection
Repon and subsequent Final Construction Inspection. ·
E. · Interim Remedial Action Repon
Within sixty (60) days following the conclusion of the Final Construction Inspection,
Settling Defendant shall submit an Interim Remedial A_ction (RA) Repon. EPA will
review the draft repon and will provide comments to Settling Defendant. The Interim
RA Report shall be generally consistent with EPA guidance for preparing the report (Close Out.Procedures for National Priorities list Sites, EPA, OSWER Directive
9320.2-09A-P) and include the following:
I. Introduction, providing a brief history and description of the site
2. Operable Unit Background
3. Construction Activities
14
• •
4. Chronology of Events, including a prujection of when clean-up levels for
the wetlands and groundwater will be achieved
5. Performance Standards and Cnnstruction Quality Control
6. Final Inspection and Certifications
7. Operation and Maintenance Activities
After EPA review, Settling Defendant shall address any comments and submit a revised
report. The Remedial Action shall be complete when EPA approves the Interim RA
Report.
TASK IV -OPERA TJON AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) shall be performed in accordance with the approved
Operation and Maintenance Plan.
A: Operation and Maintenance Plan
At the 90 percent (Prefinal) design stage, Settling Defendant shall submit an Operation
and Maintenance Plan for review. The Operation and Maintenance Plan must be
reviewed and approved by EPA prior to initiation of Operation and Maintenance·
activities. If necessary, the Operation and Maintenance Plan· shall be modified to
incorporate any design modifications implemented during the Remedial Action . . •
Upon approval of the Operation and Maintenance Plan, S~ttling Defendant shall
implement.the Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with the schedule
contained therein. This plan shall describe start-up procedures, operation,
troubleshooting, training, and evaluation activities that shalfbe carried out by Settling
Defendant. The plan shall address the following elements:
I. · Description of normal operation and maintenance;
a. Description of tasks required for cover system maintenance;
b. Schedule showing the required frequency for each O&M task.
2. Description of potential operating problems;
a. Description and analysis of potential maintenance problems;
b. Sources of information regarding problems; and
c. Common remedies or anticipated corrective actions.
3. Description or'routine monitoring and laboratory testing;
15
B.
•
a.
b.
c.
d.
•
Description of monitoring tasks;
Description of required. laboratory tests and their interpretation;
Required QNQC; and
Schedule of monitoring frequency and date, if appropriate, when
monitoring may cease.
4. Safety Plan;
a. Description of precautions to be taken and required health and
safety equipment, etc., for site personnel protection, and
b. Safety tasks required in the event of cover system failure.
5. Description of equipment;
a. Equipment identificat_ion;
b. Installation of monitoring components;
c. Maintenance of site equipment; and
d. Replacement schedule for equipment and installation
components.
6. Records and reporting;
a. Laboratory records;
b. Records of operating cost;
c. Mechanis_m for reporting emergencies;
d. Personnel and Maintenance Records; and
e. Quarterly reports to State/Federal Agencies.
Operation and Maintenance Manual ·
At the Prefinal/Final design stage, Settling Defendant shall submit an O&M manual for
review. This manual shall include all necessary O&M information for the operating
personnel. The O&M manual must be reviewed and approved by EPA prior to initiation
of Operation and Maintenance activities.
16
• •
TASK V -PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Performance monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that the Performance Standards are met.
A. Performance Standards Verification Plan
The purpose of the Performance Standards Verification Plan is to provide a mechanism to
ensure that both short-term and long-term Performanc_e Standards for the Remedial
Action are met. Guidances used in developing the Sampling and Analysis Plan during
the Remedial Design phase shall be used. Settling Defendant shall submit a Performance S:andards Verification Plan with the Prefinal Design. Once approved, Settling Defendant
shall implement the Performance Standards Verification Plan on the approved schedule. The Performance Standards Verification Plan shall include:
I. The Performance Standards Verification Field Sampling and Analysis
Plan that provides guidance for all fieldwork by defining in detail the
sampling and data gathering methods to be used. The Performance
Standards Verification Field Sampling and Analysis Plan shall be written
so that a field sampling team unfamiliar with OU-I would be able to
gather the samples and field information required.
2. The Performance Standards-Verification Quality Assurance/Quality
Control plan that.describes the quality assurance and quality control
protocols which will be followed in demonstrating compliance with
Performance Standards.
3. Specification of those tasks to be performed by Settling Defendant to
demonstrate compliance witli the Performance Standards and a schedule
for the performance of these tasks. ;
/
17
•
REFERENCES
The following list, although not comprehensive, comprises many of the regulations and guidance
documents that apply to the RD/RA process. Settling Defendant shall review these guidances and shall use the information provided therein in performing the RD/RA and preparing all ·
deliverables under this SOW.
I. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final
Rule", Federal Register 40 CFR Pan 300, March 8, 1990.
::.. "Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, June 1995, OSWER Directive No. 9355.O-4B.
3. "Interim Final Guidance on Oversight of Remedial Designs and Remedial
Actions Performed by Potentially Responsible Panies," U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial.Response, February 14, 1990, OSWER Directive No.
9355.5-01.
4. "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA, Interim Final," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, October 1988, OSWER Directive N_o. 355.3-01.
5. "Interim Final Guidance on Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund," U.S.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPN540/G-93/071,
September 1993, OSWER Directive No. 9335.9-01. ··
6. "Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans,"
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. QAMS-004/80,
December 29, I 980. · ; "
7. "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project , Plans," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, QAMS-005/80,
December 1980 .
. 8. "Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Assurance Manual," U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division,
February 1, I 99 I, (revised periodically). ·
9. "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganics
Analysis," U.S. EPA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 1988.
JO. "Quality in the Constructed Project: A Guideline for Owners, Designers, and
Constructors, Volume 1, Preliminary Edition for Trial Use and Comment,"
American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1988.
11. "Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
_Requirements," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 9,
1987, OSWER Directive No. 9234.0-05.
18
• • J
12. "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual," Two Volumes. U.S. EPA,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, August 1988 (Draft), OSWER
Directive No. 9234.1-01 and -02.
13. "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund
Sites," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, (Draft).
OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-2.
14. "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA," U.S. EPA. Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Pre-publication Version.
I 5. "Health and Safety Requirements of Employees Employed in Field Activities,"
U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 12, 1981, EPA
Order No. 1440.2.
16. "Standard Operating Safety Guides," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, November I 984. •
17. "Standards for General Industry," 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Health and
Safety Administration.
18. "Standards for the Construction Industry," 29 CFR 1926, Occupational Health
and Safety Administration. ·
19. "NIOSffManual of Analytical Methods," 2d ~dition. Volumes I -VIJ;or the
3rd edition, Volumes I and Il, National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health.
20. "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance ManJai for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities," National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health/Occupational
Health and Safety Administration/United States Coast Guard/ Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1985. / · '
21. "TL Vs -Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1987 -88,"
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
22. "American National Standards Practices for Respiratory Protection," American
Nation·a1 Standards institute Z88.2-l 980, March I I, 1981.
19
•
SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR DELIVERABLES FOR THE
REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT
LANDFILL NO. I AREA
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PLYMOUTH WOOD TREATING
PLANT SITE, NORTH CAROLINA
DELIVERABLE
TASK! COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Technical Assistance Plan
TASK II REMEDIAL DESIGN
RD Work Plan (4)
Sampling and Analysis Plan (4)
Health and Safety Plan (I)
Conceptual Design
Results of Data Acquisition
Activities (4)
Design Criteria Report (4)
Basis for Design (4)
Plan for Satisfying Permitting
Requirements (4)
Preliminary Design
Draft Plans and
Specifications (4)
Draft Construction Schedule ( 4)
Prefinal/Final Design
Complete Design Analyses (4).
Final Plans and
Specifications ( 4)
Final Construction Schedule ( 4)
20
EPA RESPONSE
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Comment
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review ~d Approve.
Review and Approve ·
Review and Approve
Review and Appro;e
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
•
TASK ID REMEDIAL ACTION
RA Work Plan (4)
Project Delivery Strategy (4)
Construction Management Plan ( 4)
Construction Quality Assurance
Plan (4)
Construction Health and Safety
Plan/Contingency Plan ( 4)
Prefinal Construction
Inspection Report ( 4)
Interim RA Report (5)
TASK IV OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance Plan ( 4)
Operation and Maintenance
Manual (4)
TASKV . PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Perfonnance Standards Verification
Plan (4)
•
Review and Approve
Review and Apprnve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Comment
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
Review and Approve
(
' Review and Approve
• NOTE: The number in parenthesis indicates the number of copies to be submitted by Senling
Defendant.
21
• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
June 24, 2003
Mr. John P. Gross
Senior Environmental Manager
Weyerhaeuser·company
EC2-2Cl ·
PO Box 9777
Fccleral Way, WA 98063-9777
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
! r
Consent Decree for Operable Unit I (OU-I), Remedial Design (RD)/ Remedial Action
(RA) Landfill No. I Arca, Weyerhaeuser Company Wood Treating Plant Site, Martin
County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Gross:
Pursuant to Section VI, paragraph I 0, of the .Consent Decree for RD/RA for OU-I, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting it's approval of the
Supervising Contractor, RMT North Carolina, lnc., (RMT). This letter shall also serve as the
authorization to proceed with the remainder of the work required under the Consent Decree.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me at (404)-562-8799.
cc: Nile Testerman, NCDENR
Tum Augspurger, USFWS
Ka1hy Huibrcgtsc, RMT
Si.nr·• rely, ,,,.-1 1 '!j. 11 I . ' 4-. __ (_,/ (/ 1/i .{,-'-.__...--
nifer L. Wendel
medial Project Manager
J11tem1:1t Address (URL)• http://www.epa.gov
necyctl'd/R'}cyclable, • Prin1ed with Vegf!tab!P. Oil Ba~ed Inks on RecyCH?d Paper (Minimum 30% Po:-;1r:onsumer)
. ·:1 ..