HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD003162542_Badin Business Park_Corrective Action_20200701
Box 90360 • 210 Science Dr. • Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: (919) 613-7169 • Toll Free: (888) 600-7274 • Fax: (919) 613-7262
July 1, 2020
Robert McDaniel
Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Via email to Robert McDaniel: robert.mcdaniel@ncdenr.gov
Re: Initial Comments on Results of Corrective Measures Study at Alcoa’s
Former Aluminum Smelting Plant in Badin, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McDaniel,
The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic is grateful to submit these initial comments on
behalf of the Yadkin Riverkeeper Inc. in response to Alcoa’s most recent investigative reports at
the former aluminum smelting site in Badin, North Carolina. Alcoa outlined the final
investigative tasks of Phases 4 and 5 of the Corrective Measures Study in two work plans:
1) Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin
Landfill, and Former Ballfield1 (revised April 2, 2018; addendum2 added April 15, 2019)
2) Targeted Sampling Work Plan for the Badin Business Park (May 31, 2018)3
From 2018 to 2020, these work plans have guided Alcoa to focus their investigative efforts on
three main areas of their former aluminum smelting plant: the Alcoa Badin Landfill, the Main
Plant Area, and the Former Ball Field.4 It is our understanding that Alcoa has completed all tasks
in these work plans as of March 27, 2020. The final piece of information submitted was the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Jurisdictional Determination for the Little
Mountain Creek Flood Plain.5 The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic has once again
1 Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former
Ballfield, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business Park LLC (April 2, 2018).
2 Addendum to the Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin Landfill,
and Former Ballfield, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business Park LLC (April 15, 2019).
3 Targeted Sampling Work Plan for the Badin Business Park, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business
Park LLC (May 31, 2018).
4 A full list of the tasks outlined in Alcoa’s work plans, as well as the reports providing the data collected in support
of those tasks, is provided in Appendix A.
5 Transmittal of USACE Notice of Jurisdictional Determination, Prepared by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for Badin Business Park, LLC (March 27, 2020).
2
reviewed the result of Alcoa’s investigations, and we appreciate this opportunity to share our
observations and interpretations of the key findings of the reports, prior to the opening of formal
comment periods. Our major conclusions are summarized below and discussed in more detail in
section one through four of this letter.
Taken together, the results of Alcoa’s investigations indicate that wastes from former smelting
and disposal activities at Alcoa Badin Works continue to pollute the groundwater, surface water,
and soil in the Badin community and Yadkin River basin with cyanide, fluoride, polychlorinated
biphenyls (“PCBs”), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), and trichloroethylene
(“TCE”). At some point prior to April 27, 2016 the State of North Carolina notified the United
States Environmental Protection Agency that all the Alcoa Badin Works sites under our prior
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(“CERCLA”) petition would be addressed within the ongoing Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (“RCRA”) process. Under its RCRA deferral policy, they deferred further
CERCLA action in response to the Superfund Petition our Clinic filed only so long as the State
and Alcoa adequately addressed the issues at Alcoa Badin Works. Those issues have not been
addressed, though the work plan is complete.
Throughout our review, we were surprised by the cavalier conclusions of the investigative
reports filed by Alcoa’s consultants. When contaminants were identified through sampling, many
of the reports dismissed the contamination, suggesting variously that it 1) has decreased since the
previous sampling event, 2) can be attributed to a naturally occurring source or non-smelting
activities, or 3) does not affect the nearest surface water body (e.g. Little Mountain Creek).
While these conclusions paint a picture that contamination at the Alcoa Badin site is
unremarkable, we found that these conclusions were not supported by the provided data. In
summary, we found:
1. Despite the repeated diversions, seep collections, and other interim measures installed at
the Alcoa Badin Landfill, contaminants are continuing to leach into Waters of the United
States, including wetland waters and the Eastern Drainage Ditch. This is supported by
elevated conductivity data from electromagnetic surveys of the Little Mountain Creek
floodplain, elevated fluoride, cyanide, and PCBs in surface waters collected from the
Eastern Drainage Ditch, and elevated conductivity, fluoride, and cyanide in monitoring
wells downgradient of the landfill. Hazardous wastes are still leaking from the Alcoa
Badin Landfill into groundwaters and surface waters decades after the dumping ceased
and successive interim measures have been tried to control the hazardous waste spread.
2. The Alcoa Badin Landfill cannot be ruled out as a source of the PCB congeners and
PAHs in the Eastern Drainage Ditch. Aroclor analysis for heavily weathered
contaminants must be coupled with congener analysis to determine total PCB load in this
area. The measurement of PCB Aroclors in soils only surrounding the nearby substations
does not provide any information on the contribution of PCBs from the Alcoa Badin
Landfill. PCB congeners and PAHs in the drainage ditch co-occur with other
contaminants known to be associated with spent potliner (fluoride and cyanide),
suggesting that the contaminant source in the Eastern Drainage Ditch could well be
leachate and runoff from the upgradient Alcoa Badin Landfill.
3
3. The nature and extent of PAH contamination in the Former Ball Field Area has yet to be
fully delineated. PAHs in the Former Ball Field Area are unusually high for a rural area,
and they cannot be attributed to natural background unless the background for PAHs in
the area is properly characterized. Additionally, Alcoa’s consultants only took surface
soil samples from the drainage swales, and so it is impossible to know the vertical extent
of the contamination.
4. TCE is still present in the groundwater in the Main Plant Area at levels that exceed
regulatory standards after 17 years. There is little evidence that the contaminant plume
has changed or decreased with time, as TCE was sampled in only four monitoring wells
in 2018, and the time series is based on only two sampling events, seven years apart
(2011 and 2018).
The fundamental purpose of the RCRA corrective action program is to protect human health and
the environment from pollution from hazardous waste. Alcoa’s data demonstrates that they have
failed to protect the environment of Badin and the Yadkin River basin from this pollution.
However, because Alcoa has not performed an ecological risk assessment, we can only speculate
as to the environmental and human health consequences of this pollution. All of the
contaminants discussed in these comments pose adverse health risks to humans and wildlife, and
the Alcoa Badin Works site and the associated Solid Waste Management Units are alarmingly
close in proximity to residential communities like West Badin and recreational areas like Badin
Lake. Based on these two facts alone, it would be a severe injustice to the people of Badin to
ignore the potential for long-term human and environmental health impacts.
1. The Alcoa Badin Landfill is polluting Waters of the United States.
From October 2018 through July 2019, Geo Solutions Limited, Inc. conducted four
electromagnetic surveys to measure the apparent conductivity (a proxy for the concentration of
dissolved constituents) of the soil porewater in the Little Mountain Creek floodplain, down
gradient of the Alcoa Badin Landfill.6 The results of these surveys indicate that, in all seasons,
groundwater with high apparent conductivity (>50 mS/m or 500 µS/cm) is leaching from the
Alcoa Badin Landfill, past the collection trench and slurry barrier wall system, and into the Little
Mountain Creek floodplain (Figure 1).
While Alcoa’s consultants conclude that “dissolved constituents in the pore water do not appear
to intersect Little Mountain Creek,”7 the wetland delineation completed by the United States
(“U.S.”) Army Corps of Engineers in March, 2020 indicates that the dissolved constituents in the
pore water do intersect with Wetland Waters of the U.S.8 Wetland Waters of the U.S. are subject
to permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 13440). Most notably,
the high conductivity groundwater nearly overwhelms a 0.96-acre wetland during the Summer
6 Geophysical Evaluation Downgradient of the Alcoa Badin Landfill to Evaluate Potential Seasonal Variability in
Electromagnetic Response, Prepared by Geo Solutions Limited, Inc. for Environeering, Inc. (May 30, 2019).
7 Id. at page 8.
8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
4
and Fall when the contaminant plume is at its greatest extent (Figures 2 and 3), and several
other wetland areas are threatened.
The Army Corps’ has determined that the wetlands surrounding Little Mountain Creek are
jurisdictional and subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
USC § 13440). There exists a hydrological connection between these wetlands and traditional
navigable waters.9 Fourth Circuit courts have repeatedly upheld jurisdictional determinations in
which wetlands had a hydrological connection to traditional navigable waters.10We see no reason
to think that a reviewing court would rule otherwise.
Results from Geo Solutions Limited Inc.’s electromagnetic surveys give a strong indication that
groundwater from the Alcoa Badin Landfill, a point source under the Clean Water Act,11 is
actively contaminating the Little Mountain Creek Wetlands. The United States Supreme Court
has recently held that contamination of Waters of the United States from a point source via
groundwater is subject to the permit requirements of the Clean Water Act.12 Alcoa has not
sastified these requirements.
9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
10 Precon Dev. Corp. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 633 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2011); Yadkin Riverkeeper,
Inc. v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 428, 445 (M.D.N.C. 2015); N.C. Shellfish Growers Ass'n v.
Holly Ridge Assocs., LLC, 278 F. Supp. 2d 654, 671 (E.D.N.C. July 23, 2003).
11 Yadkin Riverkeeper, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 443 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14)).
12 Cty. of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462, 1477 (2020).
5
Figure 1. The results of Geo Solutions Limited, Inc.’s quarterly electromagnetic surveys of the Little Mountain
Creek floodplain (July 2018-April 2019). Areas shown in red and orange show have porewater with concentrations
of dissolved constituents that exceed background. Adapted from Figures 4 through 7 in Geo Solutions Limited, Inc.
report.13
Figure 2. The apparent groundwater conductivity in the Little Mountain Creek floodplain (surveyed on July 11,
2018), overlain by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination of the Wetland Waters of the U.S. (outlined in
black). Adapted from Figure 5 in Geo Solutions Limited, Inc. report14 and Figure 3 in U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ report.15
13 Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., supra note 6 at pages 12-15.
14 Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., supra note 6 at page 13.
15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
6
Figure 3. The extent of the 50 mS/m contours for the apparent groundwater conductivity in the Little Mountain
Creek floodplain (taken on four different occasions), overlain by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination
of the Wetland Waters of the U.S. (outlined in black). Adapted from Figure 8 in Geo Solutions Limited, Inc. report16
and Figure 3 in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ report.17
The high apparent conductivity data from the electromagnetic surveys are corroborated by
quarterly (April 2018 - April 2019) groundwater quality data collected from three monitoring
wells located down gradient of the Alcoa Badin Landfill and in the Little Mountain Creek
Floodplain (MW-3, MW-4, and MW-5).18 Despite the assertion from Alcoa’s consultants that
“no well contained a concentration of fluoride or available cyanide above their respective 15A
NCAC 2L standards in any of the four quarterly sampling events,”19 measured conductivities,
fluoride concentrations, and cyanide concentrations in MW-4 and MW-5 were consistently
elevated compared to monitoring wells located outside of the Little Mountain Creek floodplain,
which reflects the leaching of contaminants from the Alcoa Badin Landfill into the floodplain
(Table 1).
16 Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., supra note 6 at page 16.
17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
18 Investigative Summary Report for the Alcoa/Badin Municipal Landfill, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin
Business Park, LLC (December 20, 2019).
19 Id. at page 24.
7
Table 1. Monitoring well data for the Alcoa Badin Landfill (July 2018-April 2019).
Monitoring
Well
Conductivity
(µS/cm)
Fluoride
(mg/L)
Cyanide
(µg/L)
Available Cyanide
(µg/L)
MW-1
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
80
65
67
77
0.067 J
ND
ND
0.059 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MW-2
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
55
50
30
600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.44 J
ND
ND
ND
MW-3
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
69
68
54
84
0.054 J
0.078 J
0.054 J
0.065 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.31 J
ND
ND
MW-4
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
294
235
309
302
0.083 J
0.078 J
0.070 J
0.072 J
6.6
5 J
10
7.8 J
0.59 J
0.63 J
ND
ND
MW-5
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
436
365
431
367
0.16
0.23
0.45
0.76
110
62
81
72
5.2
2.5
8.4
8.0 B
MW-6
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
April 2019
116
100
150
136
0.30
0.082 J
0.087 J
0.097 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15A NCAC
2L
Groundwater
Standard
--
2.0
--
0.07
Not only do contaminants leaching from the Alcoa Badin Landfill pollute Wetland Waters of the
U.S., they also pollute the Eastern Drainage Ditch, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
determined to be an intermittent tributary (also known as a Relatively Permanent Water or
8
“RPW”) that flows into a Traditional Navigable Water (“TNW”) and is thus jurisdictional.20 In
the 2018 Investigative Report for the Little Mountain Creek Area, Alcoa’s consultants reported
elevated concentrations of fluoride and cyanide that exceed 15A NCAC 2B Surface Water
Standards in surface water samples collected from the Eastern Drain Ditch.21 Fluoride in surface
water collected from the Eastern Drainage Ditch ranged from 1.2 to 6.0 mg/L (15A NCAC 2B
Surface Water Standard for fluoride is 1.8 mg/L) while cyanide ranged from 14 to 64 µg/L (15A
NCAC 2B Surface Water Standard for cyanide is 5 µg/L). Additionally, total PCB congeners in
nearly all surface waters and sediments collected from the Eastern Drainage Ditch also exceeded
North Carolina’s regulatory standards (Figure 4). The U.S. Army Corps identified two other
intermittent tributaries to be jurisdictional; however, as far as we are aware, Alcoa has not
collected surface water samples from these tributaries and so their water quality is currently
unknown. More study is needed regarding impacts of the this hazardous waste pollution, and
removal of its source, should be required.
Figure 4. Locations and analytical results of surface water samples collected in July 2018 from the Eastern Drainage
Ditch, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deemed to be an intermittent Water of the U.S. Adapted from
Figure 2-1 in Environeering, Inc. report22 and Figure 3 in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ report.23
20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
21 Investigative Report for the Little Mountain Creek Area, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business Park
LLC (December 5, 2018).
22 Id. at page 8.
23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra note 5.
9
2. The Alcoa Badin Landfill cannot be ruled out as a source of the PCBs and PAHs in the
Little Mountain Creek Floodplain.
On October 28, 2019, NCDEQ approved an addendum24 to the Investigative Workplan for the
Phase 4 and Phase 5 Corrective Measures Study for Alcoa to investigate the potential source of
PCBs and PAHs in the sediment and surface water of the Eastern Drainage Ditch of the Alcoa
Badin Landfill. Specifically, the work plan aimed to determine if the source of these
contaminants could be from two electrical substations (referred to as Substation A and
Substation B) that were constructed in the mid-1970s and are located northeast and upgradient of
the drainage ditch. Following their investigation in fulfillment of this work plan, detailed in the
Investigation Summary Report for the Alcoa/Badin Landfill,25 Alcoa’s consultants concluded that
the two electrical substations “are a potential source of the PCBs and PAHs in and adjacent to
the Eastern Drainage Ditch.”26
We found the investigation that led to the above conclusion to be glaringly inadequate and
should not rule out the Alcoa Badin Landfill as the source of the contamination. First, the PCBs
in the Eastern Drainage Ditch co-occur with fluoride and cyanide, two contaminants that are
associated with spent potliner, not electrical substations. Second, Alcoa’s consultants collected
soil samples only from the side of the Eastern Drainage Ditch where the electrical substations
reside (Figure 5). The source of the contaminants cannot be reliably delineated based on this
biased sampling. That is, it is difficult to make the case that contamination in the Eastern
Drainage Ditch is from the electrical substations if samples are not also collected from areas
away from the electrical substations (e.g. on the northwestern side of the Eastern Drainage
Ditch).
An additional major issue with this investigation is the fact that Alcoa’s consultants only
measured the soil samples for PCB Aroclors, despite the fact that PCB congeners were the
contaminant of concern in the Eastern Drainage Ditch in the 2018 Investigative Report for the
Little Mountain Creek Area. PCB congeners are specific PCB compounds (there are 209
compounds in total) whereas PCB Aroclors are commercial mixtures of PCB compounds that
were manufactured by the Monsanto Chemical Company up until the mid-1970s (there are nine
common Aroclor mixtures). PCB Aroclor testing will only reveal the presence of PCBs in a
sample if the PCBs match a specific Aroclor mixture. It is easy to miss the presence of PCB
compounds in a soil sample using this method if 1) Alcoa did not use a specific Aroclor mixture
or 2) the soil samples have been subject to weathering or other environmental and biological
processes that could alter or degrade the PCB composition.27 It is hard to imagine any
environmental media at this location which has not been subjected to decades’ worth of
weathering activity. Indeed, Alcoa’s consultants identified PCB Aroclors in only two out of the
20 soil samples collected around the Eastern Drainage Ditch and the electrical substations
(Aroclor 1260 was present in SB-5 and SB-17).28 This work did not comply with EPA Region
24 Environeering, Inc., supra note 2.
25 Investigation Summary Report for the Alcoa/Badin Landfill, Prepared by Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
for Badin Business Park LLC (February 2020).
26 Id. at page 16.
27 Generating the Right Data: Determination of Aroclors Versus PCB Congeners, Prepared by Fluor Hanford, Inc.
for the U.S. Department of Energy.
28 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., supra note 25, Table 1.
10
IV’s guidance on PCB analysis at RCRA and CERCLA sites regarding the use of Aroclor
analysis.29 The resulting assertion that the PCB congener contamination in the Eastern Drainage
Ditch could be sourced from the electrical substations, based on the presence of PCB Aroclors of
two upgradient samples, is unsubstantiated and should not be a reason to discredit the well-
documented leaching of contaminants from the Alcoa Badin Landfill. More study is needed
regarding impacts and removal of the source of PCB pollution at Alcoa Badin Landfill should be
required.
Figure 5. Locations of soil samples collected in December 2019 in an attempt to delineate the source of PCBs and
PAHs in the Eastern Drainage Ditch. Figure sourced from Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. report (Figure
4).30
3. The nature and extent of PAH contamination in the Former Ball Field Area has yet to
be delineated.
In 2015, Alcoa’s consultants collected soil samples from the Former Ball Field Area. Due to the
presence of PAHs and accounts from Badin residents recalling that Alcoa had filled in the
29 U.S. EPA Region 4 Technical Services Section Issue Paper for Polychlorinated Biphenyl Characterization at
Region 4 Superfund and RCRA Sites, available at
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_issue_paper_for_pcbs_5-15-
2013.pdf (accessed June 19, 2019).
30 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., supra note 25 at page 28.
11
drainage swales of the Ball Field with hazardous waste, Alcoa’s consultants carried out
additional soil sampling in the Ball Field’s drainage swales in 2018.31 This sampling identified
that surface soils in the drainage swales of the Ball Field had elevated concentrations of PAHs.
Notably, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, and dibenza(a,h)anthracene
were above the EPA’s Regional Screening Levels for Residential Soil. A number of PCB
congeners were also consistently identified in the drainage swale samples (while PCB Aroclors
were detected in only one sample, which is not surprising based on the discussion in Section 2
above). Additionally, PAH concentrations follow a trend, with concentrations increasing as you
move away from Badin Lake. Figure 6 shows the concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene, as an
example, and similar trends are observed for the other PAHs that exceed regulatory standards.
Figure 6. Locations and benzo(b)fluoranthene results of surface soil samples collected from the drainage swales of
the Former Ball Field Area. Samples that exceed the EPA’s Regional Screening Levels for Residential Soil for
benzo(b)fluoranthene (>1100 ug/kg) are shown in the darkest red color.
It is possible that the source of the PAHs in the drainage swales is from the past burial of
hazardous waste or contaminated soil to fill in the swales, as former Badin residents suggested.
However, Alcoa’s consultants failed to collect deeper soils, so it is impossible to know the
vertical extent of the contamination. It is also possible that the source of the PAHs is from
contaminated runoff that travels through the swales from an unknown, upgradient source.
31 Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business Park
LLC (August 9, 2018).
12
Despite the undetermined source of the PAHs in the drainage swales, Alcoa’s consultants simply
concluded in their report that “these reported low-level concentrations of a few PAHs appear to
be background soil concentrations present in the area and not associated with off-site disposal
activities.”32 As far as we are aware, the “background soil concentrations” that Alcoa’s
consultants are referring to are from the background samples collected 17 years earlier, in the
2001 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Facility Investigation report.33
Intriguingly, no PAHs were detected in the background samples collected in the 2001 RFI report,
with two exceptions. Two surface soils (NE-HA-01 and NE-HA02) had quite elevated
concentrations of PAHs (e.g. benzo(b)fluoranthene of 4,800 µg/kg and 940 µg/kg, respectively)
that were similar to the concentrations in the drainage swale. However, these “background”
samples were collected from one of the most contaminated areas at the site, the Northern End of
the Plant, where spent potliner has been reportedly buried (Figure 7). Background samples
collected from the Northern End of the Plant are hardly representative of an area unaffected by
Alcoa’s smelting operations and hazardous waste disposal.
More accurately, PAH concentrations measured in the drainage swales, as well as these two
“background” samples, are quite elevated for a baseball field in a rural community. The observed
levels are similar to levels found in soils collected from large, populous cities, rather than rural
towns like Badin, North Carolina.34 Additionally, Alcoa’s consultants do not provide any
explanation for the presence of PCB congeners in the soils of the drainage swales, which co-
occur with the PAHs. More study is needed regarding impacts and removal of the source of
hazardous waste pollution at the Ball Field should be required.
32 Id. at page 5.
33 RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume I of II, Prepared by MFG, Inc. for Alcoa, Inc. (March 2001).
34 Mielke et al., PAHs and metals in the soils of inner-city and suburban New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 19, pg. 243-247 (2004); Azzolina et al., Background
concentrations of PAHs and metals in surface and subsurface soils collected throughout Manhattan, New York,
Environmental Forensics, vol. 17, pg. 294-310 (2016); Morillo et al., Soil pollution by PAHs in urban soils: a
comparison of three European cities, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol 9, pg. 1001-1008 (2007).
13
Figure 7. Location of “background” samples (yellow points) collected in and around the North End of the Plant for
the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation. Sample locations approximated from Figure 2-1 of the MFG, Inc. report.35
4. Trichloroethene is still present in the groundwater in the Main Plant Area after 17
Years.
The 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation identified TCE in the groundwater of the northeast end of
the Main Plant Area, in close proximity to the banks of Badin Lake. In 2018, Alcoa sampled four
monitoring wells (MW- 4, MW-9, MW-16, and MW-110) in this area for TCE and other Volatile
Organic Compounds (“VOCs”) and found that, after 17 years, TCE was present in all four
monitoring wells. TCE concentrations ranged from 6.5 µg/L to 66.1 µg/L, which far exceeds the
15A NCAC 2L groundwater standard (3 µg/L).36 It should be noted that TCE is not the only
contaminant of concern in the groundwater in the Main Plant Area (MW- 4, MW-9, and MW-16
all had elevated concentrations of available cyanide and total fluoride when sampled in June
2011).37 However, cyanide and fluoride were not resampled in 2018.
In their report, Alcoa’s consultants downplayed the severity of these results by concluding that
“Results of site activities indicated that since the completion of the [Corrective Measures Study],
concentrations of TCE in all recently sampled wells decreased, thus indicating that the
35 MFG, Inc., supra note 33, Figure 2-1.
36 Groundwater Sampling Report, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Badin Business Park LLC (September 11,
2018).
37 Phase III – Engineering Data Collection for the Corrective Measures Study, Badin Works Facility, Badin, North
Carolina, Prepared by Environeering, Inc. for Alcoa, Inc (October 31, 2012).
14
constituent plume does not appear to be expanding.”38 However, the fact that these results are so
high years after the plant was totally shuttered show that the contamination source continues to
leach. None of the work has identified the nature and extent of the source of the contamination,
much less the extent of the plume. Even their mild claim that the plume “does not appear to be
expanding” is either baseless or pointless, given that it is drawn from the comparison of only
three monitoring wells sampled on only two occasions (December 2011 and July 2018; MW-110
was not installed until after 2011). Even if a TCE plume does not appear to be expanding, Alcoa
has failed to identify the source, nature and extent of the contamination. It is disconcerting that
NCDEQ and Alcoa would allow a TCE plume to leach into Badin Lake, or degrade into toxic
vinyl chloride, for at least 17 years as a remedial solution. More study is needed regarding
impacts and removal of the source of hazardous waste pollution should be required.
Figure 8. Locations and TCE results of groundwater samples (indicated in pink) collected in July 2018 and
December 2011 from monitoring wells in the Main Plant Area. Adapted from Figure 2-1 of Environeering, Inc
report.39 Monitoring Well 110 was installed after 2011 and so TCE data is only available for 2018.
Concluding Remarks
The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic has submitted multiple rounds of comments to
NCDEQ pertaining to various permits, reports, and proposals that NCDEQ proposed in response
to requests by Badin Business Park and various other wholly-owned subsidiaries of Alcoa, Inc.
38 Environeering Inc., supra note 36, at page 9.
39 Environeering Inc., supra note 36, Figure 2-1 at page 5.
15
By continually changing subsidiary relationships, consultants, sampling approaches, and site
plans, Alcoa delayed the hazardous waste Corrective Action process for three decades.
Since Alcoa covered Badin’s hazardous waste dumps with dirt, tons of hazardous waste have
leached and discharged into the environment. Active remediation of groundwater and
contaminated soils at Alcoa Badin Works is long overdue. The first step to any such remediation
must be hazardous waste source removal. The three large dump locations at the Alcoa Badin
Works site were never designed to contain hazardous waste. Congress enacted RCRA to correct
the precise problems which Alcoa’s dumping of hazardous waste in Badin created.40 Continued
leaching of pollutants to groundwater, wetlands and surface water decades after waste burial
occurred show that these dumps are not acceptable long-term remedial action for the hazardous
waste disposal sites.
To address the concerns explained above and in previous comments to NCDEQ, the Clinic
recommends that DEQ require Alcoa to evaluate excavation and removal of the hazardous waste
buried in Alcoa’s dumps as a Corrective Action final remedy along with the proposed remedies
previously communicated by Alcoa’s consultants. Finally, Alcoa must conduct an ecological risk
assessment to study the effects of decades’ worth of hazardous waste contamination on local
ecosystems and environmental health.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ryke Longest
Co-Director
Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
/s/ Nancy Lauer, PhD
Science and Policy Fellow
Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
cc: Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center
Edgar Miller, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Brian Fannon, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Macy Hinson
40 In support of RCRA, Congress found: “certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-
term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment,
reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface
impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous wastes;” 42 U.S.C. § 6901(b)(7)
16
APPENDIX A
Revised Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study,
Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former Ballfield (April 3, 2018)
Task/Subtask Status
Task 1- Alcoa/Badin Landfill Area
Subtask 1- Surface Water Assessment
1) Determine the contribution of cyanide and
fluoride compounds from the eastern
drainage ditch to Little Mountain Creek and
examine the potential source of the PCBs
and PAHs in and adjacent to the eastern
drainage ditch
2) Assess the variation on constituent levels in
Little Mountain Creek as intended by the
instream monitoring study requirements of
the September
Results from Task 1, Subtask 1, Surface Water
Assessment, were submitted to NCDEQ on December 5,
2018 in the Investigative Report for the Little Mountain
Creek Area (Prepared by Environeering, Inc.)
Additional surface water results for Little Mountain
Creek were submitted to NCDEQ on April 13, 2020 in
the Data Summary- Little Mountain Creek Quarterly
Surface Water Sampling Events
Subtask 2- Hydrological Conditions Evaluation
1) Assess the contribution of groundwater
discharge to the eastern drainage ditch
2) Evaluate the effects of the new trench
collection system on the site-wide flow
system and the constituent concentrations
observed within the landfill interstitial pore
water, the shallow groundwater unit, and the
groundwater south of the landfill
Results from Task 1, Subtask 2, Hydrological
Conditions Evaluation, were submitted to NCDEQ on
December 20, 2019 in the Investigative Summary Report
for the Alcoa/Badin Municipal Landfill (Prepared by
Environeering, Inc.)
Subtask 3- Geophysical Baseline Establishment
1) Delineate the linear extent of elevated
constituent levels in the wetland area
downgradient of the Alcoa/Badin Landfill
and monitor the effectiveness of the new
trench collection system over an extended
period of time.
Results from Task 1, Subtask 3, Geophysical Baseline
Establishment, were submitted to NCDEQ on May 30,
2019 in the Geophysical Evaluation Downgradient of
the Alcoa Badin Landfill to Evaluate Potential Seasonal
Variability in Electromagnetic Response (Prepared by
Environeering, Inc. and Geo Solutions Limited, Inc.)
Subtask 4- Jurisdictional Determination
1) Determine the current jurisdictional
determination of the three drainage ditches
(eastern, middle, and western) and adjacent
areas.
Results from Task 1, Subtask 4, Jurisdictional
Determination were submitted to NCDEQ on March 27,
2020 in the Transmittal of USACE Notice of
Jurisdictional Determination (Prepared by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers)
Task 2- Main Plant Area Groundwater
1) Determine if TCE is present in monitoring
well (MW-110) and to update the delineation
of TCE in groundwater at the Main Plant area.
Results from Task 2, Main Plant Area Groundwater,
were submitted to NCDEQ on September 11, 2018 in
the Groundwater Sampling Report (Prepared by the
Environeering, Inc.)
Task 3- Additional Former Ball Field Assessment
Subtask 1- Geophysical Survey
Results from Task 3, Subtask 1, Geophysical Survey,
were submitted to NCDEQ on August 9, 2018 in the
17
1) Determine if a disposal area is present at the
Former Ball Field
Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area
(Prepared by the Environeering, Inc.)
Subtask 2- Surface Soil Assessment
1) Assess the drainage swales for constituents
is excess of screening levels found in the
sediment in the catch basin
Results from Task 3, Subtask 2, Geophysical Survey,
were submitted to NCDEQ on August 9, 2018 in the
Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area
(Prepared by the Environeering, Inc.)
Subtask 3- Sediment Sample
1) Corroborate that concentrations of
constituents in Badin Lake sediments near
the concrete culvert discharge are consistent
with historical Lake studies and assessments
Results from Task 3, Subtask 3, Geophysical Survey,
were submitted to NCDEQ on August 9, 2018 in the
Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area
(Prepared by the Environeering, Inc.)
Addendum to Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study,
Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former Ball Field (April 15, 2019)
On October 28, 2019, NCDEQ approved an addendum to the Investigative Workplan for the
Phase 4 and Phase 5 Corrective Measures Study to investigate the potential source of PCBs and
PAHs in the east drainage ditch of the Alcoa Badin Landfill.
Task/Subtask Status
Task 1- Alcoa/Badin Landfill Area
Subtask 1- Surface Water Assessment
1) To identify the potential source of the PCBs
and PAHs in an adjacent to the eastern
drainage ditch.
Results from Task 1, Subtask 1, Surface Water
Assessment, were submitted to NCDEQ on February
28, 2020 in the Investigation Summary Report for the
Alcoa/Badin Landfill (Prepared by Civil &
Environmental Consultants, Inc.)
Targeted Sampling Work Plan for the Badin Business Park (May 31, 2018)
Project Objectives Status
Objective
1) To provide information to assess the presence
or suspected presence of COIs in soils on the
facility property not previously investigated:
Former Electrical Shop and Warehouse
Former Maintenance Shop Area
Former Cathode Plant Area
Former Anode Plant Area
Former Potline and Bath Crushing Area
Former Anode Butt Reclamation / Rod Shop
Former Carbon Baking Furnace
Former Rectifer Station
Results in fulfillment of the Targeted Sampling Work
Plan were submitted to NCDEQ on January 29, 2019
in the Targeted Sampling Report (Prepared by
Environeering, Inc.)
Results of a confirmatory sampling investigation were
submitted to NCDEQ on June 26, 2019 in the Targeted
Soil Sampling Confirmatory Sampling Report.
18