Loading...
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