NCD991278953_19950406_National Starch & Chemical Corp._FRBCERCLA C_Compliance Orders 1986 - 1995-OCR

April 6, 1995
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File (.'{) 0
David J. Lown "4r:J-
Phone Conversation with Jon Bomholm about the
Good Faith Offer
National Starch and Chemical Company Site
Operable Units #3 and #4
Salisbury, Rowan County
In a phone conversation today, I told Jon Bomholm that the following were some of our
concerns with National Starch's Good Faith Offer:
In NSCC's comment #1 and #11, NSCC suggests that the "Natural Degradation
Treatability Study will be conducted for 1,2-DCA either in place (in the ground) or in Pilot
Treatment Columns." I told Jon that the purpose of the study is to discover what is
happening in the ground with specific data from the site. Treatment columns and bench-
scale testing may provide a useful addition to the study, but should not conducted in lieu
of an in-the-ground investigation.
At another place in Comment #1 it is stated, "The Treatability Study will
demonstrate within two years ... that degradation is taking place either naturally or with the
addition of nutrients." I told Jon that studies about the addition of nutrients may be useful,
but the intent of the study is to show that the contaminants are being naturally degrading.
In Comment #3, NSCC indicates that they do not need to prepare Sampling and
Analysis nor Health and Safety Plans, because the plans that were prepared for the RI/FS
should be adequate for the RD/RA. In Comments #6, #7, # 10, and in other places, NCSS
suggests that new Sampling and Analysis and Health and Safety Plans are not needed
because these plans were prepared for previous work at the site. I told Jon that we do not
feel that this is adequate, and that new plans should be required for the new work.
Jon said that he agreed with these comments. The meeting to negotiate the Consent
Decree and the Statement of Work has been postponed to the week of April 24.
cc: Bruce Nicholson
April 3, 1995
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
RE:
• •
Rob Gelblum
David J. Lown ~/!.
State Participation in Consent Decree Negotiations
National Starch & Chemical Company Site
Operable Units #3 and #4
Salisbury, Rowan County
The State is being invited to participate in negotiations presently under way for this site. A meeting is planned for this week. Please review the draft Consent Decree and Good Faith Offer and let me know if you think there are any issues that need to be resolved. Thank you for your assistance.
Attachments
cc: Bruce Nicholson u.J/~ t>--f/ "'-~
•
I
I I I
MICHAEi., F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
• •
State of North Carolina
Dcp.1rt1ncnt of Justice
P.O. B0X(Q9
HAI.EIGH
21602-omn
REPLY TO: STEPHEN T. PARASCANDOLA
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Decembers, 1994
VIA TELECOPIER AND REGULAR MAIL
William A. White, Esquire
Moore & Van Allen
Post Office Box 26507
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: National Starch v. Division of Solid Waste Management
Dear Bill:
This letter will confirm the upcoming meeting between
representatives of National starch and the Division of Solid Waste
Management. The meeting will take place on December 13, 1994 in
the Division's downstairs conference room (adjacent to the Attorney
General's office) at 10:00 a.m.
STP/cn
cc: Jerry Rhodes
Doug Holyfield
Sincerely yours,
··St~rascandola
Associate Attorney General
An Equ.il Opportunity / Affirmative 1\clion Employer
ol1cE oF THE ATTORNEY !NERAL
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
ACTION
0 NOTE AND FILI!:
D NOTE AND RrTURN TO ME
0 Rl(TUR"N WITH MORE· DETA!t.9
0 NOTE ANO SEE ME ABOUT THIS
0 PLEASE ANSWER
0 PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
.o TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
COMMENTS,
CATIE
NO. OP ROOM, BLDG.
NO. OR ROOM, BLDO.
0 Pl[R OUR CONVE"RBATION
0 PER YOUR AIEQUl:•T
D FOR YOUR
~~UR
APPROVAL
INFORMATION
0 FOR YOUR COMMENTS
0 SIGNATURE
D INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
/ .
,J
I
•
STATE.OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RECEIVED OFFICE OF crn;:~:,1 ('(i')'JSC •• ,, •• J ',· ... L
NOV 29 1994
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY,
PETITIONER
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENT
RECEIVED
DEC O 2 199,\
PETITION FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Em~ronment~I flivio.ipn
National Starch and Chemical Company ("NSCC") hereby asks
for a contested case hearing as provided for by N.C.G.S. 150B-23
because the Division of Solid Waste Management of the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
("DEHNR") has issued a Compliance Order with Administrative
Penalty (the "Compliance order") to NSCC requiring NSCC to pay a
civil penalty in the amount of $589,999, and to perform various
work and apply for various permits at NSCC' s chemicar .,·.
manufacturing facility near Salisbury, Rowan County, North
Carolina. NSCC received the Compliance Order on October 24,
1994. A copy of the Compliance Order is attached to this
Petition as Attachment A.
In the circumstances described more fully in the Statement
of Facts and Law attached as Exhibit B to this petition (which
statement is incorporated herein by reference), respondent DEHNR
has exceeded its authority and jurisdiction, acted erroneously,
failed to use proper procedure, acted arbitrarily and
capriciously and failed to act as required by law and rule by
issuing the Compliance Order to NSCC.
Dated: November 22, 1994
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ Richard H. Vetter
N.C. State Bar #203337
William A. White
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC
P. o. Box 26507
One Hannover Square
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Attorneys for National Starch and
Chemical Company
•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing Petition for a Contested Case
Hearing has been served on the State Agency named below by
depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service
with sufficient postage,
Richard B. Whisnant
Process Agent
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
This is the 22nd day of November, 1994,
~ 0,-)...°\~~f-'.¼;.:s Richard H. Vetter
- 2 -
• •
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW
IN SUPPORT OF ITS
PETITION FOR CONTESTED.CASE HEARING
EXHIBIT B
Petitioner National starch and Chemical C~mpany ("NSCC")
hereby submits the following statement of facts and law in
support of its Petition for a Contested Case Hearing.
Petitioner's statement will respond to the allegations in the
Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty ("Compliance order")
issued to NSCC by Respondent DEHNR and seek to identify the
disputed areas of law and fact which will be at issue in this
proceeding.
Preliminary Statement
In response to DEHNR's Preliminary statement, NSCC agrees
that DEHNR purports to assert claims in this matter under
authority of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act,
N.C.G.S. S 130A, Article 9 (the "Act"), and the North Carolina
Hazardous Waste Management Program, 15 NCAC 13A (the "Rules").
NSCC agrees that insofar as is relevant hereto, William L. Meyer,
Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, DEHNR, has been
delegated authority to administer the Act and the Rules. NSCC
agrees that it is a Delaware Corporation, that it is a "person"
as defined in the Act and the Rules, and that it operates a
specialty organic chemical manufacturing facility located in
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. NSCC agrees that the
Division of Solid Waste Management has alleged that is it in
violation of certain requirements of the Act and the Rules as set
forth in the Compliance Order, but NSCC denies such allegations
and denies that DEHNR has such claims, all as more specifically
set forth below.
Statements of Fact and Law
In response to the numbered paragraphs contained in DEHNR's
Compliance Order and captioned Statements of Fact and Law, NSCC
replies as follows:
1. NSCC agrees that in all respects material hereto the State of
North Carolina and William L. Meyer have authority to operate the
State's hazardous waste management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 u.s.c.ss 6901 et seq ("RCRA").
•
2. NSCC agrees that it is a Delaware Corporation, and that it is
a "person" which from time to time generates "hazardous waste"
as both terms are defined under the state's hazardous waste
management program. NSCC does not agree that it has generated,
treated, stored, transported or disposed of solid or hazardous
waste in violation of the State's hazardous waste management
program or RCRA and denies the same.
3. NSCC agrees that it operates a specialty organic chemical
manufacturing facility which produces a wide range of products.
NSCC states that its facility is located on 520 acres in
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. NSCC agrees that the
facility has been in operation since the early 1970s, and that
treated wastewater from the facility is discharged into the
collection system for a wastewater treatment plant operated by
the City of Salisbury.
By way of further background, NSCC states that the plant has
been in operation at its present location since it was
constructed beginning in 1970. Proctor Chemical company bought
the plant location in 1969. NSCC acquired the stock of Proctor
Chemical Company in 1970, and merged Proctor into NSCC in 1983.
NSCC now employs approximately 136 full time employees at the
plant.
In addition to conducting specialty chemical manufacturing
operations using batch processes at the site, NSCC is engaged in
remediation of releases of hazardous substances at the site
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42. U.S.C S 9601, et
llS.,.. in cooperation with DEHNR and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA").
4. NSCC agrees that a waste Management Specialist with DEHNR
conducted an inspection at its plant on January 27, 1993, and
that he issued a Notice of Violation dated January 28, 1993.
NSCC agrees that the Notice of Violation recited, among other
things, an alleged violation of 40 C.F.R. S 262.11 for not having
made hazardous waste determinations respecting containers in the
"Red X Pad" area. NSCC agrees that 40 C.F.R. §262.11 requires a
person who generates a "solid waste" as defined in 40 C.F.R. S
261.2, to determine if that waste is a hazardous waste.
NSCC denies that the containers in the "Red X Pad" area contained
"solid waste" as so defined. To the contrary, the containers in
the "Red X Pad" area were marked with a Red X and placed in such
area because they contained materials which were suitable for
reuse, recycle, return to vendor, or other similar disposition.
NSCC typically determined what use to make of such materials just
prior to conducting a batch operation in which such materials
would be useful. Since batches of some products were produced
-2 -
• •
frequently and others only infrequently, some Red X materials
were handled at the plant frequently and others only
infrequently. However, Red X materials were not discarded
materials as defined in 40 C.F.R. S261.2 so as to fall within the
definition of "solid waste." Because such Red X materials were
not •solid waste" there was no violation of 40 C.F.R. S262.11 by
virtue of NSCC 1 s not having determined if they were "hazardous
waste" before or after the inspection conducted by DEHNR on
January 27, 1993.
5. NSCC agrees that DEHNR and EPA personnel conducted additional
investigations at its plant on January 25, 1994, March 8-9, 1994
and March 29, 1994. Except as set forth herein NSCC is without
information sufficient to permit it to determine the accuracy of
DEHNR's descriptions of its activities and findings during such
investigations, and therefore cannot agree or disagree with such
characterizations and demands proof thereof, if relevant.
Phase I-January 25, 1994. NSCC agrees that DEHNR and EPA
personnel collected wastewater and sludge samples on January 25.
NSCC does not agree that the samples taken by DEHNR would permit
DEHNR to conduct a RCRA waste characterization of process waste
waters from any or all of the plant's process areas. NSCC does
not agree that the sludges sampled by DEHNR are associated with
treatment of process wastewaters in the plant's water treatment
facilities.
To the contrary, NSCC believes that (a) under normal operating
circumstances its process wastewaters are not hazardous wastes;
(b) that sampling results may have been affected by non-process
activities at the plant that have been discontinued; and (c) that
wastewater flow diversions required as part of work which NSCC
was performing in January, February and March, 1994 in order to
enable its wastewater treatment lagoon to treat pumped
groundwater as part of its Superfund remediation activities may
have, unbeknownst to NSCC, contaminated certain sludges and
wastewaters which were sampled by DEHNR.
For the reasons set forth above, NSCC disagrees with DEHNR's
characterizations of its wastewaters and sludges in this
proceeding as hazardous waste, and disagrees with DEHNR's
assertions that treatment of process waste waters has generated
contaminated sludges which are hazardous wastes.
NSCC agrees that it used (and uses) 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCA)
as a reaction medium for various processes at the plant. NSCC
agrees that it believed at the time of the investigation (and
subject to additional investigation continues to believe) that it
did not have any process waste resulting from the use of 1,2 DCA;
and that the vast majority of 1,2 DCA not used as a reaction
medium was lost to evaporation, but in the approximate amount of
-

3

-
•
23,000 pounds during 1993, not the 80,000 pounds per year stated
in the Compliance Order, such losse_s being covered by a DEHNR air
emissions permit. In addition, de minimis amounts of 1,2-DCA at
concentrations of less than 500 parts per billion may have been
discharged to the wastewater treatment plant operated by the City
of Salisbury pursuant to NSCC's Industrial Discharge Permit.
Phase II-March 8-9, 1994, NSCC denies that DEHNR characterized
approximately 800 55 gallon drums at the site. NSCC denies that
drums placed in the Red X pad area contained solid wastes being
stored at the facility requiring waste determination and
subsequent disposal within 90 days. As set forth above, drums
were marked with a Red X and placed in such area because they
contained materials which were suitable for reuse, recycle,
return to vendor, or other similar disposition, and were not
discarded materials constituting solid waste.
By way of further response, NSCC states that following the
arrival of DEHNR and EPA inspectors on January 25, 1994, NSCC
decided that due to its concerns about the incorrect regulatory
position being taken by DEHNR respecting the containers in the
Red X Pad area it would discard such materials, as well as
similarly marked materials located elsewhere at NSCC's facility,
even though they continued to have commercial value to the
company and, therefore, would not otherwise have been considered
solid waste. Having made a determination that such materials
would be discarded, NSCC arranged for Laidlaw Environmental
Services, Inc. ("Laidlaw") to come to the NSCC facility and
assist it in proper characterization, transportation and disposal
of the containers.
NSCC provided Laidlaw copies of Material Safety Data Sheets
covering the contents of the drums, where such contents were
covered by such sheets. Laidlaw then conducted the following
activities: (1) it inspected and tested each container of now-
discarded materials and performed an initial waste
characterization respecting the contents of each container (2) it
transported the containers to Laidlaw's Reidsville, N.c. facility
(the "Reidsville Facility") for re-testing of each container and
a final determination whether each container did or did not
contain a hazardous waste; and (3) it appropriately treated or
disposed of the wastes as solid wastes or hazardous wastes at a
disposal facility operated by Laidlaw in accordance with the
final test results.
NSCC provided manifests to Laidlaw covering transportation of
every characterized container to Laidlaw's facilities for further
testing. The contents of the containers were characterized on
the basis of both testing and process knowledge. Where initial
testing at the NSCC plant showed a container to contain a
hazardous waste, an appropriate hazardous waste manifest was
0 •
supplied, along with any other information and other
notifications about the waste required by law. Certain
containers not found to contain hazardous waste in the initial
tests at the plant, when re-tested by Laidlaw using more
sensitive methods at the Reidsville Facility, were re-classified
from non-hazardous to hazardous waste based on the second test
results. (Laidlaw also reclassified, as non-hazardous, certain
drums that had been shipped to the Reidsville Facility as
hazardous waste.) When such re-classification occurred, NSCC
provided a modified manifest to conform the waste classification
to the more conservative test result. Laidlaw had tested and
removed all of the now-discarded "Red X" materials from the plant
by the time DEHNR and EPA personnel returned for their "Phase II"
investigation on March B, 1994.
NSCC agrees that DEHNR collected further samples at the plant.
NSCC cannot determine the accuracy of DEHNR's characterizations
of EPA's activities respecting two of NSCC's drums at Laidlaw's
Roebuck, s.c. facility.
Phase III-March 29, 1994. NSCC is without information
sufficient to permit it to determine the accuracy of DEHNR's
description of EPA's activities at the Reidsville Facility. As
set forth above, NSCC agrees that Laidlaw reclassified, as
hazardous, certain drums that had been shipped to the Reidsville
Facility as non-hazardous waste. Laidlaw also reclassified, as
non-hazardous, certain drums that had been shipped to the
Reidsville Facility as hazardous waste. NSCC does not agree,
however, that the initial waste characterizations and
classifications were improperly performed or that manifests and
other information provided to Laidlaw on the basis of the initial
characterizations and classifications were improper based on the
information known to NSCC and Laidlaw at the time of the
shipment.
6. NSCC agrees that DEHNR has obtained.and disclosed to it
laboratory results respecting particular samples taken at the
plant which, if such results can be properly admitted into
evidence in this proceeding, are as set forth in paragraph 6.
NSCC does not agree that the process area wastewaters sampled by
DEHNR discharged to Lagoon# 2, and states to the contrary that
each of the process wastewater streams sampled by DEHNR were
being discharged after the point of sampling to tanks as defined
in 40 C.F.R. S 260.10, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0002, which were
part of the plant's Clean Water Act regulated wastewater
treatment facilities, specifically the lift station, diverter
sump and 65,000 gallon sump located near Lagoon #2 and the lift
station adjacent to the octylacrylamide wash area located near
Process Area 3. As such, each tank would constitute a
"wastewater treatment unit" as defined in 40 C.F.R. S 260.10,
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0002, and thus, be exempt from the RCRA
-

5

-
•
permit requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S 270.l(c)(2) (v),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0013, in the event that process
wastewaters being discharged to them constituted "hazardous
waste."
NSSC is without information sufficient to permit it to determine
the accuracy of the descriptions of DEHNR's drum sampling and
testing activities and findings in paragraph 6 of the Compliance
Order, and therefore cannot agree or disagree with such
characterizations. Moreover, NSCC cannot determine from DEHNR's
description of its sampling and testing activities which of the
23 tested drums from 3 separate locations generated which of the
20 test results.
7, Paragraph 7 of the Compliance Order describes a portion
of 40 C.F.R. S 261,2(b)(3), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, which
regulation speaks for itself.
8. The first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Compliance
Order describes the definition of "storage" in N.C.G.S. S 130A-
290(41), which statutory provision speaks for itself.
The balance of Paragraph 8 asserts that drums in the Red X Pad
area had been present for over 90 days and that this constituted
storage of solid waste for more than 90 days. For the reasons
set forth above, NSCC disagrees that the drums in the Red X Pad
area were.solid waste or were being stored prior to its January,
1994 decision to dispose of them, and alleges that the drums were
characteri~ed and removed from the plant less than 90 days after
they became solid waste.
9. The first sentence of Paragraph 9 of the Compliance
Order describes the definition of "disposal" found in N.C.G.S. S
130A-290, which statutory provision speaks for itself. NSCC
denies that it disposed of wastewaters and sludges containing 1,2
DCA into surface impoundments or a drying bed. To the contrary,
if and to the extent its process wastewaters were hazardous
because they contained 1,2 DCA, NSCC discharged them into tanks
which constitute wastewater treatment units as defined in 40
C.F.R. S 260.10, and NSCC was thereby exempt from regulation for
such activities pursuant the exclusion contained in 40 C.F.R. S
264.1 (g)(6). As wastewater treatment units, the tanks were also
exempt from the RCRA permit requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S
270.l(c)(2)(v). By way of further response, NSCC states that it
is investigating the causes of any contamination of sludges or
process wastewaters at its facility, and is taking steps to
remediate and dispose of any materials contaminated by 1,2 DCA at
its facility.
10. Paragraph 10 of the Compliance Order describes a
portion of 40 C.F.R. S 261.3(a), as codified at 15A NCAC 13A
-6 -
•
• 0006, defining when a solid waste is a hazardous waste, which
regulation speaks for itself.
11. The first two sentences of Paragraph 11 of the
Compliance Order describe a.portion of 40 C.F.R. S 261.21 (a)
(1), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, which regulation speaks for
itself.
NSCC agrees with DEHNR that drums which contain solid wastes
with flash points between 15 and 54 degrees centigrade are drums
of characteristic hazardous waste DOO1. However, NSCC is unable
to determine based on the allegations of paragraph 6 which
specific drums DEHNR is referring to in paragraph 11, and does
not agree that it improperly stored, characterized, shipped or
otherwise mishandled any such drums. To the contrary, if the
drums referred to in paragraph 11 were among those sampled at the
Laidlaw facilities, they were not solid waste until January, 1994
and NSCC properly characterized such drums after they became
wastes and before shipment as set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5.
To the extent paragraph 11 refers to other drums, NSCC is unable
to formulate a response without additional information and
therefore denies any violations of law.
12. The first two sentences of Paragraph 12 of the
Compliance Order describe a portion of 40 C.F.R. § 261.21 (a)
(1), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, which regulation speaks for
itself.
NSCC agrees with DEHNR that drums containing solid waste
with a Ph of 1.2 and 1.7 are drums of characteristic hazardous
waste DOO2. However, NSCC is unable to determine based on the
allegations of paragraph 6 which specific drums DEHNR is
referring to in paragraph 12, and does not agree that it
improperly stored, characterized shipped or otherwise mishandled
any such drums. To the contrary, if the drums referred to in
paragraph 12 were among those sampled at the Laidlaw facilities,
they were not solid waste until January, 1994 and NSCC properly
characterized such drums after they became wastes and before
shipment as set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5. To the extent
paragraph 12 refers to other drums, NSCC is unable to formulate a
response without additional information and therefore denies any
violations of law.
13. The first two sentences of Paragraph 13 of the
Compliance Order describe a portion of 40 c.F.R. S 261.24,
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, which regulation speaks for
itself.
NSCC denies that its process wastewaters are characteristic
hazardous wastes. To the extent its process wastewaters are
shown to have been contaminated by 1,2 DCA and/or vinyl chloride,
- 7 -
•
NSCC has discharged them into wastewater treatment units and is,
therefore, exempt from hazardous waste regulation for such
wastewaters and units pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S 264.1(g)(6) and to
the RCRA permit requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S
270.1(c)(2)(v). NSCC is without information sufficient to permit
it to determine the accuracy of DEHNR's remaining allegations
respecting its process wastewaters and sludges and drums in the
balance of paragraph 13 of the Compliance Order, and therefore
cannot agree or disagree with them and denies any violations of
law. 'By way of further response, NSCC states that it is
investigating the causes of any contamination of sludges or
process wastewaters at its facility, and is taking steps to
remediate and dispose of any materials contaminated by 1,2 DCA
and/or vinyl chloride at its facility.
14. Paragraph 14 of the Compliance Order contains legal
conclusions which are erroneous, not supported by the facts, or
reached without observance of procedures required by law.
NSCC denies that· it has violated any of the regulations cited by
DEHNR in paragraph 14.
15. Paragraphs 15A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Hand I of the
Compliance Order contain assertions by DEHNR that NSCC is in
violation of standards and requirements contained in DEHNR's
Rules.
Paragraph 15 A describes a portion of 40 C.F.R. §262.11,
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, and asserts that NSCC is in
violation of such regulation in that it did not adequately
characterize the solid wastes generated at its facility. The
final portion of paragraph 15A describes findings by DEHNR and
EPA inspectors respecting various drums of various materials they
observed at various times. For the reasons set forth in NSCC's
responses to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 NSCC denies that any
violations occurred with respect to the drums contained in the
Red X storage pad. NSCC is without information sufficient to
determine the accuracy of the remaining allegations of paragraph
15A and therefore neither agrees or disagrees with them and
denies any violations of law.
Paragraph 15 B describes a portion of 40 C.F.R. S262.20(a),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, respecting the manifests required
for waste shipments, and asserts that NSCC violated such
requirements in connection with shipments of materials to Laidlaw
for disposal. For the reasons set forth in NSCC's responses to
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 NSCC denies that any shipments were made to
Laidlaw without proper manifests, and avers to the contrary that
all such wastes were properly characterized as required by 40
C.F.R. S 262.11, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, and manifested
as required by 40 C.F.R. S 262.20(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0007.
-

8

-
•
Paragraph 15 c describes a portion of 40 C.F.R. S
262.34(a)(l)(ii), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, respecting the
requirement that secondary containment systems be free of cracks
or gaps, and _asserts that a secondary containment of the 25K D001
hazardous waste storage tank at the facility contained a crack.
NSCC admits that there was a crack in the containment wall, but
denies that this created the potential for a release and,
therefore, denies that a violation existed. NSCC has repaired
the crack.
Paragraphs 15 D and 15 E describe a portion of 40 C.F.R
S262.J4(a)(2) and 40 C,F,R. S 262.34 (a)(J), both as codified at
15A NCAC 13A .0007, respecting the labeling requirements for
tanks and containers at facilities accumulating hazardous waste
for less than 90 days, and assert that NSCC violated such
requirements by failing to mark on various drums the dates on
which hazardous waste accumulation began, and on various other
drums the words "hazardous waste." NSCC denies the allegations
of paragraphs 15 D and 15 E respecting drums which were shipped
as non-regulated but were later determined to be hazardous waste
through analytical testing. As is set forth in its response to
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, NSCC complied with all labeling and
shipment requirements with respect to drums it shipped to
Laidlaw. Prior to the time when the determination to ship the
drums to Laidlaw was made, the contents of the drums were not
"solid wastes" and therefore not subject to the waste
characterization requirements. As a result, the drums themselves
were not subject to the labeling requirements. NSCC is without
information sufficient to determine the accuracy of the
allegations of paragraphs 15D and 15E respecting other drums
referred to therein, and therefore neither agrees or disagrees
with them and denies any violations of law.
Paragraph 15 F describes a portion of 40 C.F.R. S 262.34
(a) (4), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, respecting facility
personnel training, documents to be maintained at the facility,
contingency plan maintenance and updating, and transmittal of
contingency plan documents and updates to local officials and
institutions that may be called upon to provide emergency
services. Paragraph 15 F asserts that NSCC did not comply with
such requirements in certain respects. NSCC denies that it
failed to keep its contingency planning documents updated and
failed to send copies to local emergency response teams. To the
contrary, the facility's records show that such requirements were
complied with. NSCC is without information sufficient to
determine the accuracy of the remaining allegations of paragraph
15 F and therefore neither agrees or disagrees with them.
Paragraph 15 G describes a portion of 40 C,F,R. s
268,7(a)(l), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0012, respecting
management of wastes requiring treatment prior to land disposal,
-

9

-
•
including notifications required prior to shipment, and asserts
that NSCC failed to provide proper notifications in connection
with certain shipments to Laidlaw. For the reasons set forth in
response to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 NSCC denies the allegations of
paragraph 15 G and asserts to the contrary that waste shipments
to Laidlaw were properly characterized with all required
notifications given, and that any notifications required as a
result of waste reclassification at the Laidlaw facilities were
provided upon receipt of notice of the reclassification from
Laidlaw.
Paragraphs 15 Hand 15 I assert that NSCC is in violation of
15A NCAC 13A .0009(a), and 40 C.F.R. S 270.lO(a), codified at 15
NCAC 13A .0013, because it treated, stored or disposed of
hazardous waste in the pretreatment lagoon system at its facility
and stored drums of hazardous waste for more than 90 days, all
without complying with applicable hazardous waste management
requirements, and without completing, signing and submitting a
RCRA permit application. As is set forth in response to
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, NSCC complied with applicable requirements
with respect to the Red X drums, and is without information
sufficient to respond to allegations regarding other drums. The
only evidence cited with regard to the discharge of hazardous
wastes to NSCC's wastewater treatment system shows that those
wastes were discharged to "wastewater treatment units" which are
exempt from the RCRA treatment and permit requirements. To the
extent sludges and wastewaters in NSCC's wastewater treatment
lagoons have become contaminated with hazardous wastes NSCC is
seeking to remove and remediate such contamination. such removal
and remediation activities constitute spill response activities
or Superfund response actions and should not require NSCC to
obtain a RCRA permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
In the circumstances set forth above, the administrative
penalties assessed for each of the violations asserted by the
Division are excessive. They fail to take into account the
factors to be considered under N.C.G.S. S 1JOA-22(d) and 15A NCAC
13B .0702, in that no harm has been caused by any of the alleged
violations, NSCC will assume the cost of rectifying all
contamination found at its facility, the violations have no
potential for any effect on public health and the environment,
there has been no damage to private property and NSCC has no
prior history of non-compliance.
-10 -
• •
CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED OPERATION
1. Pending resolution of this contested case, NSCC requests a
stay of the requirement that it submit the amount of the
administrative penalty to DEHNR.
2. If to any extent it is not presently in compliance, NSCC is
willing to comply, and will comply, with each of the requirements
set forth in Paragraphs 2A through 2G of the Compliance Order.
NSCC seeks review of the conditions contained in Paragraph 2H of
the Compliance Order, in that (a) such requirements are based on
erroneous legal conclusions respecting NSCC's status as an
operator of a facility that treats, stores and disposes of
hazardous waste which are at issue in this proceeding; and (b)
such requirements are in conflict with, preempted by or
duplicative of, measures that NSCC is required to take in
connection with Superfund Response Actions at the Site, and
subject NSCC to an unreasonable risk of being found in violation
of other requirements which are applicable to the facility under
CERCLA. Specifically, RCRA closure of NSCC's wastewater
treatment lagoons would prevent NSCC's performance of the
groundwater treatment it has agreed with EPA to perform.
Notwithstanding its request for review of these conditions, and
without admitting any liability or waiving any claim or defense
in this proceeding, NSCC is willing to negotiate with Respondent
in order to perform actions which will satisfy both Respondent's
proposed conditions and NCSS's Superfund obligations.
NSCC seeks review of the conditions contained in Paragraph 21 of
the Compliance order, in that they are based on erroneous
conclusions respecting the status of the facility under RCRA.
Dated:· November 22, 1994
Respectfully submitted
~~¾~
Richard H. Vetter
N.C. State Bar #20333
William A. White
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC
P. o. Box 26507
One Hannover Square
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Attorneys for National Starch and
Chemical Company
-11 -
State of North C<.. iino
Deportment of Enva-iment,
Health and Noturof"l'resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
Jomes B. Hunt, Jr.,·Governor
Jonathon B. Howes, Secretory
William L. Meyer, Director
October 19, 1994
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Richard Franklin
National Starch and Chemical Company
Post Office Box 399
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Re: Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty
National Starch and Chemical Company NCD 000 623 116
Docket #94-344
Dear Mr. Franklin:
Enclosed is a Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty, issued
to National Starch and Chemical Company for certain violations of
the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act, N.C.G.S. § 130A,
Article 9 (Act), and the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management
Rules, 15A NCAC 13A (Rules). The Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty describes both the violations and the
actions required for compliance at your facility.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 130A-22(a), an administrative penalty of
$589,999.00 is imposed in the Compliance Order with Administrative
Penalty. National Starch and Chemical Company may appeal this
Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty by filing a written
petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina
27611-7447, within 30 days .of receipt hereof. A copy of the
petition for a contested case hearing must also be served on
Richard B. Whisnant, Process Agent, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27604. The petition must be filed in accordance
with N.C.G.S. § 150B-23 (a).
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer &':r1o recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
• Please be advised that the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources has implemented a Department-wide policy to
release notification of all penalties assessed against companies to
the media on a monthly basis. Therefore, the name of your company,
a list of violations cited and the penalty amount will be released
to the media.
If no administrative hearing is requested, the administrative
penalty must .be paid by National Starch and Chemical Company within
60 days of receipt of the Compliance Order with Administrative
Penalty by check or money order, payable to the Division of Solid
Waste Management, and mailed to Jerome H. Rhodes, Section Chief,
Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management, P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611-7687. If you desire to
discuss the Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty, please
contact R. Douglas Holyfield, Branch Head, Waste Management Branch,
at [phone].
Respectfully,
~cimJ.t;0
William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
NATIONAL.'.JP
Enclosures: Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty
cc: Central File
Jesse Wells
Doug Holyfield
Keith Masters
Stephen T. Parascandol~, Associate Attorney General
Rowan County Health Director
Mike Arnett, EPA Region IV
Diane Long, Mooresville Regional Office Manager
Mike Kelly
• • North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
In Re: National Starch
and Chemical Company
NCD000623116
COMPLIANCE ORDER WITH
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
Docket# 94-344
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty ("Compliance
Order") is issued under the North Carolina Solid Waste Management
Act, N.C.G.S. § 130A, Article 9 (Act), and the North Carolina
Hazardous Waste Management Program, 15A NCAC 13A (Rules). William
L. Meyer, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management
("Division"), Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, has been delegated the authority to implement the Act
and Rules. National Starch and Chemical Company ("National
Starch") is a Delaware corporation located in Salisbury, Rowan
County, North Carolina. Based upon on-site inspections at National
Starch by both the Division and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA"), the Division has determined that
National Starch is in violation of certain requirements of the Act
and Rules as set forth in this Compliance Order.
STATEMENTS OF FACT AND LAW
1. On December 18, 1980, the State of North Carolina, was
authorized to operate the state RCRA hazardous waste
management program under the Act and Rules. William L. Meyer,
Division Director, has been delegated those responsibilities.
2. National Starch is a Delaware corporation which generates
hazardous waste as defined in N.C.G.S. § 130A-290(8), and 15A
NCAC 13A .0002. National Starch is a person as defined in
N.C.G.S. § 130A-290(22) and 15A NCAC 13A .0002.
3. National Starch operates a specialty organic chemical facility
that produces a wide range of products. The facility, which
is located on approximately 450 acres south of Salisbury, in
Rowan County, North Carolina (the ''Site"), has been in
operation since the early 1970s. Wastewater from the facility
is treated and discharged into the collection system for the
City of Salisbury's Granti Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.
4. On January 27, 1993, Mr. Jesse Wells, Waste Management
Specialist with the Division, conducted an investigation at
the Site. During the inspection, Mr. Wells observed, among
other things, that a large number of drums were either
uncharacterized or improperly characterized. On January 29,
1993, a Notice of Violation ("NOV"), docket number 93-126, was
1
• •
issued to National Starch with a compliance date of February
28, 1993. The NOV required, among other things, that National
Starch conduct waste determinations on various drums at the
Site.
5. As a follow-up to the January, 1993 inspection and NOV, the
Division, in conjunction with the US-EPA, conducted a three
phase investigation at the Site:
Phase I-January 25, 1994-Reviewed the facility's processes
and waste streams, conducted a Compliance Evaluation
Inspection ("CEI"), conducted a follow-up inspection of NOV
Docket# 93-126, collected wastewater and sludge samples from
the 65K sump, and conduc.ted a preliminary characterization of
wastewaters from all process areas and associated sludges in
sumps and surface impoundments by US EPA Environmental
Services Division ("ESD"). During the entrance interview,
National Starch stated that they used 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA) as a reaction media. Officials at the facility stated
that they did not have any waste resulting from the use of
1,2-DCA. According to the company, all of the 1,2-DCA is used
as a reaction media except for 80,000 pounds per year which is
lost to evaporation.
Phase II-March 8 -9, 1994-Characterization of containerized
(approximately 800 55-gallon drums) materials (known &
unknowns) at the Site. Many of the drums had been designated
by National Starch as "Red X" drums (marked with a red X
painted on the drums) and stored at the facility for waste
determination and subsequent disposal. Further sampling and
evaluation of the facility's pretreatment wastewater units was
conducted, and evaluation of two drums sent off-Site by
National Starch as non-regulated waste being held at the
Laidlaw Environmental Services ("Laidlaw") facility in
Roebuck, S.C. by US EPA ESD.
Phase III-March 29·, 1994-Characterization of materials
shipped from National Starch to the Laidlaw facility in
Reidsville, N.C. All materials characterized were shipped
from the facility as non-regulated waste material. Out of the
156 National Starch druma on-Site at Reidsville, Laidlaw
indicated that they had classified nine of the drums as
hazardous wastes. Three drums were determined by Laidlaw to
contain corrosive waste and six contained ignitable waste.
Further sampling and characterization was conducted by US EPA
ESD.
6. Sample analysis results have shown that 1,2-DCA was the most
commonly detected constituent in all of the wastewater, sludge
and waste samples collected. The wastewater from Process Area
.1 & 2, which was discharged into lagoon #2, contained 11 ppm
1,2-DCA during the Phase I investigation and 56 ppm 1,2-DCA
during the Phase II investigation. The wastewater in Process
Area 3, which was also discharged into lagoon #2, contained
2
• • 2.2 ppm 1,2-DCA in the Phase I investigation and 2.0 ppm 1,2-
DCA in the Phase II investigation. During the Phase I
investigation, it was determined that wastewater and sludge
from the 65,000 gallon (65K) sump and sludge from the drying
bed contained 3.5ppm 1,2-DCA, 2,100 ppm extractable 1,2-DCA,
and 5.3 ppm extractable 1,2-DCA, respectively. During the
Phase II inspection, sludge from Lagoon #2 and the effluent
from the wastewater treatment system contained 3.1 ppm and .83
ppm 1,2-DCA, respectively. Vinyl chloride was also detected
during the Phase I inspection in the Process Area 3 wastewater
and 65K sump at .46 ppm and 37 ppm, respectively.
Twenty-three different drums were sampled at the National
Starch facility in Salisbury, North Carolina and the Laidlaw
facilities in Reidsville, North Carolina, and Roebuck, South
Carolina. Sample analyses revealed the presence of 1,2-DCA
ranging from 2.6 ppm to 6200 ppm in eight of the drums.
Twelve of the drum samples had flash points ranging 15°C to
54°C. Two of the drum samples had pH's of 1.2 and 1.7.
7. 40 CFR § 261.2 (bl (3), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, states
in part that materials are solid waste if they are abandoned
by being accumulated, stored, or treated (but not recycled)
before or in lieu of being abandoned by being disposed of,
burned, or incinerated.
8. N.C.G.S .. § 130A-290(41), defines "Storage" as the containment
of solid waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of
years, in a manner which does not constitute disposal.
During the inspections the investigation team obtained from
the facility a drum inventory log for the "Red X" drums that
were located on-site and noted during Mr. Wells' 1993
inspection; the log was dated September 23, 1993. The drum
inventory log revealed that the drums had been accumulated on
the site for over 90 days which constitutes storage of solid
waste as defined by.N.C.G.S. § 130A-290.
9. N.C.G.S. § 130A-290, defines "Disposal" as the discharge,
deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of
any solid waste into or on any land or water so that the solid
waste or any constituent part of the solid waste may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters, including groundwaters.
The wastewaters containing 1,2-DCA that were discharged into
the surface impoundments and the sludges disposed of in the
65K sump, lagoon #2, and the drying bed containing 1,2-DCA,
constitutes disposal of a solid waste as defined by N.C.G.S. §
130A-290.
10. 40 CFR § 261.3(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006, states in
part that a solid waste, as defined in [40 CFR) Section 261.2,
is a hazardous waste if:
3
• •
(2) It meets any of the following criteria:
i. It exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart C.
11. 40 CFR 261. 21 (a) (1) (Subpart C), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0006, states that a solid waste exhibits the characteristic
of ignitability if a representative sample of the waste is a
liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24
percent alcohol by volume and has a flash point less that 60°C
(140°F), as determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of ignitability
has the EPA Hazardous Waste Number of DOOl.
The twelve drums containing waste with flash points ranging
from 15°C to 54°C are drums of characteristic hazardous waste
number DOOl.
12. 40 CFR 261.22(a) (1) (Subpart C), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0006, states that a solid waste exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity if a representative sample of the waste is
aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than
or equal to 12.5. A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number of D002.
The two drums with a Ph of 1.2 and 1.7 are drums of
characteristic hazardous waste number D002.
13. 40 CFR 261.24 (Subpart C), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0006,
states that a solid waste exhibits the characteristic of
toxicity if, using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure, the extract from a representative sample of the
waste contains any of the contaminants listed in Table 1 at a
concentration equal to or greater than the respective value
given in that tabl~. Table 1 assigns waste with
concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane at 0.5 ppm or above the
hazardous waste number D028, and waste with concentrations of
vinyl chloride at 0.2 ppm or above the hazardous waste number
D043.
The wastewater from Process Area 1 & 2 containing 11 ppm 1,2-
DCA; the wastewater in Process Area 3 containing 2.2 ppm 1,2-
DCA and 2.0 ppm 1,2-DCA; the wastewater and sludge from the
65,000 gallon (65K) sump and sludge from the drying bed
containing 3.5 ppm, 2;100 ppm, and 5.3 ppm 1,2-DCA,
respectively; the sludge from Lagoon #2 and the effluent from
the wastewater treatment system containing 3.1 ppm and 0.83
ppm 1,2-DCA, respectively; and the eight drums containing 2.6
ppm to 6200 ppm 1,2-DCA are characteristic hazardous waste
number D028. In addition, the Process Area 3 wastewater and
65K sump containing 0.46 ppm and 37 ppm, respectively vinyl
chloride are hazardous waste number D043.
4
• • 14. It is the determination of the Division that National Starch
has generated, transported, stored, and disposed of hazardous
waste at the Site, and is subject to all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR Part 262, codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0007, 40 CFR Part 264, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0009, and 40
CFR Part 270, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0013.
15. As a result of the above-mentioned inspections, the Division
has determined that National Starch is in violation of the
following standards contained in the Rules:
A. 40 CFR § 262.11, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, states
that a person who generates a solid waste, as defined in
40 CFR § 261.2, must determine if that waste is a
hazardous waste using the following method:
(al He should first determine if the waste is excluded
from regulation under 40 CFR § 261.4.
(bl He must then determine if the waste is listed as a
hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.
(cl For purposes of compliance with 40 CFR Part 268, or
if the waste is not listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261, the generator must then determine whether
the waste is identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part
261 by either:
(ll Testing the waste according to the methods set
forth in.Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261, or
according to an equivalent method approved by
the Administrator under 40 CFR § 260.21; or
(2l Applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic
of the waste in light of the materials or the
processes used.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 262.11,
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that it did not
adequately characterize the solid wastes generated at its
facility.
During the investigations the inspectors noted the
following: eleven 55-gallon drums of material identified
as DCA & H2O of which facility personnel were unsure if
the material was usable; two 55-gallon drums of material
identified as junk DCE that had to be distilled before
use; four 55-gallon drums of unknown material adjacent to
boiler blow down pipe; drums of materials identified with
RED X's located on the Red X pad which the materials
could not be identified; two 55-gallon drums of unknown
material in the drum crush area; four drums identified as
IPA/Water in the dryer room; one 55-gallon drum of
unknown material near· the sample retention building; 13
5
;
• •
containers of unknown material screened during the Phase
II investigation at National Starch and two at Laidlaw
Roebuck; containers of unknown materials screened during
the Phase III investigation; and unknown material stored
on Red X pad for which a NOV was issued requiring a waste
determination on January 29, 1993. ·
B. 40 CFR § 262.20(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007,
states that a generator who transports, or offers for
transportation, hazardous waste for off-site treatment,
storage, or disposal must prepare a Manifest 0MB control
number 2050-0039 on EPA form 8700-22 and, if necessary,
EPA form 8700-22A, according to the instructions included
in the Appendix to Part 262.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 262.20(a),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that it is a generator
that offered its hazardous waste for off-site treatment,
storage and/or disposal and it did not prepare a Manifest
0MB control number 2050-0039 on EPA form 8700-22.
National Starch sent numerous drums of material
designated as non-regulated waste to Laidlaw for
disposal. Samples of the drums determined that the drums
contained D00l, D002, and/or D028 hazardous wastes.
C. 40 CFR § 262. 34 (a) (1) (ii}, codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0007, states that except as provided in paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f) of this section, a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a
permit or without having interim status, provided that
the waste is placed in tanks and the generator complies
with Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 265, except 265.197(c), and
265.200. Specifically:
40 CFR § 265.193 (e) (1) (iii) (Subpart J), codified at
15A NCAC 13A .0010, states that in addition to.the
requirements of paragraphs (b), (c}, and (d} of this
section, secondary containment systems must be free
of cracks or gaps
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR §
262.34(a) (1) (ii}, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that
it accumulated hazardous waste on-site without a permit
or without having interim status, and the waste was
placed in a tank and it did not comply with Subpart J of
40 CFR Part 265. Specifically:
The secondary containment system at the Site was not
fre.e of cracks, as required by 40 CFR §
265.193 (e} (1) (iii) (Subpart J), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0010. On January 25, 1994, the inspectors
noted a crack in the secondary containment of the
25K D00l hazardous waste storage tank.
6
• D. 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (2), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007,
states that except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e),
and (fl of this section, a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a
permit or without having interim status, provided that
the date upon which each period of accumulation begins is
clearly marked and visible for inspection on each
container.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 262. 34 (a) (2) ,
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that it accumulated
hazardous waste on-site without a permit or without
having interim status, and the date upon which each
period of accumulation began was not clearly marked and
made visible for inspection on each container. During
the above-mentioned inspections, no accumulation dates
were observed on the following: two 55-gallon drums
located outside the Pilot Plant Area; three 55-gallon
drums located near the hazardous waste storage tank; one
5-gallon plastic tote outside the laboratory; four drums
of IPA/water; drums on the Red X pad; and phase II and
phase III drums which were shipped as non-regulated but
were later determined to be hazardous waste through
analytical testing.
E. 40 CFR § 262. 34 (a) (3), codified at 15A NCAC 13A . 0007,
states that except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) of this section, a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a
permit or without having interim status, provided that
while being accumulated on-site, each container and tank
is labeled or marked clearly with the words, "Hazardous
Waste".
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 262. 34 (a) (3),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that it accumulated
hazardous waste on-site without a permit or without
having interim status, and each container was not labeled
or marked clearly with the words, "Hazardous Waste".
There were no hazardous waste labels observed on the
following: two 55-gallon drums located outside the Pilot
Plant Area; three 55-gallon drums located near the
hazardous waste storage tank; four drums of IPA/water;
drums on the Red X pad; and phase II and phase III drums
which were shipped as non-regulated but were later
determined to be hazardous waste through analytical
testing.
F. 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (4), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007,
states that except as provided in paragraphs (d), {e),
and (f) of this section, a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a
permit or without having interim status, provided that
the generator complies with the requirements for owners
7
• • or operators in Subparts C and Din 40 CFR Part 265, with Section 265.16, and with 40 CFR 268.7(a) (4).
Specifically:
1. 40 CFR § 265.16(c), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010,
states that facility personnel must take part in an annual review of the initial training required in paragraph_ (a) of this section.
2. 40 CFR § 265.16(d), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010,
states that the owner or operator must maintain the following documents and records at the facility:
(1) The job title for each position at the facility
related to hazardous waste management, and the name of the employee filling each job;
(2) A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d) (1) of this section. This description may be consistent in its
degree of specificity with descriptions for
other similar positions in the same company
location or bargaining unit, but must include the requisite skill, education, or other
qualifications, and duties of facility
personnel assigned to each position;
(3) A. written description of the type and amount of both introductory and continuing training that will be giveri to each person filling a position listed under paragraph (d) (1) of this section;
(4) Records that document that the training or job experience required under paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this section has been given to, and completed by, facility personnel.
3. 40 CFR § 265.31 (Subpart C), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0010, states that facilities must be maintained
and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment.
4. 40 CFR § 265.52 (d) (Subpart D), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010, states that the contingency plan under
Subpart D must list names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and home) of all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinator (see Section
265.55), and this list must be kept up to date. Where more than one person is listed, one must be named as primary emergency coordinator and others must be listed in the order in which they will
8
• • assume responsibility as alternates.
5. 40 CFR § 265. 53 (b). (Subpart D), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0010, states that a copy of the contingency
plan and all revisions to the plan must be submitted
to all local police departments, fire departments,
hospitals, and State and local emergency response
teams that may be called upon to provide emergency
services.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (4),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0007, in that it accumulated
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a
permit or without having interim status, and it did not
comply with the requirements for owners or operators in
Subparts C and Din 40 CFR Part 265 or with Section
265.16.
1. National Starch's personnel did not take part in an
annual review of the initial training required in
paragraph (a) of this section, as required by 40 CFR
§ 265.16(c), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010.
Training documentation at the facility revealed that
facility personnel had gone longer than one year
without the required training. Personnel were
trained on May 12, 1992 and again on June 8 and June
10, 1993.
2. National Starch did not maintain the following
documents and records at the facility, as required
by 40 CFR § 265.16(d), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0010:
(2) A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d) (1) of this section.
This description may be consistent in its
degree of specificity with descriptions for
other similar positions in the same company
location or bargaining unit, but must include
the requisite skill, education, or other
qualifications, and duties of facility
personnel assigned to each position. There was
no job title/job description available for the
alternate emergency coordinator.
(4) Records that document that the training or job
experience required under paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this section has been given to, and
completed by, facility personnel. There were
no records at the facility documenting the
training of the alternate emergency
coordinators (Ricky Foery and Jeff
Sollenberger).
9
• • 3. National Starch did not maintain and operate its facility to minimize the possibility of a fire,
explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden
release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment, as required by 40 CFR § 265.31 (Subpart C), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. Investigators noted releases from an inverted 55-gallon drum in the drum wash
area. The drum was identified on the label as hazardous waste. The investigators also noted: a number of leaking and corroded drums in the Red X area; a release of resin material and liquid in the flammable storage area; caustic soda· release within the facility; xylene bottoms release; wastewater
discharge from the pretreatment system; storage of incompatibles in the product area; and releases of caustic material near sample retention bui_lding.
4. National Starch's contingency plan did not contain the addresses of all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinator as required by 40 CFR § 265. 52 (d) (Subpart D), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0010.
5. National Starch's contingency plan was not submitted
to local emergency response teams as required by 40 CFR § 265. 53 (b) (Subpart D), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0010.
G. 40 CFR § 268.?(a) (1), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0012, states that a generator who manages a restricted waste under this part which requires treatment prior to land disposal, must notify the treatment facility in writing of the appropriate treatment standards set forth in 40 CFR § 268 Subpart D. The notice must include the following -information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment standard(s);
(ii) The manifest number associated with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where available.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 268. 7 (a) (1), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0012, in that it managed
restricted wastes under this part which required
treatment prior to land disposal, and it did not notify the treatment facility in writing of the appropriate
treatment standards set forth in 40 CFR Part 268 Subpart
D for each shipment of waste. There were no LDR
10
• • notification forms for at least the following: manifest#
00350; DOOl waste shipped as non-hazardous on manifest
numbers 00359 and 00367; D002 waste shipped as non-
hazardous on manifest# 00369.
H. 15A NCAC 13A .0009(a), states that any person who treats,
stores, or disposes of hazardous waste shall comply with
the requirements set forth in this Section. The
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste is
prohibited except as provided in this Section.
National' Starch is in violation of 15A NCAC 13A .0009(a),
in that it stored and disposed of hazardous waste without
complying with the requirements set forth in this
Section. National Starch's industrial processes have
resulted in the discharge/disposal of TCLP
wastewater/sludge (1,2 DCA and vinyl chloride) into the
facility's pretreatment lagoon system. The company has
also stored drums of hazardous waste on its Site for
greater than 90 days.
I. 40 CFR § 270.lO(a), codified at 15 NCAC 13A .0013, states
that any person who is required to have a permit shall
complete, sign, and submit an application to the Director
as described in this Section and Sections 270.70 through
270.73.
National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR § 270.lO(a),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0013, in that it disposed of
hazardous wastes and stored hazardous waste for greater
than 90 days and was thereby required to obtain a RCRA
permit, and it did not complete, sign and submit a permit
application for storage to the Director as described in
this Section and Sections 270.70 through 270.73.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
N.C.G.S. § 130A-22(a) authorizes an administrative penalty of up to
$25,000.00 per day for each violation of the hazardous waste
provisions of the Act, Rules or any order issued pursuant to the
hazardous waste provisions of the Act. N.C.G.S. § 130A-22(d) sets
forth the factors to be considered in determining the
administrative penalty which include the degree and extent of the
harm caused by the violation and the cost of rectifying the damage.
15A NCAC 13B .0702 sets forth specific criteria to be considered in
addressing the statutory assessment factors which include the type
of violation, type of waste involved, duration of the violation,
cause of the violation, potential effect on public health and the
environment, effectiveness of response measures taken by the
violator, damage to private property and the history of non-
compliance.
After careful consideration of each 6f the factors above, penalties
11
• •
are assessed as follows: A. $389,000; B. $100,000; C. $999; D. and
E. combined, $25,000; F. $25,000; G. $25,000; H. and I. combined,
$25,000. Accordingly, a total penalty is imposed in the amount of
$589,999.00.
CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED OPERATION
Based upon the foregoing, National Starch is hereby ordered to take
the following actions:
1. Within sixty (60) days submit the amount of the administrative
penalty, by check or money order, payable to the Division of
Solid Waste Management, and mailed to Jerome H. Rhodes,
Section Chief, Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Solid
Waste Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611-7687.
2. Except as otherwise indicated, by November 21, 1994, National
Starch shall take the following actions to correct all
violations as stated in this Compliance Order:
A. Comply with 40 CFR § 262.11, codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0007. National Starch shall fully determine if the
solid wastes it generates are hazardous wastes.
B. Comply with 40 CFR § 262.20(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0007. National Starch shall, for all hazardous-wastes
it offers for transportation for off-site treatment,
storage or disposal, prepare a Manifest 0MB control
number 2050-0039 on EPA form 8700-22 and, if necessary,
EPA form 8700-22A, according to the instructions included
in the Appendix to Part 262.
C. Comply with 40 CFR § 262. 34 (a) (1) (i), codified at 15A
NCAC 13A .0007. Specifically:
National Starch shall ensure that its secondary
containment system(s) is free of cracks or gaps, as
required by 40 CFR § 265.193 (e) (1) (iii) (Subpart J),
codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010.
D. Comply with 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (2), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0007. National Starch shall clearly mark and make
visible for inspection, on each container of hazardous
waste, the date upon which each period of accumulation
began.
E. Comply with 40 CFR § 262.34(a)(3), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0007. National Starch shall label or clearly mark
each container of hazardous waste with the words,
"Hazardous Waste".
F. Comply with 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (4), codified at 15A NCAC
13A .0007. National Starch shall comply with the ·
requirements for owners or operators in Subparts C and D
12
• • in 40 CFR Part 265, with Section 265.16, and with 40 CFR
§ 268. 7 (a) (4). Specifically:
1. National Starch shall ensure that its facility
personnel take part in an annual review of the
initial training required in paragraph (a) of this
section, as required by 40 CFR § 265.16(c), codified
at 15A NCAC 13A .0010.
2. As required by 40 CFR § 265.16(d), codified at 15A
NCAC 13A .0010, National Starch shall maintain the
following documents and records at the facility:
(1) The job title for each position at the facility
related to hazardous waste management, and the
name of the employee filling each job;
(2) A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d) (1) of this section.
This description may be consistent in its
degree of specificity with descriptions for
other similar positions in the same company
location or bargaining unit, but must include
the requisite skill, education, or other
qualifications, and duties of facility
personnel assigned to each position;
(3) A written description of the type and amount of
both introductory and continuing training that
will be given to each person filling a position
listed under paragraph (d) (1) of this section;
(4) Records that document that the training or job
experience required under paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this section has been given to, and
completed by, facility personnel.
3. National Starch shall ensure that its facility is
maintained and operated to minimize the possibility
of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or
non-sudden release of hazardous waste or ~azardous
waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water
which could threaten human health or the
environment, as required by 40 CFR § 265.31 (Subpart
C), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010.
4. National Starch shall ensure that its contingency
plan list names, addresses, and phone numbers
(office and home) of all persons qualified to act as
emergency coordinator, as required by 40 CFR §
265. 52 (d) (Subpart D) , codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0010.
5. National Starch shall ensure that a copy of its
13
• •
contingency plan and.all revisions to the plan is submitted to all local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and State and local emergency response teams that may be called upon to .provide emergency services, as required by 40 CFR § 265.53(b) (Subpart D), codified at 15A NCAC 13A
.0010.
G. Comply with 40 CFR § 268. 7 (a) (1), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0012. For its restricted waste that requires treatment prior to land disposal, National Starch shall ensure that with each shipment of waste, it notifies the treatment facility in writing of the appropriate
treatment standards set forth in 40 CFR 268 Subpart D.
H. Comply with 15A NCAC 13A .0009(a). National Starch shall not treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste except in compliance with the standards set forth in this.rule.
Note: 40 CFR § 264.3, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0009, states that an owner or operator of an interim status facility must comply with the regulations specified in Part 265 of this Chapter in lieu of the regulations in this Part until final administrative disposition of his permit application is made. Although National Starch is not eligible for interim status, it rriust comply with all applicable regulations in Part 265 including but not limited to the following:
I. Comply with the provisions of 40 CFR § 265.90-.94, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010, by performing the following actions within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of this Compliance Order.
1. National Starch must install a ground-water monitoring system capable of immediately
detecting a release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents from the waste management area to the upper most aquifer. The ground-water monitoring system must include a minimum of one upgradient and three
downgradient wells. These wells must be constructed in compliance with the Well
Construction Standards of North Carolina.
Reconnnendation
National Starch should submit a report
describing the site characteristics and the ground-water monitoring system. The report should include the following items:
a. a site map (minimum scale: l" ~ 200')
identifying the property line; plant
building(s); waste management unit(s),
14
• • ponds, well(s) and other pertinent
structures;
b. the boring logs, well construction
schematics, and a table listing the
specifications of each well (i.e.,
diameter, depth, measuring point location
and elevation, screen elevation, etc.);
c. _a description of the site, local and
regional hydrogeologic conditions;
d. the location of all borings/wells on a
site map. These wells must include a
minimum of one upgradient and three
downgradient wells. The downgradient
wells should be located within 50 feet of
the regulated unit(s);
e. a flow net depicting the vertical and
horizontal components of ground-water
flow; and isopleth maps illustrating the
concentration and extent of ground-water
contamination in plan view and cross-
section.
2. National Starch must develop and follow a
ground-water sampling and analysis plan. The
plan must include procedures and techniques
for:
a. sample collection;
b. sample preservation and shipment;
c. analytical procedures; and
d. ·chain of custody control.
Recommendation
A guidance document is enclosed to assist you
in the development of a sampling and analysis
plan. The sampling and analysis plan should
include sample collection and analysis
procedures to be utilized in the sampling of
ground-water quality monitoring wells and a
schedule for the collection and analysis of
ground-water samples on a quarterly basis. The
quarterly sampling schedule should include the
following:
-the monitoring wells to be sampled;
-the specific months when quarterly ground-
15
• •
water monitoring will be performed;·and
analysis for the following parameters*:
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate,
selenium, silver, endrin, lindane,
methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP
silvex, radium, gross alpha, gross beta,
chloride, iron, manganese, phenols,
sodium, sulfate, volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds, Ph, specific
conductance, and ground-water surface
elevation.
* after four consecutive ground-water monitoring
events, National Starch may request to modify
this parameter list based on the identification
of hazardous waste constituents in the ground
water.
Note: This office must be notified 10 working days
prior to the first sample collection date.
Analytical results of ground water samples must
be submitted to this office within 60 days of
the ground-water monitoring event.
3. Since previous investigations have identified
ground-water contamination in the vicinity of
the 65K sump and Lagoon #2, National Starch
must develop a ground-water assessment plan.
The plan must describe the steps to be taken to
complete the ground-water assessment and
specify the number, location and depth of
wells; a quarterly ground-water monitoring
schedule; evaluation procedures, including any
use of previously gathered ground water quality
data; and a schedule of implementation. The
plan must be capable of determining:
a. the rate and extent of migration of
hazardous ·waste or hazardous waste
constituents in the ground water; and
b. the concentration of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents in the ground
water.
II. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.112(a), codified at 15A
NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall have a
written closure plan for the storage and disposal
units and shall submit six (6) copies of this plan
to the Division for approval within 60 days of
receipt of this Compliance Order. Nationa.l Starch
shall keep a copy of the closure plan and all
revisions to the plan at the facility until closure
16
• is completed and certified in accordance with
Section 265.115. This plan must identify the steps
necessary to completely close the units at the
facility. The closure plan must include, at least:
i. A description of how each hazardous waste
management unit at the facility will be closed
in accordance. with Section 265.111;
ii. A description of how final closure of the
facility will be conducted in accordance with
Section 265.111. The description must identify
the maximum extent of the operation which will
be unclosed during the active life for the
facility;
iii. An estimate of the maximum inventory of
hazardous wastes ever on-site over the active
life of the facility and a detailed description
of the methods to be used during closure,
including, but not limited to methods for
removing, transporting, treating, storing or
disposing of all hazardous waste,
identification of and the type(s) of off-site
hazardous waste management unit(s) to be used,
if applicable; ·
iv. A detailed description of the steps needed to
remove or decontaminate all hazardous waste
residues and contaminated containment system
components, equipment, structures, and soils
during closure including, but·not limited to,
procedures for cleaning equipment and removing
contaminated soils, methods for sampling and
testing surrounding soils, and criteria for
determining the extent of decontamination
necessary _to satisfy the closure performance
standard;
v. A detailed description of other activities
necessary during the closure period to ensure
that closure satis_fies the closure performance
standards, including, but not limited to,
ground water monitoring, leachate collection,
and run-on and run-off control; and
vi. A schedule for closure of the Site. The
schedule must include, at a minimum, the total
time required to close and the time required
for intervening closure activities which will
allow tracking of the progress of closure.
(For example, in the case of a landfill unit,
estimates of the time required to treat or
dispose of all hazardous waste inventory and of
17
•
the time required to place a final cover must be included.)
III. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.118(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall have a written post-closure plan for lagoon 2, the 65K sump, and the drying bed, which meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of Section 265.118, and shall submit six (6) copies of this plan to the Division for approval within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Compliance Order.
IV. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.142(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall have a detailed written.estimate, in current dollars, of the cost of closing the facility in accordance with the requirements in Sections 265.111 through 265.115 and applicable closure requirements of Sections
265.178, 265.197, 265.228, 265.258, 265.280, 265.310, 265.351, 265.281, and 265.404.
V. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.143, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010, and 265.145, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall within sixty (60) days from submittal of the closure plan demonstrate financial assurance for closure in accordance with the requirements of these sections. Should National Starch fail to complete closure within one hundred and eighty (180) days of approval by the Division of its clo~ure plan, National Starch shall at that time immediately demonstrate liability coverage in accordance with 40 CFR § 265.147, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .00l0(h).
VI. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.144(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall have a detailed written estimate in current dollars of the annual cost of post-closure monitoring and maintenance of the facility in accordance with the applicable post-closure regulations in Sections 265.117, 265.180, 265.228, 265.258, 265.280, and 265.310. .
VII. Comply with 40 CFR § 265.145, codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0010. National Starch shall within sixty (60) days from submittal of the post-closure plan demonstrate financial assurance for post-closure in accordance with the requirements of these sections.
I. Comply with 40 CFR § 270.l0(a), codified at 15A NCAC 13A .0013. National Starch shall complete, sign, and submit Part A of the permit application to the Division as described in this section and sections 270.70 through 270.73 within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
18
• • Compliance Order. National Starch shall then also
complete, sign and submit six (6) copies of the Part B of
the permit application within six mon.ths upon request.
POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY
National Starch is hereby advised that, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
130A-22, each day of continued violation of any requirement of the
Act or the Rules constitutes a separate violation for which an
additional penalty of up to $25,000.00 per day may be imposed. If
the violation(s) continues, National Starch may also be subject to
further enforcement action, including injunction from any further
generation of hazardous waste and such further relief as may be
necessary to achieve compliance with the Act and Rules.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
You have the right to an appeal to contest any matter of law,
material fact, requirement, or penalty set forth in this Compliance
Order. To appeal this Compliance Order, National Starch must file
a written petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina
27611-7447, within 30 days of the receipt of the Compliance Order.
A copy of the petition for a contested case hearing must also be
served on the Division by sending a copy of the petition to Richard
B. Whisnant, Process Agent, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina
27604.
The petition for a contested case hearing must be in accordance
with N.C. General Statute§ 150B-23(a), and must state facts
tending to establish that the agency has deprived the petitioner of
property, has ordered the petitioner to pay a fine or civil
penalty, or has otherwise substantially prejudiced the petitioner's
rights and that the Division: ·
1. exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
2. acted erroneously;
3. failed to use proper procedure;
4. acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
5. failed to act as required by law or rule.
The petition must be signed by you or your representative and must
be filed with a certificate of service stating that a copy of the
petition was served on the Division through its process agent. The
hearing will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes and the Rules of the Office of
Administrative Hearings, a copy of which may be obtained from the
Office of Administrative Hearings.
If no hearing is requested, payment.of the administrative penalty
becomes due within 60 days after receipt of this notice. If a
hearing is requested, payment of the administrative penalty is due
19
•
within 60 days after service of a written copy of the final agency
decision. If payment is not received as required, the Secretary of
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources shall
request the Attorney General to commence an action to recover the
amount of the administrative penalty.
THE SCHEDULING OF AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE WILL NOT RELIEVE YOU OF
THE NEED TO FILE A WRITTEN PETITION FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING
WITH THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
RECEIPT.OF THIS COMPLIANCE ORDER WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY IF A
HEARING IS DESIRED.
By:
Division of Solid Waste Management
Date:
20
• • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing
Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty to be served upon the
person(s) designated below, at the last known address, by causing
said copy to be deposited in the U. S. Mail, First Class (certified
mail, and return receipt requested, postage prepaid) in an envelope
addressed to:
Mr. Richard Franklin
Registered Agent for National Starch and Chemical Company
Post Office Box 399
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Dated this day of ~tJlo-X-'-L'clo-"'-'~'--"'=--, 19 9 4 .
Division of Solid Waste Management
National .WP
21
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Narne/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CFR 262.11
Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential)
1. Quantity of waste involved Numerous drums of unidentified waste.
2. Toxicity of waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion, *(over)
(from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH_· __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX.
3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X_ no __
Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet.
Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air __ X_groundwater_X __ surface water_X_
direct contact_X_
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_X_ no. __ _
Media for exposure: air __ X_ ground water _X_ surface water _X_
direct contact _X_
5. Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_X_ no
air __ x_ groundwater _X_ surface water _X_ soil _X_
6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes __ X_ no
Harm Cell: Major X Moderate ____ Minor ___ _
Remarks: National Starch was in ooeration when RCRA became
law. By now the company should know the requirements 'for generators of
hazardous waste. On 1/27/93. an insoector with the Division found the
cornpanv in violation of the waste determination requirement for numerous
drums of material in the Red X Pad in which an NOV was issued. Between
1/25/94 & 3/29/94 a series of investiaations were conducted in three phases
at the facility by inspectors with the Division and the EPA. The company ..
was found in violation of the NOV; in addition the company had not
conducted waste determinations on numerous drums of material located
throughout the facility. The cornoanv had also sent drums of material
labeled as non-regulated waste, off-site for disposal. Sample analyses of
the material revealed that many of these drums did indeed contain RCRA
hazardous wastes. National Starch is causing a major potential for harm to
its ernoloyees. the environment. and any other person who has come in
contact with its waste, by not identifying its hazardous waste.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
1. Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial_X_ significant __ in compliance except for cited
violation
Deviation cell: Major __ X_ Moderate __ Minor __
Remarks: 40 CFR § 262.11, reauires a aenerator of solid waste to determine
if that waste is a hazardous waste.
MATRIX CELL RANGE: $ 20,000 TO___1_5_,000
Penalty amount chosen: $---1.5., 000
Per Day Assessment: $ __ 1,000
Remarks $25,000 was chosen as the penalty amount because National Starch
has generated D00l. D002, D028, and D043 hazardous waste. However, this
waste has not been managed as hazardous waste. Most of this waste has been
managed as non-regulated waste. which could create a myriad of problems to
everyone corning in contact with the waste.
Form PCWHW.l
22
• • PAGE TWO
Part III. Penalty Adjustment (optional)
Percentage change
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect:
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 7 x line 8)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Dollar Amount
-$9,000.00
$16,000.00
1 000.00
364
$364,000.00
$9,000.00
$389,000.00
Remarks: A per-day penalty amount of $1,000 was assessed against the
facility because on 1/27/93, Jesse Wells inspected the facility and found
that the company had not conducted waste determinations on drums of
material in the Red X Pad. He issued a NOV and gave the facility a
compliance date of 2/28/93. On 1/25/94, he along with Keith Masters and
EPA personnel reinspected the facility. The facility still had not
conducted waste determinations of the drums in the Red.X Pad, along with
numerous other drums throughout the facility. Therefore, the company has
been in violation of 262.11 for 364 davs. The minimum per-day penalty
for a company with a major/major violation is $1,000. The resultant per-
day penalty for the facility is $364,000.00. In addition, the gravity
based penalty of $25,000 was increased by $9,000 to reflect the minimum
amount of economic benefit the facility has enjoyed by ·not doing an
adequate waste determination. This would give a total adjusted penalty of
$34,000, however, because N.C.G.S. § 130A-22(f) and lSA NCAC 13A .0700 -
.0707 authorizes an administrative penalty of only $25,000.00 per day for
each violation, the adjustment was subtracted from the initial penalty in
other unique factors. leaving a total penalty amount of $389,000.00.
*inhalation, and skin absorption; strong irritant to eyes and skin, a
carcinogen. Flammable. dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Signed: Date
Form PCWHW.l
23
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CFR 262.20(a)
Part I. Degree or Extent of Ham (actual or potential}
1. Quantity of waste involved Numerous drums of unidentified waste.
2. Toxicity of waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion. *(over)
(from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX.
3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X_ no __
Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet.
Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_JL no
Media for exposure: air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
5. Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_JL no
air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL soil _lL
6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes_JL no
Harm Cell: Major _lL Moderate Minor
Remarks: During the series of inspections the EPA sampled drums that were
located on-site and drums that had been sent to Laidlaw TOC in Roebuck
S.C. and Laidlaw Reidsville. These drums of material had been shipped off-
site as non-regulated waste on manifest document #s 00359. 00366, 00367,
and 00369. Samples of the material were determined to be D00l, D002 D028.
and D043 hazardous waste. According to Mr. Brian Donaldson with EPA. ESD ---
sampled 8 containers of waste profile number 247 at Laidlaw. Reidsville, 5: ___ _
of the containers were D00l waste. National Starch shipped 199 containers::·
with a waste profile of 247 as non-hazardous waste . 137 of the containers
went to Pinewood landfill. ESD also sampled 4 containers of waste profile
261. all of the samples were D028 hazardous waste. National Starch shipped
51 containers of waste profile 261 as non-hazardous waste to the Pinewood
landfill. National Starch is creating.an enormous potential for harm by
shipping off hazardous waste as non-hazardous. This waste is being handled
by people who are of the assumption that the waste is non-hazardous. This
hazardous waste is also being disposed of as non-hazardous by landfilling
which could create major environmental problems.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial -2L significant __ in compliance except for cited violation
Deviation cell: Major _lL Moderate Minor __
Remarks: 40 CFR § 262.20(a). requires generators of hazardous waste who
offer their waste for off-site treatment. storage. or disposal to prepare a
Manifest 0MB control number 2050-0039 on EPA for 8700-22.
MATRIX CELL RANGE: $ 20,QQQ_ TO $_Q,QQQ__
Penalty amount chosen: $_Q,000
Per Day Assessment: $ __ . __
Remarks: $25.000 was chosen as the penalty amount because National Starch
manifested off-site num~rous containers of hazardous waste as non-regulated
waste. By doiny so the facility has defeated the purpose of the hazardous
waste manifest system. which is to allow people who come in contact with
the waste to be aware of the type of waste they are handling.
24
• • PAGE TWO
Part III. Penalty Adjustment ( optional l
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
Percentage change
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect: ________ _
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 6,x line 7)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
Dollar Amount
**S75,ooo.oo
$25,000.00
*$100,000.00
**National Starch is in violation of 40 CFR 262.20(a) on four different
occasions. The comoany sent off four different shipments of hazardous
waste that was labeled as non-regulated waste to Laidlaw Environmental. On
3/8/94, Laidlaw sent National Starch a letter informing them that 4 drums
of material that was sent off as non-regulated waste on manifest# 359 was
D00l waste. On 3/3/94. Laidlaw again sent National Starch a letter
informina the facility it had shipoed off hazardous waste on manifest# 366
as non-regulated waste. On 2/25/94 a notification was sent to National
Starch informing the company they had sent off hazardous waste as non-
regulated waste on manifest# 367 and again on 3/9/94 for manifest# 369.
*inhalation, and skin absorption; strong irritant to eyes and skin. a
carcinogen. Flammable, dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Signed: Date:
25
• • PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CFR 262.34(a) (1) (ii)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential)
Quantity of waste involved Tank capacity is 25,000 gallons.
Toxicity of waste involved Flammable hazardous waste.
(from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical
Is human life or health potentially threatened?
Distance to residences Aoproximately 500 feet.
Number of people involved 138 employees.
Dictionary & SAX.
. yes __ x_ no __
Media for exposure: air __ groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_lL no
Media for exposure: air groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_lL no
air __ groundwater _lL surface water _lL soil _lL
Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes_lL no
Harm Cell: Major Moderate Minor _lL
Remarks: During the phase I inspection on 1/25/94. the investigators noted
a crack in the secondary containment of the 25K D00l hazardous waste
storage tank. The crack was a small fissure at the top of the secondary
containment system. Other than the fissure the secondary containment
system seemed adequate and compatible with the hazardous waste. Therefore.
the potential for harm posed by this violation seemed minimal to human
health and the environment.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial _lL significant __ in compliance except for cited violation
Deviation cell: Major_ Moderate Minor _lL
Remarks: 40 CFR § 262. 34 (al (1) (ii), requires generators who accumulate
hazardous waste in tanks to comply with Suboart J. Subpart Jin part
requires secondary containment systems to be free of cracks or gaps.
MATRIX CELL RANGE:
Penalty amount chosen:
Per Day Assessment:
~$ __ , 100 TO $ __ ,1.2.2_
$ __ ,1.2.2_
$ __ , __
Remarks: $499.00 was chosen as the penalty amount because the operations
at National Starch have been haphazard at best. This violation indicates
the facility's total disregard for the regulations from the smallest of
offenses to offenses that could affect a large segment of the population
and the environment.
26
• • PAGE TWO
Part III. Penalty Adjustment (optional)
Percentage change Dollar Amount
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect: ________ _
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 6 x line 7)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
$499.00
$500.00
$999.00
$999.00
*inhalation, and skin absorption: strong irritant to eyes and skin, a
carcinogen. Flammable, dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Signed: Date : ~L--1-~/;-'---l/~+-~.,__,9 (/=----
27
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CPR 262.34(a) (2) & (3)
Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential) 1. Quantity of waste involved Numerous drums of unidentified waste. 2. Toxicity of waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion, *(over) (from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __ Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX. 3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X_ no __ Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet. Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air _x_ groundwater _x_ surface water _x_ direct contact _x_
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_x_ no Media for exposure: air _x_ groundwater _x_ surface water _x_ direct contact _x_
5. Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_x_ no air _lL groundwater _x_ surface water _x_ soil _x_ 6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes_x_ no
Harm Cell: Major _x_ Moderate Minor
Remarks: During the phase I investigation. the insoectors discovered a large number of 55-gallon drums (aoproximately 800). Many of the drums had been designated by National Starch as "Red-X" drums. The drums contents were not properly identified nor were the drums labeled. The inspectors also noted drums outside the pilot plant area, near the hazardous waste storage tank. outside the laboratory. drums of IPA/Water, and drums that had been shipped off-site to Laidlaw for disposal. None of these drums had been properly labeled or dated. National Starch has significantly increased the potential for harm to human health and the environment by not labeling and dating each container of haz. waste, so that everyone who comes in contact with the waste knows the hazardous nature of the waste.
Part IL Deviation from Regulations
Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial _lL significant __ in compliance except for cited violation Deviation cell: Major _x_ Moderate Minor
Remarks: 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (2) & (3), reauires generators of hazardous waste to clearly label each container of hazardous waste with the words "Hazardous Waste" and the accumulation start date.
MATRIX CELL RANGE: $ 20,.Q_Q_Q_ TO $--2,.Q_QQ_
Penalty amount chosen: $--2,000 Per Day Assessment: $ __ , __ Remarks: $25,000 was chosen as the penalty amount because National Starch has allowed numerous containers of hazardous waste that were not labeled or dated to be managed on its site and off-site. Employees of National Starch and Laidlaw have managed this hazardous waste and have not been cognizant of the fact that they were handling hazardous waste.
28
• •
PAGE TWO
Part III. Penalty Adjustment (ootionall
Percentage change
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
2. Degree of willtulness/neglect: ________ _
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Nwnber of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 6 x line 7)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
Dollar Amount
$25,000.00
*inhalation, and skin absorption; strong irritant to eyes and skin, a
carcinogen. Flammable, dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Date:
29
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation) Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CFR 262.34(a) (4) Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential) 1. Quantity of waste involved In its 1993 annual report. facility reported that it generated 1,223.778 pounds of hazardous waste. 2. Toxiciti bf waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion, *(over) (from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX. 3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X __ no __ Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet. Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air X groundwater_X __ surface water_X_ direct contact_X_
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_X_ no __ _ Media for exposure: air __ X_ ground water _x __ surface water _x __ direct contact _x __
5. Are any environmental media potentially t.hreatened? yes_X_ no air __ X_ groundwater _X __ surface water _X __ soil _x __
6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes __ X_ no Harm Cell: Major X Moderate ____ Minor ___ _
Remarks: Between 1/25/94 & 3/29/94 a series of investigations were conducted in three phases at the facility by inspectors with the Division and the EPA. The inspectors noted that the comoany was in violation of several training requirements and contingency plan violations. The conting~ncy plan violations had been cited in previous inspections in 1990 and 1992. However. the main cause for concern for the inspectors was the fact that the facility was not being operated and maintained to minimize the possibility of releases at the facility. The inspectors observed: inverted drums in the drum wash area with released material; a number of drums in the Red X area apoeared to be leaking and were corroded; a release of resin material in the flammable storage area; caustic soda release in the facility; xylene bottoms release: release of caustic near the retention bldg; incomoatibles stored together; and wastewater discharge from the pretreatment system.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
1. Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations: substantial_X_ significant __ in compliance except for cited violation
Deviation cell: Major __ x_ Moderate __ Minor __
Remarks: 40 CFR § 262.34(al (4). reauires generators to comply with Subparts C & Din 40 CFR Part 265. and with Section CFR 265.16. Subpart C contains the Preparedness and prevention provisions. Subpart D contains the contingency plan and emergency procedures provisions. and Section 265.16 contains the training requirements.
MATRIX CELL RANGE:
Penalty amount chosen:
Per Day Assessment:
$ 20,QQQ_TO--12,000
$--12,000
$ __ ,_ Remarks $25,000 was chosen as the penalty amount because National Starch has generated characteristic hazardous waste at its facility. However. this waste has not been managed as hazardous waste. This waste has been severely mis-managed, which causes significant potential ham to human health and the environment.
30
Form PCWHW.l
PAGE TWO
•
Part III. Penalty Adjustment (optional)
Percentage change
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect:
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 7 x line 8)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
Dollar Amount
$25,000.00
*inhalation, and skin absorption; strong irritant to eyes and skin. a
carcinogen. Flammable, dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Signed: Date
Form PCWHW.l
31
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:40 CFR 268.7(al (ll
Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential)
1. Quantity of waste involved Numerous drums of unidentified waste.
2. Toxicity of waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion, *(over)
(from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX.
3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X_ no __
Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet.
Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes_lL no
Media for exposure: air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL
direct contact _lL
5. Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_lL no
air _lL groundwater _lL surface water _lL soil _lL
6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes_lL no
Harm Cell: Major _lL Moderate Minor
Remarks: During the series of inspections the EPA sampled drums that were
located on-site and drums that had been sent to Laidlaw TOC in Roebuck.
S.C. and Laidlaw Reidsville. These drums of material had been shipped off-
site as non-regulated waste on manifest document #s 00359, 00366, 00267,
and 00369. Samples of the material were determined to be D00l. D002, D028,
and D043 hazardous waste. According to Mr. Brian Donaldson with EPA, ESD
sampled 8 containers of waste profile number 247 at Laidlaw, Reidsville, 5
of the containers were D00l waste. National Starch shipped 199 containers
with a waste profile of 247 as non-hazardous waste • 137 of the containers
went to Pinewood landfill. ESD also sampled 4 containers of waste profile
261, all of the samples were D028 hazardous waste. National Starch shipped.
51 containers of waste profile 261 as non-hazardous waste to the Pinewood
landfill. National Starch is creating an enormous potential for harm by
shipping off hazardous waste as non-hazardous. This waste is being handled
by people who are of the assumption that the waste is non-hazardous, this
hazardous waste is also being diseased of as non-hazardous by landfilling
which could create major environmental problems.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial _lL significant __ in compliance except for cited violation
Deviation cell: Major _lL Moderate Minor
Remarks: 40 CFR § 268.7(a) (1), requires generators who manage a restricted
waste to submit a LDR form with each shipment of waste.
MATRIX CELL RANGE: $ 20,QQQ_ TO $__2_5_,000
Penalty amount chosen: $__2_5_,000
Per Day Assessment: $ __ , __
Remarks: $25.000 was chosen as the penalty amount because National Starch
manifested off-site numerous containers of hazardous waste as non-regulated
waste. Much of this waste was sent to a landfill for disposal, however,
the facility failed to submit Land Disposal Restriction forms with the
waste. By operating in this manner. National Starch has increased the
chances of its hazardous waste causing environmental harm and harm to human
health.
32
• • PAGE TWO
Part III. Perialty Adjustment (optional)
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
Percentage change
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect: ________ _
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
B. Multi-day penalty (line 6 x line 7)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + B + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
Dollar Amount
$25,000.00
*inhalation, and skin absorption; strong irritant to eyes and skin, a
carcinogen. Flammable. dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Date:
33
• •
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET-HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Use Separate Sheet for Each Violation)
Name/ID:National/NCD000623116 Regulation Violated:15A NCAC 13A .0009(a) &
40 CFR 270.l0(al
Part I. Degree or Extent of Harm (actual or potential)
1. Quantity of waste involved In its 1993 annual report, facility
reported that it generated 1,223.778 pounds of hazardous waste.
2. Toxicity of waste involved Dichloroethane-toxic by ingestion, *(over)
(from: material data safety sheet __ NIOSH __
Toxicologist evaluation __ Other Condensed Chemical Dictionary & SAX.
3. Is human life or health potentially threatened? yes_X __ no __
Distance to residences Approximately 500 feet.
Number of people involved 138 employees.
Media for exposure: air_X_groundwater_X_surface water_X_
direct contact __ x_
4. Are other organisms potentially threatened? yes __ X_ no. __ _
Media for exposure: air _X_ ground water _x_ surface water __ x_
direct contact _x_
5. Are any environmental media potentially threatened? yes_X_ no
air _x_ groundwater _x_ surface water :......X._ soil __ X_
6. Is the regulatory program adversely affected? yes __ x_ no
Harm Cell: Major X Moderate ___ Minor __ _
Remarks: National Starch's industrial processes have resulted in the
discharge/disposal of TCLP wastewater/sludge (D028 and D043) into the
facility's pretreatment lagoon system. The pretreatment system is
comorised of three lagoons and a 65,000 K sumo. Due to the disposal of
hazardous waste. each unit now meets the definition of a Subpart K surface
imooundment. In addition, drums of hazardous waste at the Red X Pad have
been stored on the site for greater than 90 days. making the facility a
storage facility. Conditions at this Site could have an adverse effect on
the health of people who come in contact with this Site, and have impacted
the environment.
Part II. Deviation from Regulations
1. Degree of noncompliance with overall regulations:
substantial_X_ significant __ in compliance except for cited
violation
Deviation cell: Major_X_ Moderate __ Minor __
Remarks: 15A NCAC 13A .0009(a), requires any person who treats, stores, or
disposes of hazardous waste to comply with the requirements of Part 264.
40 CFR 270.l0(a), requires any person who is reauired to have a permit to
complete, sign, and submit an application to the Director as described in
this Section and Sections 270.7 through 270.73.
MATRIX CELL RANGE:
Penalty amount chosen:
Per Day Assessment:
$ 20,000 TO -2..5.,000
$-2..5.,000
$ __ ,_
Remarks $25,000.00 was chosen as the penalty amount due to the adverse
health effects and impact to the environment National Starch is imposing on
the people at and n~ar the Site bv allowina the storage and disposal of
hazardous waste on the Site without complying with the storage and disposal
regulations and the permit system that were established to help protect
human health and the environment.
34
• • PAGE TWO
Part III. Penaltv Adjustment (optional)
Percentage change
1. Good faith efforts to comply/
lack of good faith:
2. Degree of willfulness/neglect:
3. History of noncompliance/
compliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Adjusted initial penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
6. Adjusted per-day penalty (amount from page one+/-
adjustments)
7. Number of days of violation
8. Multi-day penalty (line 7 x line 8)
9. Economic benefit of noncompliance (attach separate
worksheet)
10. Total (lines 5 + 8 + 9)
11. Ability to pay adjustment
12. Total Penalty Amount:
(may not exceed $25,000 per day of violation)
Remarks:
Dollar Amount
-$300,000.00
-$275,000.00
$300,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
The gravity based penaltv of $25,000 was increased by $300,000 to reflect
the minimum amount of economic benefit the facility has enjoyed by not
having adequate sudden and nonsudden insurance coverage. This would give a
total adjusted penalty of $325,000, however, because N.C.G.S. § 130A-22(f)
and 15A NCAC 13A .0700 -.0707 authorizes ·an administrative penalty of only
$25,000.00 per day for each violation. the adjustment was subtracted from
the initial penalty in other unique factors. leaving a total penalty amount
of 25 000.00.
*inhalation, and skin absorption: strong irritant to eyes and skin, a
carcinogen. Flammable, dangerous fire risk. Vinyl chloride-An extremely
toxic and hazardous material by all avenues of exposure. A carcinogen.
Also there was flammable and corrosive waste at the facility.
Signed: Date ~L'---',~'-'-lj..LL.9/2--"{,'--i"V'---
Form PCWHW.l
35
• • ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NONCOMPLIANCE
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
NCD 000 623 116
By not complying with the regulations, National Starch has gained an
economic advantage over other facilities who are authorized TSDFs and do
comply with the regulations. The following is a conservative estimate of
the economic benefits that National Starch has enjoyed.
1. 40 CFR § 262.11. There were numerous drums of unknown chemicals
throughout the facility. A complete TCLP analysis by an independent
lab to make a waste determination of the drums would cost at least
$1,000 per sample. There were at least nine groups of drums
throughout the facility that investigators and/or facility personnel
were unsure of the contents. If the company analyzed one drum from
each group, they would have to do a TCLP scan on at least nine
samples. The total cost for this would be $9,000.
2. 40 CFR § 262.20(a)
is de-minimis.
The cost for filling out the manifest correctly
3. 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (1) (ii). There was a crack noted in the secondary
containment of the haza.rdous waste storage tank. The cost to fill the
crack and epoxy coat the area would be approximately $500.
4. 40 CFR § 262.34(a)(2) & (3). The cost of labelling and dating each
container of hazardous waste is de-minimis.
5. 40 CFR § 262.34(a) (4). The cost associated with conducting personnel
training in 12 instead of 13 months, maintaining documentation at the
facility of training for the emergency coordinators,· submitting copies
of the contingency plan to emergency response groups, and ensuring
that drums of waste were in good condition and not leaking would have
been de-minimis.
6. 40 CFR § 268. 7 (al (1) .. The cost of attaching a LDR form with each
shipment of waste is de-minimis.
7. 15A NCAC 13A .0009(a). All authorized TSD facilities are required to
obtain sudden and non-sudden liability insurance .. The premium for
this insurance for National Starch would cost at least $300,000
annually.
8. 40 CFR § 270.l0(a). The application fee required of a facility that
plans to store hazardous waste is $10,000 and it is $15,000 for a
facility that plans to dispose of a hazardous waste. National Starch
stored and disposed of hazardous waste on its site, therefore an
application fee of $25,000 was due to the Division of Solid Waste
Management.
National Starch has enjoyed an economic benefit of at least $334,500.00 by
not complying with the above regulations.
36
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 2 ? 1989
4WD-SFB
CERTIFIED MAIL
REGION IV
3•5 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30315
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Alex M. Sampson, Esquire
National Starch and Chemical Corporation
10 Finderne Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
RE: Issuance of Unilateral Administrative Order on
Remedial Design/Remedial Action for the National
Starch Superfund Site
Dear Mr. Sampson:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified National
Starch and Chemical Corporation as a potentially responsible
party (PRP) for the National Starch Superfund Site in Salisbury,
North Carolina. Following completion of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study conducted by National Starch
and the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) dated September
30, 1988, the Agency initiated the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA) negotiations with National Starch on March 27,
1989. The RD/RA moratorium period concluded on July 25, 1989.
Because National Starch did not sign the RD/RA Consent Decree
within the . 120 day moratorium period, and due to the Agency's
need to maintain progress at Superfund sites, I am issuing this
Unilateral Administrative Order for the clean-up of the National
Starch site. The enclosed Order is issued pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act or 1986 (CERCLA), by authority delegated to the
Administrator of the EPA and redelegated to the EPA regions.
If you have any questions, please contact either the
Manager, Giezelle Bennett (404/347-7791), or Reuben
(404/347-2641) in the office of Regional Counsel.
M, Tobin
r
as e Management Division
cc: Charles Tisdale, Esquire
Hank Graulich, NSCC
Ray Paradowski, NSCC
..
Project
Bussey
• •
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
In the Matter of :
National starch and Chemical Corporation
Respondent
Proceeding under Section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
(42 u.s.c. §9606)
)
)
)
) Order No. 89-32-C
)
) July 27, 1989
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
I. Jurisdiction
This Order is issued to the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (CERCLA), by authority delegated to the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and redelegated to the EPA
Regions. The identified PRP is National Starch and Chemical Corporation.
The Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, has
determined that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment ta the
public health, welfare or the environment because of the release and
threatened release of hazardous substances from the National Starch and
Chemical Corporation Superfund Site (National Starch Site) in Salisbury,
North Carolina.
This Order directs the PRP to undertake actions that EPA has determined to
be necessary ta PFOtect the public and the environment from this potential
endangerment.
•
• •
II. Findings of Fact
The following facts are a synopsis of data collected in the Administrative
Record of EPA's Record of Decision for the National Starch Site, dated
September 30, 1988. This Record of Decision (ROD) is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
A. The National Starch facility is an active manufacturing plant for
textile finishing chemicals and custom specialty chemicals.
Production takes place on a batch basis and varies depending upon
demand.
B. In September 1968, Proctor Chemical Company purchased the 465 acre
Cedar Springs Road property. Within the next year, Proctor Chemical
was acquired by National Starch and operated as a separate
subsidiary. Construction of the Cedar Springs Road plant began in
1970. On January 1, 1983, Proctor Chemical Company was dissolved and
its operations merged with National Starch.
C. Based on a 1984 CERCLA 103(c) notification report filed by National
Starch, from 1971 to 1978, National Starch disposed of approximately
350,000 gallons of D002 (corrosive waste with pH~ 2.0) waste reaction
vessel wash waters in trenches constructed in a 5 acre tract of land
located behind the plant. The corrosive reaction vessel wash water
consisted predominantly of salt brines, sulfuric acid solutions,
sulfonating fats and oils, and solvents. Trace levels of heavy metals
may have been due to De minimis corrosion of process equipment. The
wastes were disposed of in several trenches approximately 200 to 300
feet long and 8 feet deep. The trenches ran both east to west and
north to south.
D. Liquid effluent from the plant production area flowed into the
easternmost pretreatment holding lagoon, which was unlined, and then
was pumped to an active trench in the trench area. Each trench was
used until liquid no longer readily percolated into the ground.
Afterwards the trench was backfilled and seeded, and a new trench was
constructed.
E. In 1976, eight monitoring wells were installed around the site by
National Starch to determine if the trenching operations were
-2-
•
• • impacting groundwater quality. Four of these monitoring wells were
installed adjacent to or within the trench area. Monitoring revealed
that shallow groundwater immediately within and adjacent to the trench
area was contaminated. In June 1977, sampling by the North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) verified National Starch's earlier
conclusion that some of the monitoring wells were contaminated. Based
on analysis of samples taken at that time, DEM requested that National
Starch cease onsite waste disposal activities.
F. The Site has been the subject of a Remedial Investigation conducted
from December 1986 through June 1988. The groundwater in the trench
area was found to be highly contaminated. Contaminants include
1,2-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, xylene, benzene,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, chloroform, acetone,
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, and arsenic. The contaminants are present
in both the saprolite and bedrock aquifers.
G. Groundwater in the area is a current source of drinking water; it is
classified as Class IIA based on the Agency's Groundwater
Classification Strategy. A 1988 survey of existing off-site water
supply wells revealed a total of 1,539 homes within a 3-mile radius of
the site that are outside the limits of the city water lines and could
potentially use the groundwater for drinking and other domestic
purposes. The closest well is located 2,200 feet northest of the
site. Exposure pathways include ingestion from drinking, and
inhalation of contamination stripped from water during bathing and
cooking.
H. The contaminant 1,2-dichloroethane was prevalent throughout the
monitoring well system. The highest concentration reported was
350,000 parts per billion (ppb). EPA estimates that
1,2-dichloroethane at a concentration of 0.38 ppb would cause one
cancer death per million people exposed. EPA's Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water ACT, 42
u.s.c. S300(f) et seq. is 5 ppb for 1,2-dichloroethane.
I. The contaminant 1,2-dichloroethane is a known animal and probable
-3-
•
• • human carcinogen. Inhalation of high concentrations may cause nausea,
vomiting, mental confusion, dizziness, and pulmonary edema. Chronic
exposure has been associated with liver and kidney damage. Acute
exposures can lead to death from respiratory and circulatory failure.
Repeated long-term exposures to 1,2-dichloroethane has resulted in
neurologic changes, loss of appetite and other gastrointestinal
problems, irritation of the mucous membranes, liver and kidney
impairment, and death.
III. Conclusions of Law
A. The Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) National Starch and Chemical
Corporation is a "person• as defined in Section 101(21) of CERCLA, 42
u.s.c. S9601(21).
B. The National Starch Site is a "facility• as defined in Section 101(9)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S9601(9).
C. The contaminants listed in II.F above are "hazardous substances" as
defined in Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. S9601(14).
o. The disposal of hazardous substances and the continued migration of
those substances in the groundwater constitutes a "release" or
"threatened release" of hazardous substances into the environment as
defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.s.c. S9601(22).
E. The PRP is liable under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S9607(a).
IV. Determinations
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Director, Waste
Management Division, EPA Region IV, has made the following determinations:
A. The release or threatened release of hazardous substances and
pollutants or contaminants from the National Starch Site may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health,
welfare, or the environment. This determination is embodied in
Appendix A attached hereto.
B. In order to prevent or mitigate a significant risk of harm to human
health and the environment, remedial action must be undertaken to
remediafe the contaminated groundwater at the National Starch Site.
C. The remedial measures required by this Order are consistent with the
National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
-4-
•
• • v. Order
Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Determinations,
the PRP is hereby Ordered to implement the following measures under the
direction of EPA's Superfund Project Manager:
A. The PRP shall finance and perform the implementation of the Work as
defined by the ROD and further defined by this Order. "Work" means
the design and construction of the Remedial Action as set out in the
·september 30, 1988 ROD for the National Starch site and all other
tasks to be performed by the PRP pursuant to this Order. "Site" means
the National Starch facility which encompasses approximately 500 acres
at Cedar Springs Road, approximately five miles south of the city of
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. The coordinates are 35° 37'
05"N latitude and so• 32' O"W longitude and any further areas
designated by EPA.
B. The PRP shall design, implement and complete the Work in accordance -
with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), as set forth in 50 Fed. Reg. 47912 (1985) (effective
February 18, 1986), and all amendments thereto that are effective and
applicable to any activity undertaken pursuant to this Order, and also
in accordance with the standards, specifications, and schedule of
completion set forth in or approved by EPA pursuant to this Order.
All Work shall be performed by qualified employees or subcontractors
of the PRP in accordance with the schedule in Subparagraph D below.
(Except where noted otherwise, all dates referred to in the schedule
are calendar days; however, should a deadline fall on a weekend or on
a Federal holiday, the deadline shall be construed to continue to the
next business day.)
C. Requirements for the Wark:
1. All work performed pursuant to this Administrative Order shall be
under the direction and supervision of a qualified professional
engineer or a certified geologist with expertise in hazardous
waste site cleanup. Prior to the initiation of the Site work, the
PRP shall notify EPA in writing regarding the identity of such
engineer or geologist and of any contractors and/or subcontractors
-5-
-
• • to be used in carrying out the requirements of this Order and the
ROD. The selection of an engineer/geologist and/or contractor(s)
shall be completed within 30 days of the effective date of this
Administrative Order.
2. The Work consists of:
a) The design, construction and operation of a groundwater
extraction and possibly a treatment system. The groundwater
extraction system is to remove the contaminants in both the
surficial and bedrock aquifers throughout the plume and
prevent the contaminated groundwater from migrating from the
site.
i) The level and degree of pretreatment of the extracted
groundwater will depend on the effluent limits set by the
Publicly owned Treatment Works (POTW). The range of
pretreatment for the extracted groundwater includes air
stripping, filtration through activated carbon filter,
metal removal, and treatment through the company's existing
lagoon system. The extracted groundwater will be
discharged to the Salisbury POTW. Groundwater remediation
will be performed until all contaminated water meets all
applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements
(ARARs). In the possibility that a mutual arrangement
cannot be reached between National Starch and the POTW to
accept the extracted groundwater, treated or untreated, the
extracted and treated groundwater will be discharged to a
local surface stream under a NPDES permit.
b) The design and implementation of a monitoring system. The
monitoring system includes both groundwater and surface
waters. The groundwater monitoring system will include
existing monitor wells and the installation of additional
monitor wells if necessary.
3. Groundwater Extraction System
A "zone of capture" shall be established within the vertical and
lateral boundaries of groundwater contamination. This boundary
-6-
-
• • shall be determined by groundwater monitoring. The zone of
capture shall encompass the area of the Site in which groundwater
monitoring indicates contaminant levels in excess of the
groundwater remediation levels identified on Page 19 of the ROD.
4. Hydraulic Gradient
The PRPs shall maintain the zone of capture by ensuring a
hydraulic gradient from within the edges of the boundaries of
groundwater contamination by pumping the extraction wells. The
PRPs shall monitor water levels to ensure that a proper hydraulic
gradient is maintained.
5. Groundwater Discharge
a) All water from the groundwater extraction system will be
treated to the extent necessary as determined by its ultimate
discharge; either to the POTW, or if the POTW is not
available, to a surface stream via a NPDES permit.
i) If an on-site treatment system is necessary, then during
start-up activities, extracted water to and from the
treatment plant will be checked on a schedule as provided
for in the Operations and Maintenance Plan submitted in
accordance with Subparagraphs D.4 and D.7.
ii) During routine operations, the treatment plant discharge
must meet federal and state standards for the type of
discharge used on a daily basis based on a sampling
schedule to be presented in the Operation and Maintenance
Plan developed by the PRP pursuant to Subparagraphs D.4
and D.7 and shalL include compliance monitoring programs
to demonstrate continued compliance with the requirements
of this Subparagraph c.s. Any measurable noncompliance
with these levels shall be reported orally to EPA within
forty-eight (48) hours of discovery. A written submission
shall also be provided within five (5) days. This
submission shall include a description of the
noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance,
including the dates and times, and, if the noncompliance
has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
-7-
•
• • expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate and prevent re-occurrence of the
noncompliance. Complying with these reporting
requirements shall not excuse any penalties resulting from
the noncompliance.
b) Air stripping may be used to reduce volatile organic compound
("VOC") contamination. Depending on the levels of voes being
emitted, air stripping towers may need to be equipped with air
emission controls to meet federal, state and local standards.
6. The PRP shall continue operation of the Work until EPA modifies or
terminates this Order.
D. Schedule for the Work
1. If the PRP determines it is necessary to remove the present
engineer/geologist/contractor(s) from the Site work during the
RD/RA process, then a full account and rationale for making this
change should be submitted in writing to EPA within 10 working
days of the dismissal of the present engineer/ geologist/
contractor(s). A change in engineer/geologist/contractor(s) shall
not release the PRP from maintaining and meeting the requirements
and deadlines/schedule as specified below.
2. Within 60 days after the effective date of this Order, the PRP
shall submit a conceptual design for the Remedial Action (30% of
complete final design). The conceptual design shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
a. Efficiency of present groundwater monitoring system and the
selection of any additional monitor wells
b. Results of POTW discussions; treatment requirements
c. Location of monitoring stations on surface streams
d. Design analysis, including analysis and reporting mechanisms
necessary to satisfy state permitting requirements
e. Location of extraction wells
f. 'Major equipment list for treatment plant (if necessary)
g. Approximate pumping rates for all wells
h. Site plan (piping/layout)
i. Easements
-8-
•
• • j. Piping and flow diagrams for treatment plant (if necessary)
and extraction system
k. Ancillary equipment (substations, etc.)
3. EPA shall review and approve/disapprove the conceptual design.
4. Within 120 days after the effective date of this Order or 30 days
after EPA's decision to approve/disapprove the conceptual design,
whichever is later, the PRP shall submit final draft design and
specifications. These shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Design analysis
b. Piping and instrument diagram for the treatment plant and
extraction system.
c. Location of additional monitor wells
d. Specifications for the treatment plant and groundwater system
sufficient to comply with the treatment plant discharge
requirements and zone of capture requirements of Paragraph v.
e. QA/QC Plan
f. Worker Health & Safety Plan
g. Preliminary Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan
h. Preliminary Groundwater Treatment Operation and Maintenance
Plan Including:
i) Recommended frequency of water level measurements and
water quality testing for extraction and monitor wells.
These shall include separate schedules for start-up and
routine operations.
ii) Proposed decision making process and criteria for shutting
down specific extraction wells.
iii) Recommended frequency for testing of air emissions during
start-up and routine operations, if a air stripper is
used.
i. Construction schedule and phasing.
5. EPA shall review and approve/disapprove the final draft design and
specifications.
6. Within 180 days after the effective date of this Order, or 30 days
after EPA's decision to approve/disapprove the final draft design
-9-
•
• • and specifications, whichever is later, the PRP shall begin
construction of facilities for implementation of the Remedial
Action. The PRP shall initiate preconstruction activities during
EPA review of the final draft design and specifications.
7. Within 210 days after the effective date of this Order, or 60 days
after EPA's decision to approve/disapprove the final draft design
and specifications, whichever is later, the PRP shall submit final
draft Operation and Maintenance Plans to EPA for approval.
·s. Within 250 days after the effective date of this Order, or 100
days after EPA's decision to approve/disapprove the final draft
design and specifications, whichever is later, the PRP shall
commence start-up activities.
9. The PRP shall begin and thereafter maintain routine operation
activities in accordance with an approved Operation and
Maintenance Plan by a date to be established by EPA.
E. Monthly Progress Reports
The PRP shall provide written progress reports to EPA on a monthly
basis, These progress reports shall describe all actions taken to
comply with this Order, including a general description of the Work
activities commenced or completed during the reporting period, Work
activities projected to be commenced or completed during the next
reporting period, the results of any analysis performed, and any
problems that have been encountered or are anticipated by the PRP in
commencing or completing the Work activities. These progress reports
shall be submitted to EPA by the lath of each month for work done the
preceding month and planned for the current month.
F. Reports, Plans, and other Items
1. Any reports, plans, specifications (including discharge or
emission lim_its), schedules, appendices, and attachments required
or established by this Order are, upon approval by EPA,
incorporated into this Order. Any noncompliance with such EPA
approved reports, plans, specifications (including discharge or
emission limits), schedules, appendices, or attachments shall be
considered a violation of this Order subject to penalties in
accordance with Paragraph XII of this Order.
-10-
•
• • 2. If EPA disapproves any plans or reports (other than monthly
progress reports) or other items required to be submitted to EPA
for approval pursuant to this Order, the PRP shall correct any
deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report or item for EPA
approval within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt of such
disapproval.
3. Submission of a deficient plan or report is a violation of this
Order subject to penalties in accordance with Paragraph XII
whether or not resubmission corrects the deficiencies of the
original submission.
4. In attempting to correct any deficiency as required by
Subparagraph V.F.2, the PRP shall address and incorporate all of
EPA's comments.
G. The Worker Health and Safety Plan that the PRP is required to submit
pursuant to Subparagraph V.D.4 shall satisfy the requirements of the
Occupational Safety and Health Guidance for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities (October 1985 (DHH 5 NIOSH) Publication No. 85-115] and all
amendments thereto that are effective and applicable to any activity
undertaken pursuant to this Order and EPA's Standard Operating Safety
Guides.
H. The PRP shall submit to EPA for approval, at the same time as it
submits the final draft design documents in accordance with
Subparagraph V.D.4, a Quality Assurance/Quality Control ("QA/QC") Plan
for Remedial Construction activities. The Remedial Construction QA/QC
Plan shall, where applicable, be prepared in accordance with current
EPA guidance, Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80, and subsequent
amendments to such guidelines and EPA, Region IV, Engineering Support
Branch, Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual
dated April 1, 1986, as amended, upon written notification by EPA to
the PRP of such amendments. The Region IV manual takes precedence
over other QA/QC manuals/guidance.
Additionally, the Remedial Construction QA/QC Plan shall include
elements necessary for the implementation of trial test(s) of the
-11-
•
• • pumping and treatment systems used as part of the Work. The Remedial
Construction QA/QC Plan shall include a description of the mechanism
that shall be used to verify that the pumping and treatment process is
operating within acceptable limits. Upon approval and notice by EPA
to the PRP, the PRP shall implement the Remedial Construction QA/QC
Plan.
I. The PRP shall utilize QA/QC procedures in accordance with the QA/QC
plans submitted pursuant to this Order, and shall utilize standard EPA
chain of custody procedures, as documented in National Enforcement
Investigations Center Policies and Procedures Manual, as revised in
November 1984, the National Enforcement Investigations Center Manual
for the Evidence Audit, published in September 1981, and EPA, Region
IV, Engineering Support Branch, Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual dated April 1, 1986, as amended, for all
sample collection and analysis activities. The Region IV manual takes
precedence over other manuals/guidance pertaining to collecting
samples. In order to provide quality assurance and maintain quality
control regarding all samples collected pursuant to this Consent
Decree, the PRP shall:
1. Ensure that all contracts with laboratories utilized by the PRP
for analysis of samples taken pursuant to this Administrative
Order provide access to EPA personnel and EPA authorized
representatives to assure the accuracy of laboratory results
related to the Work.
2. Ensure that laboratories utilized by the PRP for analysis of
samples taken pursuant to this Order perform all analyses
according to EPA methods or methods deemed in advance satisfactory
by EPA. Accepted EPA methods are documented in the "Contract Lab
Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis" dated July 1987
and as amended and the Contract Lab Program Statement of Work for
Organic Analysis" dated October 1986, revised in January 1987,
February 1987, July 1987 and August 1987 and as amended in the
future.
3. Ensure that all laboratories utilized by the PRP for analysis of
-12-
•
• • samples taken pursuant to this Order participate in an EPA or EPA
equivalent QA/QC program. As part of the QA/QC program and upon
request by EPA, such laboratories shall perform analyses of
samples provided by EPA to demonstrate the quality of each
laboratory's data.
J. The PRP shall demonstrate their ability to complete the Work and to
pay all claims that arise from the performance of the Work by
obtaining and presenting to EPA for approval within thirty (30)
calendar days after the effective date of this Order, one of the
following items: 1) performance bond; 2) letter of credit; or 3)
guarantee by a third party. In lieu of any of the three items listed
above, the PRP may present to EPA, within twenty (20) calendar days
after the effective date of this Order, financial information
sufficient to satisfy EPA that the PRP has sufficient assets to make
it unnecessary to require additional assurances. If the PRP relies on
financial information for financial assurance, the PRP shall quarterly
submit such financial information. If EPA determines the financial
assurances to be inadequate, the PRP shall obtain one of the three
financial instruments listed above.
K. The PRP shall maintain a segregated account dedicated to funding the
PRP's obligations pursuant to this Order. Starting September 1, 1989,
the PRP shall quarterly submit an account statement to EPA
demonstrating that the account is funded adequately to ensure
performance of the PRP's obligations under this Order for the
following quarter. ·
L. The PRP.shall submit a quality assurance report to EPA on a quarterly
basis on September 1st, December 1st, March 1st, and June 1st of each
year. This report shall contain information that demonstrates that
the PRP is complying with Subparagraph V.I of this Order and the QA/QC
Plans submitted pursuant to this Order.
M. Any analytical or design data generated or obtained by the PRP that
are related to the Work shall be provided to EPA within seven (7) days
of any request by EPA for such data.
N. EPA employees and EPA's authorized representatives shall have the
right, upon request, to take splits of any samples obtained by the PRP
-13-
•
• • or anyone acting on the PRP's behalf in the implementation of the
Work. The PRP shall also have the right upon request to obtain splits
of samples taken independently by EPA or its authorized
representatives.
O. During design, Construction, and start-up activities, the PRP shall
notify EPA seven (7) days prior to any sampling conducted by the PRP
or anyone acting on its behalf. EPA shall be .notified thirty (30)
days prior to the disposal of any such sample, and EPA shall have an
opportunity, upon request, to take possession of all or a portion of
such sample. The PRP need not provide EPA with 7-day notice for
sampling relating to the routine operation of the treatment system.
Prior to commencement of the routine operation of the treatment
system, however, the PRP shall provide EPA with a schedule for all
routine sampling relating to the operation of the treatment system.
The PRP shall notify EPA seven (7) days in advance of any changes in
the routine sampling schedule. The PRP need not provide EPA with
advance notice of changes in the routine treatment system sampling as
a result of unexpected conditions. The PRP shall, however, notify EPA
within forty-eight (48) hours of the occurrence of any such conditions
and shall provide EPA with the results of analysis of such sampling
when the results become available.
P. All data, factual information, and documents submitted by the PRP to
EPA and the State pursuant to this Order shall be subject to public
inspection. The PRP shall not assert a claim of confidentiality
regarding any hydrogeological or chemical data, any data submitted in
support of a remedial proposal, or any other scientific or engineering
data. The PRP may assert a claim of confidentiality as to any
process, method, technique, or any description thereof that the PRP
claims constitute proprietary or trade secret information developed by
the PRP or developed by the contractor or the contractor's
subcontractors. In addition, the PRP may assert business
confide~tiality claims covering part or all of the information
provided in connection with this Order in accordance with Section
104(e)(7) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9604(e)(7) and pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
-14-
-
• • S 2.203(b) or applicable state law. Any such claim shall be subject
to EPA'a confidentiality determination procedures and, if determined
to be confidential, afforded the protection by EPA provided in 40
C.F.R., Part 2, Subpart B.
Documents which are asserted to be attorney work product or subject
to privilege under law shall not be subject to inspection or copying
under this Order provided that, upon request, the PRP shall provide
EPA with an identification of the title and subject matter of each
·document for which a privilege is asserted, and an explanation as to
why the privilege is applicable to the document or portions thereof.
Q. The PRP shall preserve and retain all records and documents now in its
possession or control that relate in any manner to the Site,
regardless of any·document retention policy to the contrary, for no
leas than six (6) years after the completion of the construction of
the Work or termination of this Order, whichever is later.
Until completion of the Work and termination of this Order, the PRP
shall preserve, and shall instruct its contractors, its contractors•
subcontractors, and anyone else acting on the PRP'a behalf at the
National Starch Site to preserve (in the form of originals or exact
copies, or, alternatively, microfiche of all originals) all records,
documents and information of whatever kind, nature or description
relating to the performance of the Work at the Site. Upon the
completion of the Work, copies of all such records, documents, and
information shall be delivered to the EPA Project Coordinator.
VI. Compliance With other Laws
The PRP shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and
regulations in carrying out the terms of this Order. All hazardous
substances removed from the facility shall be handled in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. S 6921, et seq.,
the regulations promulgated under that Act, and EPA's Offsite Disposal
Policy, OSWER Directive 9834.11 (Nov. 13, 1987).
VII. Project Coordinator
EPA has appointed a Project Coordinator for the Site who has the authority
vested in the Remedial Project Manager and the On-scene Coordinator by 40
C.F.R. Part 300, et seq., including such authority as may be added by
-15-
•
• • amendments to 40 C,F,R. Part 300, as well as the authority to ensure that
this Order is implemented in accordance with all applicable statutes and
regulations. The EPA Project Coordinator for the purposes of this Order is:
Giezelle s. Bennett
United Stat~s Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Within seven (7) calendar days of the effective date of this Order, the
PRP shall designate a Projec~ Coordinator to monitor the PRP's progress in
implementing this Order and to coordinate communication between EPA and the
PRPs. EPA and the PRP may change their respective Project Coordinators upon
five (5) calendar days notice.
VIII. Submittals
All submittals and notifications to EPA required by this Order or the
plans submitted herewith shall be made to the EPA Project Coordinator. Seven
(7) copies will be submitted to EPA; six (6) bound and one (1) unbound.
All approvals and decisions of EPA made regarding submittals and
modifications under this Order shall be communicated to the PRP by the
Director, Waste Management Division, or his designee. No informal advice,
guidance, suggestions, or comments by EPA regarding reports, plans,
specifications, schedules, or any other matter will relieve the PRP of its
obligation to obtain formal approvals as required by this Order.
IX. Access
To the extent that access to or easements over property not owned by the
·pRP is required for the proper and complete performance of this Order, the
PRP shall use its best efforts to obtain access agreements from the present
owners or those persons who have control within sixty (60) calendar days of
the effective date of this Order. Access agreements shall provide reasonable
access to the United States, the State of North Carolina, and their
authorized rep~esentatives. In the event that access agreements are not
obtained within the sixty (60) day period, the PRP shall notify EPA within
five (5) calendar days thereafter regarding both the lack of, and the PRP's
efforts to obtain, such agreements. If necessary, EPA may exercise its legal
authority to assist the PRP in-obtaining access.
-16-
-
• • The PRP shall assure that the United States, the State, and their
representatives, including contractors, shall have access at all reasonable
times to the Site and any privately owned property where access was necessary
on the effective date of this Order. In the event National Starch transfers
or sells some or all of its property located within the boundaries of the
National Starch Site to a third party after the effective date of this Order,
the PRP shall (a) assure that the instrument effecting the conveyance or
transfer of title contains a copy of this Order, the ROD and the proposal of
the National Starch Site on the National Priorities List pursuant to CERCLA;
and (b) assure access to the property from the third party. Nothing in this
Order limits any access rights that EPA or other agencies may have pursuant
to law,
X. Endangerment During Implementation
The Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, may determine that
acts or circumstances (whether related to or unrelated to this Order) may
endanger human health, welfare, or the environment and may order the PRP to
stop further implementation of this Order until the endangerment is abated.
EPA may also, for any other reason permitted by law, order the PRP to cease
activities at the National Starch Site,
The PRP will work and coordinate with the local and County Emergency
Planning Committees or Emergency Response personnel as directed under Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Title III
is also knowp as the "Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of
1986.
XI. United States Not Liable
The United States, its agencies, employees and other representatives shall
not be liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property resulting
from the acts or omissions of the PRP, its employees or other representatives
caused by implementation of this Order or otherwise.
The United States, its agencies, employees and other representatives shall
not be deemed a party to any contract with the PRP,
-17-
•
• • XII. Noncompliance
A. A willful violation or failure or refusal to comply with any terms of
this Order shall subject the PRP to a civil penalty of up to $25,000
per day in which the violation occurs or failure tO comply continues,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 106(b)(l) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
S9606(b)(l). Failure to comply with any terms of this Order without
sufficient cause shall also subject the PRP to punitive damages of up
to three (3) times the total costs incurred by the United States for
site response pursuant to Section 107(c)(3) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
§9607(c)(3).
B. EPA may assume performance of the Work required by this Order at any
time if EPA determines that the PRP is not taking appropriate action.
EPA may order or independently initiate additional response actions it
deems necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.
XIII. Opportunity to Confer
The PRP may request a conference with the Director, Waste Management
Division, EPA Region IV, or his staff to discuss the provisions of this
Order. At any conference held pursuant to the PRP's request, the PRP may
appear by counsel or other representatives for the purpose of presenting any
objections, defenses or contentions which the PRP may have regarding this
Order. If the PRP desires such a conference, the PRP must make a request
orally within four (4) working days of the effective date of this Order and
confirm the request in writing immediately. Requests shall be made to the
EPA Project Coordinator.
XIV. Parties Bound
This Order shall apply to and is binding upon the PRP, its officers,
directors, agents, employees, contractors, successors, and assigns.
xv. Notice of Intent to Comply
Within four (4) working days of the effective date of this Order, the PRP
shall orally inform EPA of its intent to comply with the terms of this
Order. The oral notice shall be confirmed within three (3) working days by
' written notice to the Director. Failure to timely notify EPA of the PRP's
intent to comply shall be deemed by EPA a willful refusal to comply.
-18-
-
• • XVI. Notice to State
Notice of the issuance of this Order has been given to the State of North
Carolina. EPA will consult with the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, as appropriate, to ensure that the plans submitted by
the PRP pursuant to this Order are consistent with State requirements.
XVII. Effective Date
Notwithstanding any conferences that may be requested pursuant to the
provisions of this Order, this Order shall be effective upon signature.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 27th day of _J_u_l_y ___ , 1989 at Atlanta, Georgia.
; I
UNITED STA~~ES ENVIPNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{
by: e-:-=z,L,,C-v(,,f-:C)--__ )
_ --y Patrick M. Tobin
I
; Director, Waste Management Division I
I V EPA, Region IV
-19-
•
• •
Appendix A
DETERMINATION OF IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT
SITE: National Starch, Salisbury, North Carolina
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED:
My determination is based on the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrative Record for the Record of Decision for the National
Starch Superfund Site (National Starch Site), dated September 30, 1988.
DETERMINATION:
Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA) provides
that, when the President of the United States determines that there may
be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health,
welfare, or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of
a hazardous substance from a facility to the environment, he may issue
such Orders as may be necessary to protect public health, welfare or the
environment.
The Administrative Record referenced above conclusively demonstrates
that hazardous substances have been released to the environment at the
National starch Site. The Administrative Record contains the Interim
Report, the Work Plan, the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report and the
Feasibility Study (FS) document. The Work Plan and the RI report furnish
information on the background and site history. The RI report documents
the extent of the release based on the results of groundwater sampling.
This sampling demonstrates that the groundwater at the National Starch
Site is contaminated with hazardous substances including, but not limited
to, volatile organic compounds such as 1,2-dichloroethane. This
documents the threat to environment posed by the release. The FS
document contains an Public Health Evaluation which documents the risk to
human health and the environment presented by the observed
contamination. The FS document has been submitted to the public for
comment.
-20-
•
• • Pursuant to the CERCLA S 106 authority delegated to me by the
President, through the EPA Administrator, I hereby determine that the
Administrative Record and, specifically, the Background, Site History,
and the Public Health Evaluation, demonstrate that an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health, welfare or the environment may
exist because of the actual and threatened releases of hazardous
substances at the National Starch Site.
Dated: this .21..t.h... day of -1~,~JJ~J~'--' 1989 at Atlanta, Georgia.
UNITED STATES PROTECTION AGENCY
by:
;:;Jv Patrick-M-. Tobin
,, / Director
( Waste Management Division
EPA, Region IV
-21-
•
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC • 11986
41'1D--ER
CERI'IFIED ~,AIL
REl'URN Rt.-:CEIPI' REQUESTED
,.
Mr. Alex M. Samson, Jr.
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
National Starch and Chemical Corporation
10 Finderne Avenue
P.O. Box 6500
Bridgewater, New Jersey 06807
Ref: National Starch and Chemical Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Dear t-'ir • Samson:
CEJV . C.
EC 10 1986 liii . . ....
Attached is an executed copy of the Administrative Order on Consent for
the above-referenced site.
~li~WL~, 10
Regional Anministrator
cc: William Meyers
North Carolina Solid & Hazardous Waste
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIPONMENTAL PROIECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
In The Matter Of:
NATIONAL srARCl-l AND CHFMICAL
CORPORATION
Cedar Springs Road
Salisbury, North Carolina
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHll1ICAL
CORPORATION
Finderne Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey,
Respondent.
Proceeding Under Section
106(a) of the Carprehensive
Environmental Response,
Carpensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (42 u.s.c. §9606(a))
IXCKET NO. 87-01-C
AI:t-lINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT
I. JURISDICTION
This Ad1ninistrative Order on Consent (Cons~t Order) is entered into by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with National Starch and Chemical Corporation (National Starch or Respondent) pursuant to the authority vested in the President of the United States by Section 106(a) of the Canpre-hens.ive Environmental Response, Carg:,ensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), 42 u.s.c. §9606(a), and delegated to the Administrator of EPA by Executive Order 12316 dated August 14, 1981, 46 Federal Register 42237 (1981) and further delegated to the Regional Administrator, EPA Delegation
No. 14-14-A, the latter of which was signed on April 16, 1984.
The Respondent agrees to undertake all actions required by the tenns and cond.i t.ions of this Consent Order. The Respondent consents to and will not contest EPA jurisdiction regarding th.is Consent Order.
II. S'I'ATE11ENT OF PURPOSE
In entering into th.is Consent Order, the mutual objectives of EPA and National Starch are: (1'} to determi.ne fully the nature and extent of the threat to the p.:bl.ic heali:h or '.relfare er the env.ironn1'!nt caused by the release or threatened r0.l.eo.se of hazardous substances, pollutants, or cont'l.rni.nants from the National
• •
-2 -
Starch site (Remedial Investigation); and (B) to evaluate alternatives
for the appropriate extent of remedial action to prevent·or mitigate the
migration or the release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants from the National Starch site (Feasibility
Study). The activities conducted pursuant to this Consent Order are
subject to approval by EPA and shall be consistent with the National
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.68 (a) -(j), 47 Federal Register 31180
(July 16, 1982), revised at 48 Federal Register 40658 (September 8, 1983)
and at 50 Federal Register 47973 (November 20, 1985).
III, FINDINGS OF FACT
The following constitutes an outline of the facts upon l<tlich this
Consent Order is based:
A. National Starch and Chemical Corporation, a Delaware Corporation,
operates a manufacturing facility in Salisbury, Rowan County, North
Carolina. This facility manufactures textile finishing and custom
specialty chemicals.
B. The National Starch Site (the "Site") is a 465-acre tract of land
on which National Starch operates its chemical manufacturing facility.
During the 1970' s, National Starch disposed of wastewater in several
trenches on a t1,Q-acre portion of the Site. This wastewater contained
small quantities of solvents and metals, Results of groundwater testing
in this disposal area show low levels of toluene, xylene, 1-2--dichloroethane,
allyl alcohol, arsenic, chranium, cadmium and zinc,
C. EPA has proposed the National Starch site for inclusion on the
National Priorities List as defined in Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
§9605.
D. The topography of the area surrounding the Site is gently sloping
uplands intercut by several small tributaries to Grant's Creek, Farmland
is located to the south of the Site and residential areas are situated
north and south""9st of the Site.
IV, EPA'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. The Site is a "facility" as defined in Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. §9601(9).
B. The Respondent is a "person" as defined in Section 101(21) of CERCLA, -
42 u.s.c. §9F,0l(21).
C. 'T'\lP. chcrr,icals four.ct in thr~ grour.dwater, as descrired i.n Paragraph
IT f .B. C!bo•10 d.re ''ha1:.ar.dous .subst,.3ncesn 1Mi th in !:.he m(1ar1ir19 of ;x.~c.tton 1.01.( J.,1)
of CERCI.A, 42 U.S.C, §9601(14),
• •
- 3 -
D. The presence of hazardous substances at the Site, their past and potential
migration to surrounding soils and groundwater, constitute both an actual
and a threatened "release" as defined in Section 101( 22) · of CERCIA, 42
u.s.c. §9601(22).
V. EPA'S DETERMINATIONS
Basea··on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out above, EPA has
determined that:
A. The actual and/or threatened release of hazardous substances fran the
Site may present an imminent and substantial endangennent to the public
health or v.Blfare or the environment.
B. The actions required by this Consent Order are necessary to protect the
public health and v.elfare and the environment.
VI. 1\1'.)R!( TO BE PERFORMED
All w:lrk performed pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under the direction
and supervision of a qualified professional engineer or a certified geologist
with expertise and experience in hazardous waste site clean up. Prior to
the initiation of the site w:lrk, the Respondent shall notify EPA in writing
regarding the identity of such engineer or geologist and of any contractors
and/or subcontractors to be used in carrying out the terms of this Consent
Order.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby AGREED to and ORDERED that the following
w:lrk shall be performed:
A. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of this Consent
Order, the Respondent shall subnit to EPA a w:lrk plan for a canplete Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS work Plan). This plan shall be
developed in accordance with the EPA Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study guidance documents which have been provided to the Respondent by
EPA. As described in this guidance, the RI/FS W'.:>rk Plan must include: (1)
a sampling plan; (2) a health and safety plan; (3) a community relations
plan; (4) a plan for satisfaction of permittin;i requirements; (5) a
description of chain-of-custody procedures; and (6) a description of
quality control and quality assurance procedures. The RI/FS W'.:>rk Plan
shall be subject to review, modification and approval by EPA.
• •
- 4 -
B, After receipt of the RI/FS 1-brk Plan by EPA, EPA shall notify the
Respondent in writing of EPA's approval or disapproval of the RI/FS 1-brk
Plan or any part thereof, In the event of any disapproval, EPA sfiall
specify in writing both the deficiencies and any EPA recarmended nodification
regarding the RI/FS 1-brk Plan.
C. Within t"'3nty (20) calendar days of the receipt of EPA notification of
RI/FS 1-brk Plan disapproval, the Respondent shall amend and sul::mit to EPA a
revised RI/FS 1-brk Plan. In the event of subsequent disapproval of the
RI/FS 1-brk Plan, EPA retains the right to conduct a complete RI/FS pursuant
to its authority under CERCLA.
D. The Respondent shall implement the tasks detailed in the approved RI/FS
1-brk Plan which will be approved by EPA and will be attached to and incor-
porated in this Consent Order (Attachment 1). This work shall be conducted
in accordance with the EPA RI/FS guidance documents and with the standards,
specifications, and schedule contained in the approved RI/FS 1-ork Plan.
E. Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of written approval of the
RI/FS 1-brk Plan by EPA, Respondent shall carrnence Task I of the RI/FS 1-ork
Plan.
F. The Respondent shall provide monthly written progress reports to EPA
according to the schedule contained in the RI/FS 1-ork Plan, At a minimum
these progress reports shall: (1) describe the actions which have been
taken toward achieving compliance with this Consent Order; (2) include all
results of sampling and tests and all other data received by the Respondent;
and (3) include all plans and procedures canpleted during the past month,
subsequent to EPA approval of the RI/Fs'work Plan, .as "'311 as such actions,
data, and plans ..hich are scheduled for the next month. These rep:,rts are
to be submitted to EPA by the tenth day of each month following the date of
EPA approval of the RI/FS 1-brk Plan.
G. The Respondent shall provide preliminary and final reports to EPA
according to the schedule contained in the RI/FS WJrk Plan,
H, EPA shall review the preliminary and final reports and within 30 calendar
days of receipt by EPA of such reports, EPA shall notify the Respondent in
writing of EPA's approval or disapproval of these reports or any part
thereof. In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify in writing both
the deficiencies and the reasons for such disapproval. ·
I, Within 30 calendar days of receipt of EPA notification of preliminary
or final report disapproval, the Respondent shall amend and sul::mit to EPA
such revised reports for EPA review. In the event of disapproval, EPA-
:..·,;tains the ri~Jht t,:> 0men(~ such r:epcrts, tu per.fo1.111 additional studies, or
to conduct a complete Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study pursuant
tn its ,;;_uUior:i ty under CEF~cr~\.
• •
- 5 -
J. [)'.)Cuments, including reports, approvals, and other correspondence,
to be subnitted pursuant to this Consent Order, shall be sent by certified
mail to the following addresses or to such other addresses as the. Respondents
or EPA hereafter may designate in writing: , .
1) D'.lCuments (5 copies) to be subnitted to EPA should be sent to:
Giezelle s. Bennett
Enforcement Project Manager
U.S. EPA -Region IV, ERRB/ICS
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
2) oocuments to be submitted to the Respondent should be sent to:
Alex M. Samson, Jr.
National Starch and Chemical Corporation
10 Finderne Avenue
P.O. BOX 6500
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
K. In addition to the EPA-approved tasks and deliverables to be canpleted
pursuant to this Consent Order, EPA may determine ··that additional tasks,
including remedial investigatory ..ark and/or engineering evaluation, may be
necessary as part of the RI/FS. If the. parties agree, these tasks will be
incorporated in the Ylbrk Plan and becane a part of this Order. If the
parties do not agree, EPA shall have the right to perform the additional
tasks and seek recovery of the costs of performing the additional tasks.
VII. DESIGNATED PROJECT COORDINA'IDRS
Co or before the effective date of this Consent Order, EPA and the Respondent
shall each designate a Project Coordinator. Each Project coordinator shall be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of this Consent Order. Tu the -
maximum extent possible, communications beti.een the Respondent and EPA concerning
the activities performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Consent
Order including reports, approvals, and other·correspondence, shall be directed
through the Project coordinators. F.PA and the Respondent each have the right
to change their respective Project Coordinator. such a change shall be accan-
plished by notifying the other party in writing at least five (5) calendar days
prior to the change.
• •
- 6 -
The EPA designated On-Scene Coordinator, who may be the Project O:>ordinator,
shall have the authority vested in the On-Scene Coordinator by the National
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 et seq., 47 Federal Register-31180 (July
16, 1982). This includes the authority7:clhalt, conduct, or direct any
tasks required by this Consent Order and/or any response actions or portions
thereof when conditions present an irrmediate risk to public health or 1selfare
or the environment.
The absence of the EPA Project Coordinator fran the Site shall not be cause
for the stoppage of work.
VI II. QUALITY ASSURANCE
The Respondent shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain-of-custody
procedures in accordance with the EPA, Region 4, Engineering support Branch
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, u. s. Environmental
Protection Jlgency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, April 1, 1986,
throughout all sample collection and analysis activities. This manual shall
be provided to the Respondents by EPA. The Respondents shall consult with
EPA in planning for, and prior to, all sampling and analysis as detailed in
the RI/FS W::>rk Plan. In order to provide quality assurance and maintain
quality control regarding all samples collected pursuant to this Consent·
Order, the Respondent shall: ·
A. Ensure that EPA personnel and/or EPA authorized representatives are
allo\\ed access to the laboratory(s) and personnel utilized by the Respondent
for analyses.
B. Ensure that the laboratory(s) utilized by the Respondent for analyses
perform such analyses according to EPA mettx:>ds or·'rnethods deemed satisfactory
to EPA and subnit all protocols to be used for analyses to EPA at least 14
calendar days prior to the commencement of the analysis.
C. Ensure that the laboratory(s) utilized by the Respondent for analyses
participate in a quality assurance/quality control program equivalent to that
which is follo\\ed by EPA and ..tlich is consistent with EPA document QAMS-005/80.
As part of such a program, and upon request by EPA, such laboratory(s) shall
perform analyses of samples provided by EPA to demonstrate the quality of each
laboratory's analytical data. A maximum annual number of four per analytical
canbination; e.g., four aqueous samples by Gas Chranatography/Mass Spectranetry,
etc., may be provided to each laboratory for analysis.
IX. SITE ACCESS
To the extent that areas covered by the W::lrk Plan are presently owned by
p~1r.t ics other them thouc lXJ1Jnd by this Con8E:nt ordt~r, the R,~svcnr3'?;1t !"'as
obtained or will use its best efforts to obtain .site access c19reem,,nts ti:crn
t:he pr8s:.~nt. o;t,1;ter.s. r;L1ch agrer~ments ::::hall provide reasor.2.ble access to EPA
c"tnd/v!:~ tht:"'!ic authvc ized lCJpt\'i.:'Sc~·.1Lai:iv1-~s. .In the evei ii: t.hat s.i.t(:: ac,·:f::;:-',!:";
agreements are not obtained within a reasonable tiine after e:ntry of this
• •
-7 -
Order, the Respondent shall notify EPA regarding both the lack of, and
efforts to obtain such agreements and EPA shall obtain such agreements and
EPA shall obtain access for the Respondent.
X. SAMPLING, ACCESS, AND l}'.TA/rocuMENT AVAILABILITY
The Respondent shall make the results of all sampling and/or tests or other
data generated by the Respondent, or on the Respondent's behalf, with
respect to the implementation of this Consent Order, available to EPA and
shall submit these results in progress reports as described in Section VI
of this Consent Order. EPA will make available to the Respondent the
results of sampling and/or tests or other data similarly generated by EPA.
At the request of EPA, the Respondent shall allow split or duplicate samples
to be taken by EPA and/or its authorized representatives, of any samples
collected by the Respondent pursuant to the implementation of this Consent
Order. The Respondent shall notify EPA not less than 72 hours in advance
of any sample collection activity. 'Ihis notification may be given verbally
in the field by the Respondent to EPA's authorized representative.
EPA and/or any EPA-authorized representative shall at least have the authority
to enter and freely move about all property at the Site at all reasonable
times for the purpose of inter alia: inspecting records, operating logs,
and contracts related to the Site; reviewing the progress of the Respondent
in carrying out the terms of this Consent Order; conducting such tests as
EPA or the Project Coordinator deem necessary; and verifying the data
subnitted to EPA by the Respondent. The Respondent shall permit such
persons to inspect and copy all records, files, photographs, documents, and
other writings, including all sampling and monitoring <J,ata, in any way
pertaining to v.ork undertaken pursuant to this Consent Order. All parties
with access to the Site pursuant to this paragraph shall comply with all
approved health and safety plans.
The Respondent may assert a confidentiality claim, if appropriate, covering
part or all of the information requested by this Consent Order pursuant to
40 C.F.R. §2.203(b). such an assertion shall be adequately substantiated
when the assertion is made. Analytical data shall not be claimed as confidential
by the Respondent. Information determined to be confidential by EPA will
be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If
no such claim accompanies the information when it is sutrnitted to EPA, it
may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the
Respondent.
XI. RECORD PRESERVATION
EPA and the Resp0ndent ,'lgrne that each sh,Jll preserw,, during the pendency
of this Consent Order and for a miniml.llTl of six ( 6) years after its termination,
;_;:i 11 r.ecorcls and doc1J11~-:-n i::3 •lev8lcp0:.J pursuant i:u tl1 i.s C'onser\t O:rrler. f .-:k~i3p:i. i.:_c1
• •
-8 -
any document retention policy to the contrary. After this six-year period,
the Respondent shall notify EPA within 30 calendar days prior to the destruc-
tion of any such documents. Upon request by EPA, the Respondent shal1
Jllake available to EPA such records or copies of such records, except for
privileged documents. Additionally, if EPA requests that sane or all
documents be preserved for a longer period, the Respondent shall canply
with such request.
XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If the Respondent objects to any EPA notice of disapproval or decision made
pursuant to this Consent Order, the Respondent shall notify EPA in writing
of its objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the decision. EPA
and the Respondent then have an additional fourteen (14) days from the receipt
by EPA of the notification of objection to reach agreement. If agreement
cannot be reached on any issue within this fourteen (14) day period, EPA
shall provide a written statement of its decision to the Respondent.
XIII. DEIAY IN PERFORMANCE/STIPUIATED PENALTIES
If any event occurs ..hich causes delay in the achievement of the requirements
of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall have the burden of proving that
the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the
Respondent. The Respondent shall promptly notify EPA's Project Coordinator
orally and shall, within seven (7) calendar days of oral notification to EPA,
notify EPA in writing of the anticipated length and cause of the delay, the
measures taken and/or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the
timetable by ..ttich the Respondent intends to implement these measures. If
the parties can agree that the delay or anticipated de.J,.ay has been or will be
caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Respondent, the
tune for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the
delay resulting fran such circumstances. The Respondent shall adopt all
reasonable measures to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of the Respondent to
canply with the notice requirements of this paragraph shall render this
paragraph void and constitute a waiver of the Respondent's right to request a
waiver of the requirements of this Consent Order •. Increased costs of performance
of the terms of this Consent Order or changed econanic circumstances shall
not be considered circunstances beyond the control of the Respondent. In the
event that EPA and the Respondent cannot agree that any delay in the achievement
of the requirements of this Consent Order, including the failure to submit
any report or document, has been or will be caused by circumstances beyond
the reasonable control of the Respondent, the dispute shall be resolved in
accordance with the provisions of the "Dispute Resolution" section ( section
XII) of this Consent Order.
, .
• •
- 9 -
Unless excused by the provisions atove, the Respondent shall pay into the
Hazardous Substance Response Fund, administered by EPA, the swrs set forth
bela.v as stipulated penalties. Checks should be addressed to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency •·
Superfund Accounting
P.O. Box 3710031':
Pittsburgh, PA 15251
Attn: Collection Officer for Superfund
Stipulated penalties shall accrue as folla.vs:
For the first week of failure to conply with the rrajor
tasks designated in the work plan there will be a penalty
of $1000, and for each week thereafter $2000.
The stipulated penalties set forth in this Section do not preclude EPA
£ran electing to pursue rernedies or sanctions, which nay be available to
EPA by reason of the Respondent's failure to canply with any of the
requirements of this Consent Order. Such remedies and sanctions include
a suit for statutory penalties up to the arrount authorized bY law, a
federally-funded response action, and a suit for reirrbursement of costs
incurred bY the United States and the State of North Carolina.
Any reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments required
by this Consent Order are, upon approval by EPA, in=rporated into this
Consent Order. Any non-compliance with sµch EPA approved reports, plans,
specifications, schedules, and attachments shall be =nsidered a failure
to achieve the requirements of tl1is Consei;it Order.
XIV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Notwi tl1standing carpliance with the terms of this Consent Order, includins
the ccrnpletion of an EPA-approved P-erredial Investigation and Feasibility
Study, the Respondent is not released £ran liability, if any, for any
actions beyond the terms of this Consent Order taken by EPA respecting
the site. EPA reserves the right to take any enforcement action pursuant
to CERCIA and/or any available legal authority, including tl1e right to
seek injunctive relief, rronetary penalties, and punitive damages for any
violation of law or tltls Consent Order.
The Respondent and EPA expressly reserve all rights and defenses that
they nay have, including EPA' s right both to disapprove of work perfonred
by the Respondent and to request that the Respondent perfonn tasks in
addition to those detailed in the RI/FS Work Plan, as provided in this
Consent Order. In t.lle event tl1at the Respondent declines to perfonn any
additional anc.1/or n.:,,:1ifi.e.d t:c1ske;, EPA will have i:J1e right to unc.lertal<e
such work and to catfllete the RI/FS. In addition, EPA reserves the right
• •
-10 -
tc undertake rer.oval actions and/or remedial actions at any ti.rre. In
either event, EPA reserves the right to seek rei111bursement fran,the
Respondents thereafter for such costs incurred by the United States or
the State of North Carolina. ,; .. :.. -·
s,. ,-•. -~
>..V. REIMBIJPSEME:t,"T OF COSTS
At the end of e.ach year, EPA_ shall sumit to the F:espondent an accounting
of all oversight costs incurred by the U.S. Government with respect to
this Consent Order. The Respondent agrees to reirriburse t'PA up to $ 70, 000
in satisfaction of EPA's claim against the Respondent for the oversight
costs associated with this Order. The Respondent shall, within 30 calendar
days of receipt of that accounting, remit a check for the anount of those
costs made payable to the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund.
Checks should specifically reference the identity of the site and be
addressed to:
U.S. Envirorurental Protection Agency
Superfund Accounting
P.O. Box 371003M
Pittsburgh, PA 15251
ATI'lJ: Collection Officer for Superfund
A copy of the transmittal letter should be sent to the Project Coordinator.
If this Order is tem,inated pursuant to paragraph XXIII, the Resp:mdent
will reimburse EPA for its oversight costs incurred to the tern>ination
date up to the $70,000 maximum.
XVI. Ol'EER CIAJY,5
NotJ1ing herein is intended to release any claims, causes of action or
demands in law or equity that EPA may have against any person, firr.i,
partnership, or corporation not a signatory to this Consent Order for
any liability it may have arising out of or relating in any way to the
generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, release, or
disrosal of any hazardous substances, hazardous_wastes, pollutants, or
contaminants found at, taken to, or taken fran the Site. 'TI1is Consent
Order does not constitute any decision on preauthorization of funds under
Section lll(a)(2) of CERClA.
XVII. CYI'HER APPLICABLE I.AflS
All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Consent Order shall be
undertaken in accordance wi tl1 the requirements of a.11 applicable local,
state, and federal laws and regulations consistent with EPA policy unless
an exerrption from such requirem:mts is specifically provided hen:d.n.
• •
-11 -
XVIII. INTiil·1NIFICA'I'lON OF 'I'HE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENI'
The Respondent agrees to indemnify and save and hold the Unit'3<:i" States
Goverrurent, its agencies, departrrents, agents, and enployees,'harmless
from any and all claims or causes of action arising from or on account of
acts or anissions of the Respondent, its officers, eruployees, receivers,
trustees, agents, or assigns, in carrying out the activities pursuant to
this Consent Order. EPA is not a party in any contract involving the
Respondent at the Site.
XIX. PUBLIC o:M1ENT
Upon sul::rnittal to EPA of an approved Feasibility Study Final Report, EPh
shall rrake such Feasibility Study Final Report available to.the public
for review and conment for, at a minimum, a twenty-one ( 21) working day
period, pursuant to EPA's Camnunity Relations Policy. Following the
public review and corrment period, EPA shall notify the Respondent which
renedial action alternative is approved for the Site.
XX. EFFECI'IVE DATE AND SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
In consideration of t11e camiunications between the Respondent and EPA
prior to the issuance of t11is Consent Order concerning its terms, t11e
Respondent agrees t11at there is no need for a settlenent conference prior
to t11e effective date of this Consent Order. Therefore, the effective
date of t11is Consent Order shall be t11e date on which it is signed by
t11e Regional Administrator, EPA -Region IV.
This Consent Order rray be amended by mutual agreement, of LPA and t11e
Respondent. Such anendments shall be in writing and shall have as the
effective date, t11at date on which such amendrrents are signed by t11e
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IV.
No informal advice, guidance, suggestions, or ccmrents by EPA regarding
reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and any other writing sul::roitted
by the Respondent will be construed as relieving the Respondent of its
obligation to obtain such formal approval as may be required by this
Consent Order.
XXI. PARTIES BOUND
This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon t11e Respondent and
EPA, t11eir agents, successors, and assigns and upon all persons, contractors
and consultants acting under or for eit11er t11e Respondent or.EPA-or bot11.
___ .....,._,,,,,._.~.,..,.,,-..,.,...,....--. -., ~
• •
-12 -
NO change in ownership or corporate or partnership status relating to the
Site will in any way alter the status of the Respondent or in any way
alter the Respondent's responsibility under this consent Order. The
Respondent will remain the Respondent under this Consent Order and will
be responsible for carrying out all activities required of the Respondent
under this Consent Order.
The Respondent shall provide a copy of this Consent Order to all contractors,
sub-contractors, laboratories, and consultants retained to conduct any
portion of the v.0rk performed pursuant to this Consent Order within
fourteen (14) calendar days of the effective date of this Consent Order
or date of such retention •.
XXII, NOTICE 10 THE STATE
The requirerrent of 83ction 106(a) of CERCLA to notify the State of North
Carolina has been satisfied,
XXIII. TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION
The prov1s1ons of this Consent Order shall be deerred satisfied upon the
Respondent's subnission of written notice to.EPA that the Respondent has
canpleted all v.0rk agreed to pursuant to this consent Order, The respon-
sibilities assumed by Respondent pursuant to this Consent Order shall
terminate if a final decision is made not to ,list this site on the National
Priorities List. ,
It is AGREED and ORDERED:
BY:
BY:
Ji C ~~ ~ Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrato;
U.S. Environrrental Protection
Agency
Region IV
ld½t~ '!/vi-~~{)--
National. Starch and , •
Chemical .C~;my t.'t; V/1 ;Ti! <!1•:''-1
EFFECTIVE DATE: -----------
Date
Date
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CATI!: OCT O 8 1986
SUBJECTNational Starch RI/FS
~qo~· . Enforcement ProJect Manager
TONational Starch RI/FS Team
Jewell Grubbs, Rerredial Project Manager
Drew Puffer, Hydrogeologist
roug Mundrick, ESD
Wade Knight, ESD
Russ Boyd, Eba.sea (oversight)
v"1,ee Crosby, NC Solid & Hazardous Waste
National Starch and Chemical Corrpany has signed a Consent Order which allows
them to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Attached
are the Work Plan, Project Operations Plan and OA/OC Plan. The Health and
Safety Plan is an appendix to the 1/ork Plan. Please review all the subject
plans and return camients to IlE no later than November 10, 1986.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 404/347-2234.
Attachrrents
EPA Fo"" 1320-6 (R..-. 3-76)
i
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
41-!D-EP.
CEP.I'IFIED MAIL
REl'URN RECEIPI' REQUFSI'ED
Mr. A.M. Samson, J·r.
Counsel, Regulatory Affairs
REGION IV
345.COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
National Starch and Olanical Corporation
Finderne Avenue
P.O. Box 6500
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
RE: National Starch Site
Salisbury, North carolina
Dear Mr. Samson:
Attached is a draft Administrative Order by Consent (Consent Order)
for your review. In order for National Starch to conduct the Rerredial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), your carpany must first sign a
Consent Order. If a Consent Order is not signed ·,d.thin forty-five (45)
calendar days of the date of this letter, EPA .,,;ill proceed with the
implerr.entution of the ?.I/FS and will seek to recover all of the Agency's
costs when they are ccrnpleted.
We urge you to contact EPA within fourteen (14) calendar ciays of your
receipt of this letter to arrange a rreeting for further discussion of the
order. If you have any questions or wish to !l'ake arrangeirents for a
mc,eting, plecse contact either ttr. Reuben Bussey, Assistant Regional
Counsel at 404/347-2641 or !-is. Giezelle s. Bennett of my canpliance
staff c1t 404/347-2930,
'Ihcr.as w. J:evine, Director
Waste Manageirent Di vision
Enclosure
cc: li1illia.'11 Meyer
NC S.Olid & Hazardous Waste
Olet Tisdale, Esq.
King & Spalding
• •
UNI'I'ED S'I7\.'I'ES ENVIROOMENJAL PROI'EX:I'ION AGENCY
REGION IV
IN 'I'HE 1-i\'I"I'ER OF:
National Starch and Chemical Corp.
Cedar Springs Road
Salisbury, North Carolina
National Starch and Chemical Corp.
Finderne Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey
RESPONDENT'.
Proceeding Under Section 106(a)
of the Carprehensive Environmental
Response, Carpensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
(42 u.s.c. §9606(a))
U.S. EPA DOCKEr NO.
AIMINISTRl\'I'IVE ORDER CN CONSENT
I, JURISDICTICN
This Consent Order is enter.eel .into by the United States Environmental
Protection Agen::y (EPA) with National Starch and Chemical Corporation
(National Starch) or (Respondent) pursuant to the authority vested in the
President of the United States by Section 106(a) of the Carprehensive
Environmental Response, Carpensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA),
42 u.s.c. §9606(a), and delegated to the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 14, 1981, by Executive
Order 12316, 46 Federal Register 42237 (1981) and further delegated to the
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Errergency Response and the
Regional Administrators by EPA Delegation Nos. 14-14 and 14-14-A, the
latter of which was signed on April 16, 1984.
'I'he Respondent agrees to undertake the actions required by the tenns and
conditions of this Consent Order. 'I'he Respondent consents to and will not
contest EPA jurisdiction regarding this Consent Order.
• • -2-
II • STA'.l'El'!ENT OF PURPOSE
In enterinc:; into this Consent Order, the mutual objectives of I:PA and F:t,tional
starch are: (1) to detennine fully the nature and extent of the threat to the
public health or welfare or the envirorurent caused by the release or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants from the National
Starch Fite (Rrnedial Investigation), and ( 2) to evaluate alternatives for the
appropriate extent of rerredial action to prevent or mitigate the mis<ration or
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or ccntam-
inants from the National Starch Site (Feasibility Study). 'Ihe activities conducted
pursuant to this Consent Order are subject to approval by EPA and shall be
consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.68 (a) -(j) (47
Federal Register 31180 (LTuly 16, 1982), revised at 48 Federal Register 40.658
(September 8, 1983), and further revised at 48 Federal Register 47973 (Fovmber
20, 1985)).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
'Ihe follc:,.,.,ing ccnstitutes an outline of the facts upon vihich this Consent Order
is based:
A. 'Ihe National Starch Site (Site) is approxinetely 465 acres in size and
is located in Salisbury, PDWan CCllilty, lbrth C?.rolina. The Site is primarily
a manufacturing plant for textile finishing cherricals and custan specialty
cherricals.
B. The Respondent is a New Jersey corporation and is the =rent owner and
cperator of the Site.
c. 'Ihe Site is prcposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List as
defined in Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. §9605.
D. A sampling study of the groundwater on-site was conducted by the Respondent
in October, 1984.
E. Sampling results indicated the contarrination of the on-site groundwater
by toluene, xylene, 1, 2--<lichloroethane, 1, 2--<lichloroprcpane, allyl alcohol,
arsenic, chranium, cadmiurn, and zinc.
F. Ex1x.1sLu:e t.o t.he said hazardous substances m;1y cause illness, disease,
death or other harmful effects to plants, animal life and humans. Arsenic,
cadmium, chranium and 1,2--<lichloropropane are knOWT'..hurran c=cinogens.
G. The tq,ography of the area surrounding the Site is 9ently sloping uplands
intercut by severa.l srrall tributaries to Grants Creek. Fannland is located
to the south of the Site and residential areas are found to the north and
southwest. The drinking ,.-ater aquifer used in the area has an averaqe
water table depth of 20 feet below land surface.
H. The drinking water supply of approxirrately 7800 people in the area served
by private and public water supply wells may be adversely affected.
:.
• •
-3-
IV. CO!\TCWSIONS OF Ul>'l
A. The Site is a facility within the ireaning of Section 101(9) of CERCLA,
42 u.s.c. §9601(9).
E. 'Ihe Resp:mdent is a person as defined in Section 101 ( 21) of CEFCI.A,
42 u.s.c. §9601(21), and as avmer and q:,E,rator of the Site, is a
resp:,nsible party under Section 107 (a) (1) and (a)( 2.) of CEFCil'., 42.
u.s.c. §9607 (a) (1) and (a) (2).
c. 'lhe chanicals fcund in the groundwater as described in Paragraph III E
above are '.'hazardc:us substances" within the rreaning of Section 101( 14)
of CERCTll_, 42 u.s.c. §9601(14).
D. 'Ihe presence of hazardc:us substances at the Site, their past and
potential migraticn to surrounding soils and grcundwater, constitutes
both an actual release and threatened release v,i. thin the rreaning of
Section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. §9601(22). -
V. DETERI-\INATION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law set out above, EPA has
determined that:
A. 'Ihe actual and/or threatened release of hazardous substances fran the
Site may present an inminent and substantial endangermsnt to the public
health or welfare or the environment.
B. '!he actions required by this Consent Order are necessary to protect the
public health ?.nd welfare and the environment.
VI. WORK 'JD BE PERFORMED
All work perforned pursuar,t to this Consent Order shall be under the direc-
tion and supervision of a qualified professiona.l engineer or a certified
geologist with expertise and experience in hazE>rdous waste site cleanuf.
Prior to the initiation of the Site w0rk, the Resp:,ndent shall notify EPA
in \vTiting regarding the identity of such engineer or geologist and of any
contractors and/or subcontractors to be used in carrying out the teems of
this Consent Order.
Based on tl1e foregoing, it is hereby AGPEED TO !'NC ORDER£]) that the follc,,iing
work shall be perforn-ed:
A. Within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this Consent Order,
the F-esp:,ndent shall surrid. t to EPA a work plan for a canplete Reiredial
Investigc.tion and Feasibility Study (RI/FS hbrk Plan). 'lhis plan shall
be develcped in accordance with the EPA Rerredial Investigation an.cl
Feasibility Study guidance documents v.hich have been provided to tl,e
Resp:,ncJ.ent by EPA. As cJ.escrited in this guidance, the RI/FS Work Plan
must include: (1) a sampling plan, (2) a health and safety plan, (3) a
• • -4-
ccmnunity relations plan, (4) a plan for satisfaction of permitting
requirerrents, (5) a description of chain of custody procedures, and (6)
a description of quality control and quality assurance procedures. The
RI/FS Work Plan shall be subject to review, rrodification, and approval by
EPA.
B. After receipt of the RI/FS W::>rk Plan by EPA, EPA shall notify the Respondent
in writing of EPA' s approval or disapproval of the RI/F'S Work Plan or any
part thereof. In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify in writing
both the deficiencies and any EPA recomrended rrodifications regarding the
RI/FS Work Plan.
c. Within 20 calendar days of the receipt of EPA rrtification of RI/FS Work
Plan disapproval, the Respondent shall arrend and suJ::rnit to EPA a revised
RI/FS Work Plan. In the event of subsequent disapproval of the RI/FS Work
Plan, EPA retains the right to conduct a corrplete RI/FS p.rrsuant to its .
authority under CERCI.A.
D. The Respondent shall implement the tasks detailed in the approved RI/FS
Work Plan which will be approved by EPA and will be attached to and
incorporated in this Consent Order (Attachment 1). This work shall be
conducted in accordance with the EPA Rerredial Investigation and Feasibility
Study guidance documents and with the standards, specifications, and
schedule contained in the approved RI/F'S W:>rk Plan.
E. Within seven ( 7) calendar days of receipt of written approval of the
RI/FS W:>rk Plan by EPA, Respondent shall comrence Task 1 of the RI/FS
W:>rk Plan.
F. 'l'he Respondent shall provide rronthly written progress reports to EPA
according to the schedule contained in the RI/FS W:>rk Plan. At a minimum
these progress repmts shall: ( 1) describe the actions which have been
taken to.vard achieving caipliance with this Consent Order, (2) include
all results of sampling and tests and all other data received by the
Respondent, and (3) include all plans and procedures CCIIpleted during the
past rronth, subsequent to EPA approval of the RI/FS W:>rk Plan, as well as
such actions, data, and plans which are scheduled for the next rronth.
These reports are to be submitted to EPA by the tenth day of each rronth
folloo.ng the date of EPA approval of the RI/F'S W:>rk Plan.
G. The Respondent shall provide preliminary and final reports to EPA according
to the schedule contained in the RI/FS Work Plan. .
H. EPA shall review the preliminary and final reports and within 30 calendar
days after receipt by EPA of such reports, EPA shall notify the Respondent
in writing of EPA ' s approval or disapproval of these reports or any part
thereof. In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify in writing
both the deficiencies and the reasons for such disapproval.
I. Within 30 days after receipt of EPA notification of preliminary or final
report disapproval, the Respondent shall arrend and sul:rnit to EPA the revised
'-
• -5-
reports pursuant to EPA review. In the event of cti.sa.pproval, EPA. retains
tl1e right to arrend such reports, to perforr., additional studies, and to
conduct a canplete F.erredial Investigation nnd. Feasibility Study pursuant
to its authority under CERCLA.
J. D::Jcwrents, including reports, approvals, and other correspondence, to be
sul:mitted pursuant to this Consent Orcler shall be sent by certified m,il
to tJ1e follcwing addresses or to such other addresses as the F.esµ:,ndent or
EPA. hereafter may designate in writing:
1) lbcwrents (5 copies) to be submitted to EPA should be sent to:
Giezelle s. Bennett
Enforcerrent Project Manager
u. s. Environrrental Protection Agency
ERPB/ICS
345 Courtland Street, N.E .
. Atlanta, Georgia 30365
2) Ibcurrents to be submitted to the Fespondent should be sent to:
K. In addition to the EPA-approved tasks and deiiverables to be canpleter1
p..rrsuant to this Consent Order, EPA rray determine that additional
tasks, including remedial investigatory w-ork and/or engineering evalua-
tion, 11BY be necessary· as part of the RI/FS. Subject to the "DispL'.te
Resolution" Section (Section XII) of tl-,is Consent Order, the Respondent
shall :inplerrent any additional tasks which EPA determines necessary as
part of: a Remedial Investigation ancl. Feasibility Study and which are in
addition to the tasks detailed in the RI/FS Work Plan. 'Ihe additional
1ADrk shall be canpleted in accordance wi.th the standards, specifications,
and schedule determined or approved by EPA.
VII. DESIGNATED PRruECI' CCX)RDINATORS
On or before the effective date of this Consent Order, EPA and the Fespondent
shall each designate a Project Coordinator. Each Project Coordinator shall be
resj:0nsible for overseeing the ilrplerrentation of this Consent Order. To the
rraxim.Im extent possible, camnmications between the Pespondent and EPA
concerning the activities perforrred pursuant to the terms and conditions of
this Consent Order including reports, approvals, and their correspondence,
shall be directed through the Project Coordinators.
EPA and tl1e Respondent each have the right to change their respective Project
Coordinator. Such a change shall be acoarplished by notifying the other party
in writing at least five calendar days prior to the change.
The EPA cl.esisnated On-Scene-<r...ordinator, who nay be the EPA Project
Coordinator, shall l1ave the authority vested in the On-Scene-C=rdinator by
the l"ational Contingency Plan; 40 CFR Part 300 et seq. 47 Federal P.ec:ister
31180, July 16, 1982. This includes the authority to halt, conduct, or
DRAFT
• • --6-
direct any tasks required by this Consent Order and/or any response actions
or portions thereof when conditions present an imrediate risk to public
health or welfare or the envirorurent.
The absence of the F..ffi Project Coordinator fran the site shall not be cause for
the stoppage of work.
VIII. QlN,ITY ASSURANCE
The Respondent shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain of
custody pr=edures in accordance with the EPA, Region 4, Envirorurental Services
Division Standard ~rating Pr=edures Manual throughout all sample collection
and analysis activities. This Manual shall be provided to the Respondent by
EPA. The Resp:>ndent shall consult with EPA in planning for, and prior to,
all sampling and analysis as detailed in the RI/FS work plan. In order to
provide quality assurance and maintain quality control regarding all samples·
collected pursuant to this Consent Order, the Respondent shall: !
A. Ensure that EPA personnel and/or EPA authorized representatives are
alla...ed access to the laboratory(s) and personnel utilized by the
Respondent for analyses.
B. Ensure that the laboratory(s) utilized by th<i Respondent for analyses
perfonn such analyses according to EPA methods or methods ·deerred satis-
factory to EPA and submit all protocols to be used for analyses to EPA
at least 14 calendar days prior to the ccmren::ement of analyses.
c. Ensure that laboratory(s) utilized by the Respondent for analyses partici-
pate in an EPA quality assurance/quality control program equivalent to
that which is foll=ed by EPA and which is consistent with EPA docU11E11t
(1\MS-005/80. As part of such a program, and upon request by EPA, such
laboratory(s) shall perfonn such analyses of sarrples provided by EPA to
d€!l0nstrate the quality of each laboratory's analytical data. A maximum
annual nurrber of four per analytical combination; e.g., four aqueous
samples by Gas Chrorratography /Mass Spectrorretry, four soil/ sediment
samples by Gas Chrorratography /Mass Spectranetry, etc. , may be provided to
each laboratory for analysis.
DC. SITE ACCESS
To the extent that areas covered by the Work Plan are presently C1N11ed by
parties other than those bound by this Consent Order, the Respondent has
obtained or will use its best efforts to obtain site access agreements
fran the present CINilers within 30 calendar days of the effective date of
this Consent Order. Such agreements shall provide reasonable access to EPA
and/or their authorized representatives. In the event that site access
agreements are not obtained within the time referenced above, the Respondent
shall notify EPA in writing regarding both the lack of, and efforts to obtain,
such agreerrents within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this
Consent Order.
• -7-•
X. SP,MPLH1G, ACCESS, M'D DATA/DXUMEt,'T AVAIIABILI'l'Y
'lne R£spondent sLall rraJ.::e the results of all saropling and/or tests or other
data generated by the Respondent or on the Resrondent's behalf, with respect
to the :irrvlementation of this Conse.."lt Order, ava.ilable to EPA and shall sul:rnit
these results in rronthly progress reports as described in Section VI of this
Consent Order. EPA will rral<e available, to tJ1e Respondent the results of
sampling and/or tests or other data similarly generated by EPA.
At the request of EPA, the Respondent shall allc,,, split or duplicate samples
to be taken by EPA and/or their authorized representatives, of any sar;,ples
collected by the Respondent pursuant to the :irrvlerrentation of this Consent
Order. 'Ihe Respondent shall notify EPA not less than 72 hours in advance
of any sarnple collection activity. 'Ihis notification nay be given verbally
in the field b.l.' the Respondent to E:PA's authorized representative.
EPA and/or their authorized representative shall at least have the authority ,
to enter and freely rrove about all property at the Site at all reasonable
times for the purposes of, inter alia: inspecting records, operating logs,
and contracts related to the Site;reviewing the progress of the Respondent
in carrying out the terms of this Consent Order; conducting sud:l tests as EPA
or the Project Coordinator deem necessary; and verifying the data submitted
to EPA by the Respondent. 'Ihe Respondent shall pennit sud:l persons to
inspect and copy all records, files, photographs, docurrents, and other writings,
including all sarnpling and rronitoring data, in any way pertaining to work
undertaken pursuant to this Consent Order. All parties with access to the
Site pursuant to tJ1is paragraph shall comply with all approved health and
· safety plans.
The ResfOndent rray assert a cunfidentiality claim, if appropriate, covering
part or all of the infornation requested by this Consent Order pursuant to
40 CTR §2. 203(b). Sud:l an ass<crtion shall be adequately substantiated
when the assertion is rrade. Analytical data shall not be clairred as confi-
dential by tJ1e P-esp::mdent. InfonIB.tion determined to be confidential by
EPA will be afforded the protection specified in 40 CFR Part 2, Sul::part B.
If no sud:l clairr. accanpanies the infornation when it is submitted to EPA, it
nay be nade available to the public by EPA witha,t further notice to the
Respondent.
XI. RECORD PRESERVATION
EPA and the Respondent agree iliat ead:l shall preserve, 9uring ilie pendency
of iliis Consent Order a"ld for a winimum of six (6) years· after its termination,
all records and d=-nnents in their possession or in the possession of their
divisions, er..ployees, agE~nts, accountants, contractors, or attorneys \•.1hicl!
relate in any ~,ay to ilie Site, despite any docurrent retention policy to ilie
contrar1. After iliis six year period, the Respondent shall notify EPA wiiliin
30 calendar days prior to the destruction of any suer, docwrents. Upon request
by EPA, the Respondent sliall rra}:e available to EPA. such records = copies of
such records. Additionally, if EPA requests that sorre or all doa.urents be
preserved for a longer period, ilie Fespondent shall comply wiili sud:l request.
DRAFT
• • -8-
XII. DISPUI'E RESOI.UrIOO
If the Respondent objects to any EPA notice of disapproval or decision !l'ade
pursuant to this Consent Order, the Respondent shall notify EPA in·writing of
its objections within fourteen ( 14) days of receipt of the decision. EPA and
the Respondent then have an additional fourteen (14) days frcrn the receipt by
EPA of the notification of objection to reach agreement. If agreement cannot
be reached on any issue within this fourteen (14) day period, EPA shall
provide a written statement of its decision to the Respondent.
XIII. DELAY IN PERFORMl'INCE/STIPUIATED PENl'ILTIES
If any event occurs which causes delay in the achievement of the requirements
of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall have the burden of proving that
the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the
Respondent which could not have been overcome by due diligence. The Respon-.
dent shall prrn,ptly notify EPA' s Project Coordinator orally and shall, within!
seven ( 7) calendar days of oral notification to EPA, notify EPA in writing of
the anticipated length and cause of the delay, the rreasures taken and/or to
be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the tirretable by which the
Respondent intends to implement these measures. If the parties can agree
that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by
circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Respondent, the tirre for
perfonnance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the delay
resulting fran such circumstances. The Respondent shall adopt all reasonable
measures to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of the Respondent to caaply
with the notice requirements of this paragraph shall render this paragraph
void and constitute a waiver of the Respondent's right to request a waiver
of the requirements of this Consent Order. Increased costs of perfonnance
of the tenns of this Consent Order or changed econanic circumstances shall not
be considered circumstances beyond the control of the Respondent. In the event
that EPA and the Respondent cannot agree that any delay in the achieverrent of
the requirements of this Consent Order, including the failure to submit any
report or document, has been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the Respondent, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance
with the provisions of the "Dispute Resolution" Section (Section XII) of this
Consent Order.
Unless excused by the provisions above, the Respondent shall pay into the
Hazardous Substance Response Fund, admiP-istered by EPA, the sums set forth
belo,, as stipulated penalties. Checks should be addressed to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Accounting
P.O. Box 371003M
Pittsburgh, PA 15251
Attn: (Collection Officer for Superfund)
Stipulated penal ties shall accrue as follo,,s:
For the 1st through the 14th day of failure to carply with the tenns and
• •
-9-
conditions of the Consent Order, there will be a $1,500 penalty per violation
per day; for the 15th through the 44th day of failure to canply with the ternis
and conditions of the Consent Order, there will be a $5, 000 penalty per
violation per day; and for the 45th day and beyond, there will be a.$10,000
penalty per violation per day.
The stipulated penalties set forth in this Section do not preclude EPA from
electing to pursue any other remedies or sanctions, which may be available to
EHi. by reason ·of the Respondent's failure to carrply with any of the requirements
of this Consent Order. Such remedies and sanctions include a suit for statutory
penalties up to the anount authoriz.ed by law, a federally-funded response
action, and a suit for reinbursement of costs incurred by the United States
and the State of North Carolina.
Any reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments required by
this Consent Order are, upon approval by EPA incorporated into this Consent
Order. Any non-corrpliance with such EPA approved reports, plans, specifications,
schedules, and attachments shall be considered a failure to achieve the re-
quirerents of this Consent Order and will subject the Respondent to the
provisions included in this Section as above. ·
XIV. RESERVATICN OF RIGHTS
Notwithstanding canpliance with the ternis of this Consent Order, including
the canpletion of an EPA approved Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study, the Respondent is not released fran liability, if any, for any
actions beyond the ternis of this Consent Order taken by EPA respecting tl1e
Site. EPA reserves the right to take any enforcement action pursuant to
CERCIA and/or any available legal authority, including the right to seek
injrnx:tive relief, nonetary penalties, and punitive damages for any
violation of law or this Consent Order.
The Respondent and EPA expressly reserve all rights and defenses that they
may have, including EPA' s right both to disapprove of work perfonned by the
Respondent and to request that the Respondent perfonn tasks in addition to
those detailed in the RI/FS W::>rk Plan, as provided in this Consent Order.
In th, event t:h2.t t::hc Res]X)ndent da:,lines to J_:>8rform any adaition«J. and/or
nodified tasks, EPA will have the right to undertake any Remedial Investigation
and/or Feasibility Study "wOrk. In addition, EPA reserv~s the right to undertake
raroval actions and/or rerredial actions, other than those required by this
Consent Order, at any t:i.rre. In either event, EPA reserves the right to seek
re:uTibursement from the Respondent thereafter for such costs incurred by the
United States or the State of North Carolina.
Respondent reserves all rights that it has or may have to assert claims against
persons or entities for matters arising out of the Site or its operation and
o,mership, including, but not li.!Tlited to, claims for breach of contract,
indemnity, contribution, nuisance and claims under federal, state and l=al laws.
• • -10-
XV. REIMBURSEz.lENT OF CCSI'S
At the end of each fiscal year, EPA shall submit to the Respondent an
accounting of all response and oversight costs incurred by the u. s. Government
with respect to this Consent Order. The Respondent shall, within 30 calendar
days of receipt of that accounting, remit a check for the arrount of those costs
rrade payable to the P.azardous Substance Response Fund. Checks shoul.d specifically
reference the identity of the site and be addressed to:
U. s. Environrrental Protection Agency
Superfund Accounting
P. O. Box 371003M
Pittsburgh, ffi 15251
Attention: (Collection Officer for Superfund)
[A copy of the transmittal letter should be sent to the Project Coordinator.].
EPA reserves the right to bring an action against the P.espondent pursuant to
Section 107 of CERCIA for recovery of all response and oversight costs ircurred
by the United States and the State of North carolina fran the Fund related to
this Consent Order and not reinbursed by the Respondent, as well as any other
past and future costs iocurred by the United States and the State of North
carolina fran the Fund in connection with response activities conducted pursuant
to CERCIA at this Site.
XVI. arHER CI.AIMS
Nothing herein is intended to release any claims, causes of action or denands
in law or equity against any person, finn, partnership, or corporation not a
signatory to this Consent Order for any liability it may have arising out of
or relating in any way to the generation, storage, treatrrent, handling, trans-
portation, release, or disposal of any hazardous substances, hazardous wastes,
pollutants, or contaminants found at, taken to, or taken from the Site.
This Consent Order does not constitute any decision on preauthorization of
funds under Section lll(a) (2) of CERCIA.
xvn. OTHER APPLICABLE IAWS
All actions required i:0 be taken pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under-
taken in accordance with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and
federal laws and regulations unless an exemption from such requirements is
specifically provided herein.
XVIII. INDEMNIFICATICN OF THE UNITED STI\.TES GOVER!\!>!El'..""I'
The Respondent agrees to indermify and save and hold the United States Govern-
ment, its ageocies, departrrents, agents, and employees, hannless from any and
all claims or causes of action arising fran or on account of acts or emissions
of the Respondent, its agents or assigns, in carrying out the activities
pursuant to this Consent Order. EPA is not a party in any contract involving
the Respondent at the Site.
• • • -11-
XIX. PUBLIC CCM1ENr
Up::m submittal to EPA of an approved Feasibility Study Final Report, EPA shall
n:ake both the Remedial Investigation Final Report and the Feasibility Study
Final Report available to the public for review and corrment for, at . a minimum,
a twenty-one (21) day period, pursuant to EPA's Corrmunity Relations Policy.
Foll.o,ri.ng the public review and corrment period, EE.I\ shall notify the Respondent
which remedial action alternative is approved for the Site.
XX. EFFECTIVE Ill.TE AND SUBSEQUENT MJDIFICATICN
In consideration of tl1e ccmnunications between the Respondent and EPA prior to
the issuance of tlus Consent Order concerning its tenns, the Respondent agrees
that there is no need for a settlement conference prior to the effective date
of tlus Consent Order. Therefore, the effective date of tlus Consent Order '
shall be the date on which it is signed by EPA.
This Consent Order may be rrodified by llUltual agreement of EPA and the Respondent.
Such rrodifications shall be in writing and shall have as the effective date,
tl1at date on which such rrodifications are signed by EPA.
No informal advice, guidance, suggestions, or comrents · by EPA regarding reports,
plans, specifications, schedules, and any other writing sul:rnitted by the
Respondent will be construed as relieving the Respondent of its obligation to
obtain such formal approval as may be required by this Consent Order.
XXI. mRTIES BOUND
This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent and EPA,
their agents, successors, and assigns and upon all persons, contractors, and
consultants acting under or for either the Respondent or EPA or 1::oth.
No change in o,mership or corporate or partnership status relating to the Site
will in any way alter the status of the Respondent or in any way alter the
Respondent's responsibility under this Consent Order. The Respondent will
rarain the Respondent under tlus Consent Order and will be responsible for
carrying out all activities required of the Respondent under tlus Consent Order.
The Respondent shall provide a copy of tlus Consent Order to all contractors,
s~ontractors, laboratories, and consultants retained to conduct any portion
of the work perfumed pursuant to tlus Consent Order witlun 14 calendar days of
the effective date of tlus Consent Order or date of such retention.
XXII. NarICE TO THE S'IATE
EPA has notified the State of North Carolina pursuant to the requirements of
Section 106(a) of CERCIA.
•
• -12-•
XXIII, TERMINATION AND SI\TISFACTION
The provisions of this Consent Order shall be deemed satisfied upon the
Respondent's receipt of written notice fran EH\ that the Respondent has
denonstrated, to the satisfaction of EPA, that all of the ternlS of this
Consent Order, including any additional tasks which Em has detennined to
be necessary, have been corrg:,leted.
IT IS SO AGREED AND ORDERED:
BY:
BY:
National Starch and Chenical Corporation
JACK E, RAVAN
Regional Administrator
u. s. Environrrental Protection Agen::y
Region IV
EFFECI'IVE Ili\ TE: ---------
Date
Date
DRAFl~