NC0004308_Comments_20201211

From: Ryke Lonoest
To: Denard. Derek
Cc: Chandra Taylor (ctavlor(c selcnc.ora); Edaar Miller; Brian Fannon
Subject: [External] Comments on Draft Special Order by Consent for Alcoa"s Badin Business Park, LLC.
Date: Friday, December 11, 2020 8:36:18 AM
Attachments: 2019.12.12 Badin Comprehensive Report Final compressed.Ddf
2019.12.12 YRK Public Meetina Letter FINAL (002).Ddf
( AUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Dear Mr. Denard,
The latest Special Order by Consent proposed to be issued to Alcoa's Badin Business Park, LLC. must
be subjected to a public meeting and an extension of the public comment period. Continued failure
of the NPDES permitted systems to protect aquatic life and healthy fisheries in the surrounding
waters despite repeated special orders by consent require extra scrutiny. Nearly a year ago, our
Clinic submitted a report to the DEQ-DWM staff summarizing years -worth of research into the
remedial investigation of hazardous waste dumping at this facility. Copies of the presentation and
cover letter are attached for the record in this matter. Failure by Alcoa's subsidiary companies to
remove hazardous waste source materials of cyanide, fluoride, PCB, PAH, and other contaminants
are fundamental causes of the water quality violations documented in the NPDES Stormwater
system for decades. This matter of significant public interest must be given adequate review and
scrutiny by the public as well as time for comments.
Best,
Ryke
Ryke Longest
(he/him/his)
Clinical Professor
Duke School of Law
Nicholas School of the Environment
Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708

ENVIRONMENTAL
Duke LAW and POLICY CLINIC
U N I V E R S I T Y
Box 90360 • 210 Science Dr. • Durham, NC 27708-0360
Telephone: [phone] • Toll Free: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
December 12, 2019
Robert McDaniel
Hydrogeologist
Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 W Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27603
Raleigh, NC 27603
Via email to Robert McDaniel, [e-mail]
Re: Contamination from Former Alcoa Aluminum Smelting Facility in Badin,
North Carolina
Dear Mr. McDaniel,
The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic is grateful for the opportunity to submit the
following report on behalf of the Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc. regarding ongoing contamination and
future remedial activities at the former Alcoa-Badin Works facility in Badin, North Carolina.
Our team of PhD level researchers, with expertise in water quality, soil biogeochemistry, and
environmental toxicology, reviewed thirty years of sampling data collected and reports prepared
by Alcoa's consultants, the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Our findings have identified SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-
Badin Landfill) as an ongoing pollution source to Little Mountain Creek, and the North End
SWMU Area (including SWMU No. 1, the On -site Landfill) and SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick
Landfill) as ongoing pollution sources to Badin Lake.
Based on our review, we find that the interim measures currently employed at the site, namely
clay landfill caps and diversion trenches, are not adequate long-term measures to prevent the
leaching and transport of contaminants from buried spent potliner. Instead, we urge the North
Carolina Division of Waste Management to consider excavation and removal of the hazardous
waste materials and contaminated soils from the three largest SWMU areas — North End SWMU
Area, including SWMU No. 1(On-site Landfill), SWMU No. 2: Alcoa-Badin Landfill, and
SWMU No. 3: Old Brick Landfill — and dispose of them in a hazardous waste landfill. At the
Former Ballfield Area, adjacent to Badin Lake, we recommend that the source of PAHs be

further investigated. We find these recommendations necessary to protect human and ecological
health within the town of Badin and beyond.
The following report provides a detailed account of the contamination as well as our specific
recommendations for cleanup or further investigation at the North End SWMU Area, SWMU
No. 2, SWMU No. 3, and the Former Ballfield Area. We applaud the North Carolina Division of
Waste Management for seeking the input of the Badin citizens and other stakeholders prior to
proposing a final remedy. We urge you to only consider remedies that truly protect and improve
the health of Badin citizens and the environment in which they live.
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
/s/ Anna Wade, PhD Candidate
Student Consultant, Duke Environmental Law and Policy
Clinic
cc: Anne Harwood, Mayor, Badin North Carolina
Dan Hirschman, Environmental Division, NC Department of Justice
Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center
Edgar Miller, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Brian Fannon, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
2

Table of Contents
BACKGROUND
HISTORY OF ALCOA-BADIN WORKS FACILITY
ALUMINUM SMELTING WASTE
A. Disposal of Aluminum Smelting Waste at Alcoa-Badin Works
B. US EPA Minimum Technological Requirements for Landfills
C. EPA Requirements for Closure and Post -closure Care
SITE ANALYSES
1. NORTH END SWMU AREA NORTH END OF PLANT)
1.1 Site Descriptions
1.2 Summary of Sampling Record
1.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
2. SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL)
2.1 Site Descriptions
2.2 Summary of Sampling Record
2.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
3. SWMU NO. 3 OLD BRICK LANDFILL)
3.1 Site Description
3.2 Summary of Sampling Record
3.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
4. FORMER BALLFIELD AREA AREA OF CONCERN)
4.1 Site Description
4.2 Summary of Sampling Record
4.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
5. SPENT POTLINER DISPOSAL AT OTHER SITES
7
7
7
8
9
10
11
14
16
19
26
27
27
31
35
36
36
37
42
42
42
45
47
48
CONCLUSIONS 49
3

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF SWMUS AND AREAS OF CONCERN REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION... 12
FIGURE 2. ELEVATION MAP OF SWMU AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOA BADIN-WORKS............. 13
FIGURE 3. IMAGERY OF NORTH END OF THE PLANT. IMAGE CAPTURED FROM GOOGLE EARTH IN
NOVEMBER 2019. SITES WHERE SPENT POTLINER WASTE WAS BURIED OR CONTAMINATED
SURFACE AREAS ARE LABELED............................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 4. LANDSCAPE TOPOGRAPHY PRIOR TO PLANT CONSTRUCTION IN 1913 AND GRADING IN
THE1970S........................................................................................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 5. TOPOGRAPHY OF NORTH END SWMU AREA AFTER PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND
GRADING OF RAVINE IN 1970S.................................................................................................................. 16
FIGURE 6. CROSS SECTION THROUGH PART OF THE NORTH END SWMU AREA SHOWING FILL
MATERIAL. APPROXIMATE AREAS OF IDENTIFIED SPENT POTLINER ARE INDICATED BY THE
DARK HATCHED LINES AND OUTLINED IN RED. ADDITIONAL AREAS OF SPENT POTLINER
BASED ON SAMPLES AND REPORTS ARE IN ORANGE. INSET MAP SHOWS LOCATION OF
CROSS SECTION TRANSECT WITH BLACK DOTTED LINE.................................................................. 17
FIGURE 7. A SECOND CROSS SECTION THROUGH NORTH END SWMU AREA SHOWING
APPROXIMATE AREAS OF IDENTIFIED SPENT POTLINER. INSET MAP SHOWS LOCATION OF
CROSS SECTION TRANSECT WITH BLACK DOTTED LINE.................................................................. 18
FIGURE 8: MAP OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDUCTIVITY BASED ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
SURVEY ON JULY 11, 2011 OF SWMU NO. 44 (PINE TREE GROVE AREA). AREAS IN RED
REPRESENT HIGH LEVELS OF BURIED CARBON -RICH WASTE, INCLUDING SPENT POTLINER.19
FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF BOREHOLES DRILLED BY LAW ENGINEERING IN 1989 WITHIN NORTH
END SWMU AREA. BOREHOLES SHADED IN DARK RED HAD SPECIFIED DEPTHS OF SPENT
POTLINER. BOREHOLES SHADED IN PINK HAD THE CHEMICAL SIGNATURES OF SPENT
POTLINER AND/OR REPORTED CONTAMINATION............................................................................... 21
FIGURE 10. HILLSLOPE (TOP) AND TERRAIN (BOTTOM) MAPS OF NORTH END SWMU AREA,
INCLUDING SWMU NO. 1 (ON -SITE LANDFILL) IN RED. THE LOCATIONS OF MONITORING
WELLS 23 AND 24, WHICH INTERCEPT BURIED SPENT POTLINER, ARE SHOWN IN DARK RED.
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 11. IMAGERY OF SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL). IMAGE CAPTURED FROM
GOOGLE EARTH IN JUNE 2019. SITES OF INTEREST WITHIN THE LANDFILL INCLUDE 1) THE
EASTERN AND WESTERN CONCRETE FLUMES, 2) THE WESTERN, MIDDLE, AND EASTERN
SEEP AND DRAINAGE SITES, AND 3) THE FLOODPLAINS................................................................... 28
FIGURE 12. HILLSLOPE (TOP) AND TERRAIN (BOTTOM) MAPS OF SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN
LANDFILL). THE BLUE LINE IS LITTLE MOUNTAIN CREEK. RED CIRCLES AND TRIANGLES
SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE 2001 RCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATION REPORT............................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 13. CROSS -SECTIONAL DIAGRAM OF SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL) FROM THE
2001 RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION REPORT. THE FLOODPLAIN OF LITTLE MOUNTAIN
CREEK IS AT THE TOE OF THE LANDFILL, SHOWN ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE FIGURE.
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 14. MAP OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDUCTIVITY BASED ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
SURVEY IN 2007. AREAS IN RED REPRESENT HIGH LEVELS OF BURIED CARBON -RICH WASTE,
INCLUDING SPENT POTLINER................................................................................................................... 34
2

FIGURE 15. MAP OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDUCTIVITY IN LITTLE MOUNTAIN CREEK
FLOODPLAIN, DOWNGRADIENT OF SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL) ............................. 35
FIGURE 16. GROUNDWATER HYDROGRAPHS (BLACK AND GREEN) FOR PIEZOMETRIC
GROUNDWATER WELLS IN ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL. AREA SHADED IN BLUE IS THE HEIGHT
AT WHICH GROUNDWATER TABLE IS IN FILL MATERIAL FOR WELL PZ-2S (BLACK LINE)...... 36
FIGURE 17. IMAGERY OF SWMU NO. 3 (OLD BRICK LANDFILL). IMAGE CAPTURED FROM GOOGLE
EARTHIN DUNE 2019.................................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 18.1987 CROSS SECTION OF THE OFF -SITE WASTE PILE (NOW CALLED THE OLD BRICK
LANDFILL). THE BLUE ARROW POINTS TO WHERE WATER WAS SEEPING FROM WASTE PILE.
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 19. HILLSLOPE (TOP) AND TERRAIN (BOTTOM) MAPS OF THE SWMU NO. 3 SHOWING THE
LOCATION OF THE SOIL BORINGS AND MONITORING WELLS......................................................... 40
FIGURE 20. IMAGERY OF THE FORMER BALLFIELD AREA. IMAGE CAPTURED FROM GOOGLE
EARTHIN DUNE 2019.................................................................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 21. A SUBSET OF THE AERIAL IMAGERY OF THE FORMER BALLFIELD AREA FROM 1950 TO
1999.................................................................................................................................................................. 44
FIGURE 22. AERIAL PHOTO TAKEN IN 1957 BY THE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF
BADIN, NORTH CAROLINA. THE RED CIRCLE OUTLINES WHAT APPEARS TO BE A WALKING
BRIDGE CONNECTING THE PARKING LOT TO THE BALLFIELD....................................................... 45
FIGURE 23. TOTAL PAHS IN SOIL IN THE FORMER BALLFIELD AREA FROM THE 2015 AND 2018
SAMPLINGEVENTS...................................................................................................................................... 47
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SWMUS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION.................................................................................. 13
TABLE 2. TOTAL CYANIDE (CN) AND TOTAL WATER -EXTRACTABLE FLUORIDE (F) FOR A SUBSET
OF SOIL BORINGS COLLECTED IN 1989 FROM THE NORTH END SWMU AREA ............................. 20
TABLE 3. CYANIDE AND FLUORIDE DATA FOR SOIL COLLECTED FROM PINE TREE GROVE AREA
(SWMU NO. 44)............................................................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 4: GROUNDWATER DATA FOR NORTH END SWMU AREA IN 2001 AND 2012........................... 25
TABLE 5. SWMU NO. 2 (ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL) SEEP DATA INTO LITTLE MOUNTAIN CREEK
FROM1996 TO 2000....................................................................................................................................... 32
TABLE 6. HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER DATA FOR MONITORING WELLS AROUND SWMU NO. 2
(ALCOA-BADIN LANDFILL)........................................................................................................................ 33
TABLE 7. GROUNDWATER DATA FOR MONITORING WELLS AROUND THE SWMU NO. 3 (OLD BRICK
LANDFILL) FROM 1991-2012....................................................................................................................... 41
TABLE 8. ADDITIONAL SITES IN BADIN, NC CAN POTENTIALLY CONTAIN ALCOA' S BURIED SPENT
POTLINER....................................................................................................................................................... 49
5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALCOA
Aluminum Company of America
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CN
Cyanide
cm
Centimeter
F
Fluoride
GPR
Ground -penetrating Radar
K088
Spent Aluminum Potliner
kg
Kilogram
L
Liter
mg
Milligram
NC DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC DEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NC DWM
North Carolina Division of Waste Management
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
RCRA
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI
RCRA Facility Investigation
SVOC
Semi -volatile Organic Compound
SWMU
Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE
Trichloroethylene
µg
Microgram
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound

Background
History of Alcoa-Badin Works Facility
Alcoa-Badin Works is a former smelting complex that produced high purity aluminum and
carbon -based electrodes in the town of Badin, Stanly County, North Carolina from 1917 to 2007.
The Aluminum Company of America (`Alcoa") constructed the smelting complex and held
ownership of the company town until 1989, after which it became the incorporated town of
Badin. To power its aluminum production, Alcoa constructed four hydroelectric power dams
along the Yadkin River, collectively referred to as the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. Production
of high -purity aluminum ceased in 2007, and all operations at Alcoa-Badin Works ceased in
2010.
Aluminum Smelting Waste
Aluminum production generates a substantial amount of hazardous waste, the most notable of
which is spent aluminum potliner. In 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("US EPA") listed spent potliner as a hazardous waste (US EPA Hazardous Waste Code K088).1
The US EPA gave several reasons for listing spent potliner as a hazardous waste, including:2
(1) significant concentrations of iron cyanide complexes
(2) high toxicity of free and iron cyanides
(3) high risk for free and iron cyanides to leach from unprotected disposal sites
(4) photoreactivity of iron cyanides that may result in the release of hydrogen cyanide
(5) demonstratable environmental hazards from the migration, mobility and persistence
of cyanides, and
(6) generation of spent potliner in large quantities
Two major contaminants of concern in spent potliner are cyanide and fluoride. The US EPA
found that concentrations of total cyanide ranged from 18 milligrams per kilogram ("mg/kg") to
9,190 mg/kg in spent potliner from eight aluminum smelting facilities, including the Alcoa plant
in Massena, New York. Fluoride, mostly in the form of sodium fluoride, ranged from 230 mg/kg
to 135,000 mg/kg.3 Spent potliner also contains elevated levels of arsenic (1-40 mg/kg) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (" PAHs;" <0.005-200 mg/kg),' both of which are considered
' 40 C.F.R. § 261.32(a)
Rustad, L, Karstensen, K.H., and Odegard, K.E., Disposal options for spent potlining, Waste Materials in
Construction, 1, 617-632 (2000).
'US EPA, Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Documentfor SpentAluminum Potliners-
K088, (May 31, 2000).
4 Id.
7

highly toxic to human health. At Alcoa-Badin Works, smelting operations also generated carbon
dust and asbestos, which are also highly toxic materials.
The toxicity of cyanide depends on its form. Most cyanide in fresh spent potliner is free cyanide
(CN-), which converts to iron -cyanide complexes upon release to the environment. These iron
cyanides and other complexed cyanides are believed to be less bioavailable. However, the NC
02L Standard for free cyanide (70 µg/L) in groundwater has often been conservatively applied to
total cyanide.' The NC 02L Standard for total fluoride, another contaminant of concern, is 2
mg/L in groundwater.'
A. Disposal of Aluminum Smelting Waste at Alcoa-Badin Works
The majority of spent potliner production and disposal at Alcoa-Badin Works occurred prior to
1988, when the US EPA began regulating spent potliner as a hazardous waste. Federal mandates
to regulate industrial waste and contaminated sites were not passed until 1976 under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). RCRA did not regulate hazardous waste
until 1980 or spent potliner until 1988.7 Alcoa-Badin Works generated spent potliner waste from
1917 until 2007. Alcoa also notified authorities that it buried spent potliner as a means of
disposal between the early 1900s until late 1970s.' Accordingly, by the time appropriate
regulations were put into place, Alcoa had been conducting unregulated hazardous waste
disposal in Badin for over six decades.
In its first RCRA Part A permit application dated November 1980, Alcoa estimated that it
generated 4,800 tons of spent potliner waste annually.9 Annual generation of 4,800 tons of spent
potliner for approximately 60 years (1917 to mid-1970s) would have resulted in a total of
288,000 tons generated and subsequently handled on site. By 1992, Alcoa-Badin Works was the
second largest generator of hazardous waste in North Carolina, generating 3,750 tons of
hazardous waste annually.ro
Clean up measures required by regulatory agencies at other major aluminum smelters have
included the physical excavation and removal of hazardous waste and soil, including Alcoa
facilities in Vancouver (Washington), Massena (New York), and Frederick (Maryland). For
instance, clean up measures at the Alcoa Vancouver Facility included the excavation and
disposal of 58,000 tons of contaminated soil and solid waste to off -site RCRA Subtitle D (solid
5 See Pg. 8 of MFG, Inc., RCRA Facility Investigation, Volume I ofll, Alcoa Badin Works, Badin, North Carolina
(2001) (prepared for Alcoa, Inc.).
6 15A NCAC 02L .0202
45 Fed. Reg. 33066, 33066-72 (May 19, 1980); see also EPA, History of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA), available at hops://www.epa.gov/rcra/Mstoa-resource-conscivation-and-recovery-act-rcra (accessed 25
November 2019).
s From the mid-1970s until the time production ceased in 2007, K088 was kept in several on -site waste storage
facilities before being shipped to offsite permitted hazardous waste landfills. In a 1981 letter to the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Alcoa stated that K088 waste was being stored on a concrete pad over which a
roof was being constructed, and that waste was being shipped to Texas every two to three months.
9 See Pg. II-11 of A.T. Kearney, Inc. & DPRA, Inc., Interim RCRA Facility Assessment Report (1990) (prepared for
Ms. Rowena Sheffield of US EPA Region 4).
10 North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 1992 Annual Report on the
Generation, Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste in North Carolina (February 1994).
K

waste) and RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) facilities." Based on Alcoa's long history of
spent potliner production and the unregulated handling and disposal of spent potliner at Alcoa-
Badin Works, Alcoa estimated site remediation and environmental damages to the surrounding
area would total more than $50 million when it filed for insurance claim coverage.12 This report
focuses on the threat of this buried spent potliner waste, in known and unknown areas, to the
environment and the community surrounding Alcoa-Badin Works due to the mobility of the 25+
contaminants in spent potliner.
In 1990, in preparation for completion of Phase I of the Corrective Action Program under
RCRA, Alcoa identified over thirty solid waste management units on and around its property that
had known or suspected contamination (Figure 1).13 The three largest sites of spent potliner
contamination were identified as SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill), SWMU No. 2 (the Alcoa-
Badin Landfill Municipal, and SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill). Additional off -site Areas of
Concern ("AOCs") have been identified since 2001, such as the Former Ballfield Area and Little
Mountain Creek. Today, the facility is listed in the US EPA's Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System ("CERCLIS") inventory under three
sites: NCD003162542, NCD986171320, and NONCD0001177, with the second and third
referring to the geographically separated SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill) and Alcoa -Pine
Road Ravine respectively. In 1990, Alcoa started the RCRA Corrective Action program. All
references in this report and documents associated with RCRA and Superfund investigations can
be found on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's ("NC DEQ") Division
of Waste Management's ("DWM") online document management system, Laserfiche, under the
same site IDs (NCD003162542, NCD986171320, and NONCD0001177). As of 2019, Alcoa has
not completed the cleanup process under the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
US EPA Minimum Technological Requirements for Landfills
The US EPA has set forth requirements for landfills designed to store hazardous waste. These
requirements, codified in 40 CFR (§264/265.301), are for a double liner, leachate collection and
removal systems, leak detection, and an established action leachate rate to indicate when the
regulated system's unit is not functioning properly. In addition, landfills must have stormwater
controls that prevent mobilization of hazardous constituents for at least a 25-year storm and a
cover to prevent wind dispersal." All landfills have strict location requirements with regard to
floodplains and wetlands. For instance, municipal solid waste landfills are not permitted for
construction in floodplains unless operators demonstrate that landfills will not release waste
during a 100-year flood.15
" State of Washington Department of Ecology, Periodic Review Report, Alcoa Vancouver Facility Site ID#: 21
(2015).
1 z See Order of Hon. Sharon Armstrong in Alcoa, Inc. v. Accident & Casualty Company et al., Case No. 92-2-28065-
SEA (King County Superior Court, WA, August 3, 2003).
" A.T. Kearney, Inc and DPRA Incorporated, Interim RCRA Facility Assessment Report (1990) (Prepared for Ms.
Rowena Sheffield, US EPA, Region IV).
14 US EPA, Introduction to Land Disposal Units (40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subparts K, L, M, N), Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5305W) EPA530-K-05-014 (2005).
is 40 CFR §258.11
9

None of the "landfills" at Alcoa-Badin Works — the On -site Landfill, the Alcoa-Badin Landfill
Municipal, or the Old Brick Landfill (which is an aboveground storage pile, see page 36) — were
constructed to store hazardous waste, nor did Alcoa treat the spent potliner prior to disposal.
Cyanide is known to leach from untreated spent potliner in concentrations hundreds of times
higher than the highest concentration observed in leachate from potliners treated to meet existing
standards.16 Use of the term landfill in this report is therefore avoided in favor of "solid waste
management unit" (or "SWMU") with Alcoa's name for each site in parenthesis. Based on the
US EPA's definitions, these sites are technically considered existing hazardous waste
management units. Classification as a "hazardous waste management unit" stems from the US
EPA's definition: a "contiguous area of land on or in which hazardous waste is placed, or the
largest area in which there is significant likelihood of mixing hazardous waste constituents in the
same area."17 An existing hazardous waste management facility is one "which was in operation
or for which construction commenced on or before November 19,1980."18 Due to (1) Alcoa's
admission that it buried spent potliner in these landfills, and (2) that these are unlined landfills
that lack the minimum technological requirements to prevent migration of hazardous waste
contaminants, by US EPA definitions, these landfills are classified as hazardous waste
management units at an existing facility. To be consistent with NC DEQ nomenclature, the site
storing K088 (spent potliner) will be called SWMUs in this report.
C. EPA Requirements for Closure and Post -closure Care
The US EPA has promulgated closure and post -closure requirements for hazardous waste
management units under 40 CFR. §264.310. At the final closure of the landfills containing
hazardous waste, the operator must:
Cover the landfill... with a final cover designed and constructed to: (1) Provide long-term
minimization of migration of liquids through the closed landfill; (2) Function with
minimum maintenance; (3) Promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the
cover; (4) Accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is
maintained; and (S) Have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any
bottom liner system or natural subsoils present.19
During the post -closure care period, specified in the final post -closure permit under 40 CFR
§264.117, the operator must:
"(1) Maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover, including making repairs
to the cap as necessary to correct the effects of settling, subsidence, erosion, or other
events; (2) Continue to operate the leachate collection and removal system until leachate
is no longer detected; (3) Maintain and monitor the leak detection system in accordance
with §2 64.3 01 (c) (3) (iv) and (4) and 264.303(c), and comply with all other applicable
leak detection system requirements of this part; (4) Maintain and monitor the ground-
water monitoring system and comply with all other applicable requirements of subpart F
16 US EPA, supra note 3.
" 40 CFR § 260.10
is Id.
19 40 CFR § 264.310(a).
10

of this part; (S) Prevent run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise damaging the final
cover; and (6) Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks used in complying with
§264.309. 1120
By 1997, Alcoa had added caps to the surfaces of SWMU No. I (On -site Landfill), SWMU No.
2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill), and SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill). However, these caps alone are
insufficient to meet closure standards. A 2019 inspection found trees growing into the cap on
SWMU No. I (On -site Landfill) .21 Alcoa also built a seep collection system at SWMU No. 2
(Alcoa-Badin Landfill) between 1997 and 2001.22 Despite the collection system, leachate is still
being detected within the Little Mountain Creek floodplain based on geophysical surveys and
monitoring well data.23
The closure requirements listed above are not sufficient to prevent contamination to the
surrounding environment from the SWMU sites because of their inherent designs and their
topographic positions in former valley ravines that will allow them to continue to drain into
waterways. All three SWMUs have the base of their fill materials, which contain spent potliner,
sitting in saturated zones that drain into Badin Lake and Little Mountain Creek.24 Capping the
landfills will not reduce these saturated zones. Excavation and removal of the hazardous waste is
the best option to ensure that these SWMUs do not continue to contaminate the surrounding
environment. Importantly, NC DEQ has the authority to require excavation and removal of
hazardous waste at these SWMUs as a corrective action remedy.25
Site Analyses
This report focuses on the potential for contaminant release from Alcoa-Badin Work's three
largest SWMUs (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) as well as the Former Ballfield Area, where investigation is
ongoing. Previous reports have identified these three SWMUs as the areas with the highest
potential for release .2' The following is a summary of the site description, major findings of
sampling events, and threat for ongoing contaminant release at each site and respective adjacent
areas. The report invokes the SWMU-area concept, an approach set forth by Alcoa in its 2001
RCRA Facility Assessment Report, whereby SWMUs are clustered based on proximity and
similar contaminants of interest. For instance, SWMU No. I (On -Site Landfill) is addressed as
part of the North End SWMU Area, or "North End of the Plant," because its drainage area
overlaps with at least six other SWMUs, and SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill) is grouped
20 40 CFR § 264.310(b).
21 NC DEQ DWM, RCRA Inspection Report— Permitted TSD Facility (4 September 2019).
22 MFG, Inc., RCRA Facility Investigation, Volume I ofll, Alcoa Badin Works, Badin, North Carolina (2001)
(prepared for Alcoa, Inc.).
23 Environeering, Inc., Phase III Engineering Data Collection for the Corrective Measures Study, Badin Works
Facility, Badin, North Carolina (2012); Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., Geophysical Evaluation Down Gradient of the
Alcoa Badin Landfill to Evaluate Potential Seasonal Variability in Electromagnetic Response (2019).
24 CMS Phase III, Id.; see also NC DEHNR, Superfund Section, Screening Site Investigation Report, Alcoa Badin
Landfill, NCD 986 171320, Badin, Stanly County, NC (1991).
25 See letter to Michael Scott, North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section (12
December 2019) (Prepared by the Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic).
26 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
11

with Little Mountain Creek due to the potential for groundwater leaching. The sites as follows
are 1) North End SWMU Area, including SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill), in the northwest
portion of the facility, 2) SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Municipal Landfill) to the southwest, 3)
SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill) to the northeast, and 4) the Former Ballfield Area across
Highway 740 (Figures 1 and 2; Table 1). Additionally, Alcoa has changed the names of at least
two SWMU sites — SWMU No. 1 and SWMU No. 46 — since its initial RCRA report in 1990.
Referring to the original SMWU numbers minimizes possible confusion between reports over the
decades.
Figure 1. Location of SWMUs and Areas of Concern requiring corrective action.'
27 Environeering, Inc., RCRA Permit Application Renewal for the Badin Business Park (f/k/a Alcoa-Badin Works) (2016)
(prepared for Alcoa, Inc.).
12

I IIc%ation Mali I Micas
SWMU No. 1: On -site Landfill, in North End SWMU Area =1 SWMU Areas I outfalls
SWMU No. 2: Alcoa-Badin Landfill ® North End Fill Area — Little Mountain Creek
Monitoring Wells - Elevation: 740 meters
SWMU No. 3: Old Brick Landfill SWMU No. 2 Seep Locations
Elevation: 330 meters
p Background soil samples
Figure 2. Elevation map of SWMU areas associated with Alcoa Badin-Works.
Table 1. SWMUs requiring corrective action.21
SWMU Number
I Description
2
Alcoa-Badin Landfill
3
Old Brick Landfill
North End SWMU Area, including
1
On -site Landfill;
4
Former K088 Storage Pad;
22
Scrap Yard;
25
Underground Conveyance Line to NPDES Outfall 009;
33
Wet -Weather Run -On Diversion;
35
Former Waste Oil Storage Area;
44
Pine Tree Grove Area
28 Id.
13

1. North End SWMU Area (North End of Plant)
The North End of the Plant is a natural valley that was progressively filled in over the period
between 1916 and 1968. In addition to SWMU No. 1 (On -Site Landfill), this area contains at
least six other SWMUs: Former SWMU No. 4 (Former K088 Storage Pad), SWMU No. 22
(Scrap Yard), SWMU No. 25 (Underground Conveyance Line to NPDES Outfall 009), SWMU
No. 33 (Wet -Weather Run -On Diversion), SWMU No. 35 (Former Waste Oil Storage Area), and
SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area). Alcoa, US EPA, and NC DWM have all addressed these
SWMUs jointly because they are located within the same contiguous infilled valley.
Accordingly, releases to groundwater are not easily traceable to any individual SWMU in this
area.29 SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill), SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area), and SWMU
No. 46 (West Spent Potliner Area) have been identified by Alcoa as previous sites where spent
potliner waste was buried (Figure 3).30 The area has the highest number of monitored stormwater
outfalls (Outfalls 002, 020, 011, 012, and 013) in addition to the highest number of monitoring
wells. Figures 4 and 5 show the topography of the North End of the Plant before construction in
1913 and after grading in the 1970s.
Figure 3. Imagery of North End SWMU Area (North End of Plant). Image captured from
Google Earth in November 2019. Sites where spent potliner waste was buried or contaminated
surface areas are labeled.
29 Law Environmental, Part B RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application for Waste Pile Storage (1990) (Prepared
for Alcoa).
s0 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
14

Figure 4. Landscape topography prior to plant construction in 1913 and grading in the 1970s.
15

Figure 5. Topography of North End SWMU Area after plant construction and grading of ravine
in 1970s.
1.1 Site Descriptions
SWMUNo. I (On -site Landfill)
SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill) is a 1-acre dump site located within the North End of the Plant.
The site is located completely within the fenced portion of Alcoa's property.31 The northern third
of the site area represents the original active facility.32 The site is adjacent to SWMU No. 5
(Former K088 Waste Storage Area). From the 1930s to the 1970s, SWMU No. 1 was a natural
ravine that ran through the northern portion of the plant (Figure 4) that Alcoa was using as a
spent potliner dump. A 1996 report referred to the SWMU as the "Spent Potlining Landfill." 33
Other reports sometimes refer to it as the "Northwest Valley."
31 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
sz 1990 RFA, supra note 13.
ss Geraghty & Miller, Draft Findings of Soil Assessment Activities at the Spent Potlining Landfill (SWMU#I) and
K088 Storage Pad (SWMU#4) for Aluminum Company ofAmerica, Badin, NC (1996).
16

In the late 1970s, the topography of the site and surrounding area was modified to a graded
landfill (Figure 5).34 At this time, a Wet Weather Run-on Diversion (SWMU No. 33) system was
created to divert rainwater run-off from running onto and through fill material. This diversion
system was installed in response to a release of cyanide in the mid- 1970s to the Underground
Conveyance Line to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Outfall
009. The Wet -Weather Run-on Diversion system consisted of an underground concrete pipe that
ran through the fill material and emptied into a ditch leading to Badin Lake. At the time of the
1990 RCRA Facility Assessment Report, NC DEQ did not require this outfall to Badin Lake to
have permits or to meet any regulatory requirements. In 1996, a two -foot thick, low permeability
soil cover was placed over the On -site Landfill as well as the former K088 Storage Pad. In
addition, water pipes and ditches that comprised the Wet Weather Run-on Diversion were raised
and relocated to be above the groundwater table and outside the areas of spent potliner
disposal.35
r:.
=J,
QHV/Q/VHV/U//V/v ��/O/OHJ//Q/J//l/\/\//\//p//\//�\//\/�G\HV/Vti /V ♦ 4 V \ Q V, ,�[
Figure 6. Cross section through part of the North End SWMU Area showing fill material.
Approximate areas of identified spent potliner are indicated by the dark hatched lines and
outlined in red. Additional areas of spent potliner based on samples and reports are in orange.
Inset map shows location of cross section transect with black dotted line.
34 1990 RFA, supra note 13.
35 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
17

' w
,OFr
. r,,•�� =��+5 �4. � r± r{�.: �%s%..: �: ��i j?$%r+r��ii r+er+r,+�+ii+si iii';a�ii+ii+e`i �+r`i �i,
r+ ri rr
..r ,.G r2riG<<"Lr i b�i�7�z..� - �,��r�/i � �iir �Ji\ � Gr- ri\r rri rriri r ✓y
r r✓ rC r` r r✓ P ✓ir 9i L r r✓ r �' r r�i�iSi r
J\\ J \ ♦J ♦ \� Jfl r �GJr4 JQ\r!\I�\\C\PO��i
:OE
Figure 7. A second cross section through North End SWMU area showing approximate areas of
identified spent potliner. Inset map shows location of cross section transect with black dotted
line.
Cross sections of the fill material drawn for the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report
indicated spent potliner at both surficial and subsurface depths (Figures 6 and 7). However, the
locations of spent potliner in these cross sections are in disagreement with the results of previous
sampling.36 In Figures 6 and 7, there should be over 15 feet of spent potliner in the areas outlined
in red, which only show 2-3 feet. Additionally, Alcoa's consultants did not identify additional
known areas of spent potliner, outlined in orange on the cross section in Figure 6.
SRMUNo. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area)
SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area) was a former prong of Badin Lake that was filled in,
beginning sometime between 1938 and 1951 and completed between 1959 and 1961. The 2001
RCRA Facility Investigation report called SWMU No. 44 "essentially a landfill area with a tree
cover." Fill material is composed of clayey soils, furnace brick, spent potliner, carbon fines (i.e.
furnace packing material), and construction debris and rubble.37 The fill is estimated to be 13 to
42 feet thick based on subtracting the 1916 topography from current topography. In 1996,
geophysical work detected electromagnetic anomalies similar to those found in SWMU No. 1
(On -Site Landfill), suggesting that spent potliner was used as fill material in the Pine Tree Grove
Area. In 2011, another geophysical survey of the area was carried out for Phase III in the RCRA
" Law Engineering, Aluminum Company ofAmerica: Report of Environmental Services North End Subsurface
Exploration (1989).
37 Id.; also Geophex Ltd., Geophysical Survey Report, Alcoa, Badin, North Carolina (1996).
M

Corrective Action Program. The electromagnetic survey found three distinct areas of elevated
conductivity in the fill material (Areas labeled "A," "B," and "C" in Figure 8). NPDES Outfall
11 discharges to Badin Lake within 50 feet of the Badin Lake Public Swimming and Access area
and is immediately downgradient of the zone of highest conductivity, which equates to the
highest amount of buried waste. In 2011, the water table was approximately 7 to 9 feet below the
surface.38
007150
907T m
a0705.)
607000
606660
606000
SW63
60MCO
W6750
606700
8W60
bubbbJ
605450
606M
PINE TREE GROVE SITE
SWMU NO. 44
RESULTS OF EM
PROFILE LINES
LOCATION OF
BURIED UTILITY
IOCATIpN OI
SURVEY NT
COMBINED IN,PRASE
AND APPARENT CONDUCTIVITY
VALL ES
EM PROFILE LINES COMPLETED
EVERY 3 TO 5 FEET WITH DATA
POINTS EVERY 0.5 FT ALONG
EACH PROFILE LINE
ALCOA-BADIN WORKS
BADIN. NORTH CAROLINA
1�0
SCALE IN FEET
Goo SOUions Ltd.
9�
Figure 8: Map of soil and groundwater conductivity based on electromagnetic survey on July 11,
2011 of SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area). Areas in red represent high levels of buried
carbon -rich waste, including spent potliner.39
1.2 Summary of Sampling Record
Sampling for contamination prior to the 1990s was rare based on Alcoa's records. A 1989 report
states that Alcoa had analyzed storm drain water from the North End of the Plant and found
cyanide and fluoride exceeding North Carolina groundwater standards. This was the catalyst
further sampling in 1989, wherein 84 soil test borings were drilled at locations identified by
38 CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
39 CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
19

Alcoa (Table 2, Figure 9).40 Detected concentrations of fluoride in the soil ranged from 1.1
mg/kg to 3,900 mg/kg, and detected cyanide concentrations ranged from 0.54 mg/kg to 560
mg/kg. Nine boreholes contained buried potliner, two of which had potliner buried only 10
centimeters ("cm") below the surface. One borehole (B-4) had over 15 feet of buried spent
potliner. Three boreholes (B-51, B-52, B-53), located adjacent to two of the boreholes with spent
potliner (B-49 and B-50), also had high cyanide and fluoride concentrations, suggesting leaching
from adjacent boreholes. In addition, soil cuttings sampled a decade later from the West Spent
Potliner Area (SWMU No. 46), near boreholes B-40 and B-50, were managed as hazardous
waste by Alcoa."
Table 2. Total cyanide (CN) and total water -extractable fluoride (F) for a subset of soil borings
collected in 1989 from the North End SWMU Area.42
IBorino ID Denth. ft Total CN1 Total FZ SPL death. ft Water table. ftl
B-1
1-2.5
65
2,500
2.5-6.0
B-2
6.5-8
39
1,500
2.0-7.5
B-3
No boring sample
0.3
- 5.0
B-4
15.5-17
I
' 0.3-16.0
13.5
B-5
15.5-17
3.9
1805.0-16.0
15.0
B-6
No boring sam le
5.0
- 10.0
B-6"
3.5 - 5
11
1,44
B-8
3.5 - 5
32
94
B-9
1 - 2.5
1.6
530
6.0
B-10
6 - 7.5
2.5
310
B-11
18.5 -20
19
560
15.0
B-12
1 - 2.5
6.7
1,300
B-13
3.5 - 5
4.2
570
B-14
3.5 - 5
6
890
B-15
8.5 -10
16
1,300
B-15
4
50
1,300
B-16
8.5 - 10
2.7
1,100
7.0
B-17
12.5 - 14
6.3
430
7.0
B-25
18.5 - 20
1.8
930
11.0
B-26
17
8.4
1,100
B-27
4
8.8
1,10
B-28
13.5 - 15
20
1
11.8
B-29
3.5-5
II 5.0-12.0
11.5
B-32
3.5 - 5
2.4
21
B-49
3.5-5
'1 5.0-8.0
B-50
8-9.5
111 5.0-8.5
B-50
18.5-20
1
' 1 5.0-8.5
B-51
3.5 - 5
58
2,300
B-51
18.5 - 20
320
3,000
B-52
13.5 - 15
43
770
B-53
10 - 11.5
9.7
1,200
B-53
18.5 - 20
58
50
B-65
3.5 - 5
1.5
1,200
B-79
3
1.2
110
B-81
18.5 - 20
J&6
180
18.0
Total CN reported in mg/kg
2 Total F reported in mg/kg
Dark red: Borings have known depths of buried spent potliner
Red: Borings suspected of having spent potliner
40 Law Engineering North End Subsurface Exploration, supra note 36.
41 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
4' Law Engineering North End Subsurface Exploration, supra note 36.
20

° 0-45
-77
a
m
E6'a P$ 7
asac
❑ osoe
8-39 B-3e
a °
NORTH
SWMU No. 1
On -site Landfill
❑Q D ems. e 7
D ee,. p
[[���21 a ia� d re e ,e 8918 16,5 -;1aBV
$2 2 -'4_22 a°-x3 %Z4 8-25 8-27
gAxs 9
a�7 R- °
ego g-6, a-a2 s-sa
� B � ° a-av p55 9e63
a� s B-67 Sea — 8-70 r e
y., SWMU No. 44
aB, e72 �73 >3-7 5 ��d 4i Pine Tree Grove Area
IRM
s 7a
ate, Badin Lake
BORING LOCATION PLAN LAW ENGINEERING
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA
BA91N WORKS � An RALEICH. NORTH CAROI14A
SCALE I DRABN z I CHEQKV:APPROVED: I DATE IPROJECT 10. 10RAWNG 140.
Q
Figure 9. Location of boreholes drilled by Law Engineering in 1989 within North End SWMU
Area. Boreholes shaded in dark red had specified depths of spent potliner. Boreholes shaded in
pink had the chemical signatures of spent potliner and/or reported contamination.43
Several boreholes had the chemical signatures of spent potliner but were not labeled by Alcoa's
consultants as spent potliner in the 1989 report, nor were these areas indicated on the cross -
sectional diagrams of fill material (Figures 6 and 7). Indeed, the 1989 report states that "disposal
areas are not precisely known, although several areas are suspected.1144 One area of particular
concern is SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area), where the groundwater table ranges from 4 to
10 feet below the surface. Based on high cyanide and fluoride concentrations in subsurface soil
samples (Table 2), we suspect that buried spent potliner is located at depths below the water
table. The presence of buried spent potliner was confirmed in 1996 in this area, when monitoring
wells MW-25 and MW-26 were installed within SWMU No. 44 in areas of suspected buried
spent potliner.45 Additionally, presence of saturated fill materials was confirmed in the 2001
RCRA Facility Investigation, wherein soil samples collected below the water table at SWMU No.
44 were considered alongside groundwater samples because of saturated conditions (Table 3).46
43 Law Engineering North End Subsurface Exploration, supra note 36.
44 Law Engineering North End Subsurface Exploration, supra note 36. at Pg. 1.
45 Geraghty & Miller, Pine Tree Grove Area Investigation for Aluminum Company ofAmerica, Badin, North
Carolina (1996).
46 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
21

Table 3. Cyanide and Fluoride data for soil collected from Pine Tree Grove Area (SWMU No.
44).47
Soil Sample ID
Depth, ft
Amenable CN1
Total CN1
Total FZ
Water table depth, ft
PTG-SB-1
18.0
0.2
0.52
7,400
4 to 10
PTG-SB-2
15.0
< 0.25
1.1
670
4 to 10
PTG-SB-3
15.0
4 to 10
PTG-SB-4
28.0
< 0.25
1.5
570
4 to 10
PTG-SB-5
5.0
< 0.25
0.57
6,900
4 to 10
PTG-SB-6
20.0
< 0.25
6
2,000
4 to 10
PTG-SB-7
15.0
< 0.25
2.6
3,300
4 to 10
1 Amenable and Total CN reported in mg/kg
2 Total F reported in mg/kg
Red: Sample with chemical signature of spent potliner
From 1995 to 1997, a series of reports by Geraghty and Miller further investigated buried spent
potliner in the North End SWMU Area. At least eight reports by Geraghty and Miller are cited in
the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation. However, these reports are not accessible on NC DEQ's
public records database, Laserfiche. In SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill), borings taken in 1995
found layers of spent potliner at depths ranging from 0.5 to 23 feet below ground surface,
averaging 3 feet in thickness. Two years later, black carbonaceous material was found in the
majority of test pits.
Groundwater samples were measured on a voluntary basis by Alcoa from 1991 to 2000. These
sampling results were not presented in the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report, although
groundwater samples from this period for SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill) and SWMU No.
3 (Old Brick Landfill) are available. However, samples collected prior to 2001 must have
exceeded NCAC 02L groundwater standards because Alcoa concluded that groundwater coming
from the North End of the Plant and flowing into Badin Lake represented a significant exposure
pathway.48
Several monitoring wells are screened either across spent potliner or downgradient of the
hazardous waste. Monitoring wells MW-23 and MW-24 are screened across spent potliner
(Figures 6, 7, and 10). At the time of the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report, MW-23 "had
become dry since installation of the cap," which the consultants interpreted to mean "the cap is
effectively inhibiting infiltration recharge."49 However, in 2012, available cyanide and total
fluoride were present in MW-23 above NC 02L Standards, at 1,400 µg/L and 4,500 mg/L
respectively (Table 4). Monitoring wells MW-28 and MW-29 are upgradient and downgradient
(respectively) of SWMU No. 46 (West Spent Potliner Area). Groundwater samples taken in
September 2000 show that cyanide and fluoride concentrations are higher in the groundwater
downgradient of SWMU No. 46 (West Spent Potliner Area) in MW-29 than upgradient in MW-
28. Weak acid dissociable cyanide increased from < 10 µg/L at MW-28 to 250 µg/L at MW-29.
4' 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
48 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
49 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
22

Fluoride increased from < 0.2 mg/L to 18 mg/L.50 In 2012, groundwater samples still showed an
increase in cyanide and fluoride downgradient of SWMU No. 46 in MW-29, and at higher
concentrations than in 2000. Weak acid dissociable cyanide was 700 µg/L and fluoride was 52
mg/L. MW-28 remained below detection for both weak acid dissociable cyanide and fluoride.si
In 2012, Alcoa renamed SWMU No. 46 to be the "Coke Management Area."
Because historical data on the monitoring wells in the North End of the Plant are not readily
available to the public, analysis of groundwater trends over time by our team relies on only two
sampling events: the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report and the 2012 Corrective
Measures Study. Wells sampled for both reports show no decrease in cyanide or fluoride
concentrations in groundwater (Table 4). In 2012, weak acid dissociable cyanide was present in
five wells (MW-4, MW-6, MW-23, MW-27, and MW-29) above the NC 02L Standard of 70
µg/L. Three of these wells (MW-6, MW-23, MW-27) are within the fill material in the
Northwest Valley. MW-29 is located in SWMU No. 46 (West Spent Potliner Area), and MW-4
is located in the soil/saprolite material in the Northwest Valley. Fluoride was detected in 10 wells
above the NC 02L Standard of 2 mg/L. In addition to the aforementioned five wells also
exceeding available cyanide standards, this included MW-14 and four additional wells in the
soil/saprolite in the Northwest Valley (MW-5, MW-8, MW-9, MW-16). Access to monitoring
wells MW-25, 25A, and 26 was not available during the 2012 sampling event. Instead, Alcoa
used historical cyanide and fluoride data.52 These three wells are in SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree
Grove Area), the closest identified SWMU to Badin Lake.
so 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
51 CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
sz CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
23

Badin Lake
O
O O
X
O
N
� O
_U
• 0
0 0.13 0.25 Mi
I I I
0 On -site Landfill SMWU 1
Q Monitoring Wells RFI 2001
Monitoring Wells 23 and 24
O Background soil samples RFI 2001
❑ Outfall_locations
0 1970s Fill area extent
U 0 On -site Landfill SMWU 1
0Q Monitoring Wells RFI 2001
O Q Monitoring Wells 23 and 24
;0 0.13 0.25 Mi• Background soil samples RFI 2001
❑ Outfall_locations
0 1970s Fill area extent
Figure 10. Hillslope (top) and terrain (bottom) maps of North End SWMU Area, including
SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill) in red. The locations of monitoring wells 23 and 24, which
intercept buried spent potliner, are shown in dark red.
24

Table 4: Groundwater data for North End SWNM Area in 2001 and 2012. 53
Available CN (Weak Acid Dissociable) reported in ug/L
2 Total F reported in mg/L
Dark red: Values exceed NCAC 02L groundwater standards: 70 ug/L for CN, 2.0 mg/L for F
Shaded NS (Not Sampled): Contaminated well in 2001 not resampled in 2012
1: Contaminated blank
ss 2001 RFI, supra note 22; see also CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
25

1.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
A 1989 report "intended for the exclusive use of Alcoa" stated that the extensive clay content in
the fill material at the North End of the Plant would likely limit microbial degradation and favor
encapsulation.54 However, the majority of boreholes had fill material classified as "black sand,"
"gravel," "silt", and "sandy silt" — all of which contain only minor amounts of clay. When
coupled with the lack of any subsurface liner, this renders fill material to be suspectable to
belowground migration and leaching into groundwater.
Tracing contamination to a specific SWMU within the North End of the Plant is difficult. Alcoa
stated that SWMU Nos. 1, 4, 22, 25, 33, 35, and 44 were all located within the same contiguous
infilled valley and therefore releases could not be traceable to an individual SWMU. This mixing
of release pathways suggests high hydraulic connectivity in the fill material, which is expected
given the coarse -textured nature of the fill material.
In 2001, spent potliner was found beneath the water table in SWMU No. 1 (On -Site Landfill).
Alcoa stated in its 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report that they expected the fill material to
become dewatered beneath the cap area, thereby reducing leaching of spent potliner. This
statement was based on the evidence that MW-23 became dry after cap installation. However, in
2012, MW-23 remained saturated and a contaminated groundwater sample was taken. At the
time of the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report, the On -Site Landfill was not believed to be
an active source of leaching of any contaminants of interest from unsaturated soil to
groundwater.55 However, as far as we are aware, subsequent investigations have not remeasured
groundwater levels at the wells in known locations of spent potliner. In addition, the 2001 RCRA
Facility Investigation Report also identified trichloroethene ("TCE") as a contaminant of concern
in groundwater coming from the North End of the Plant. Four monitoring wells were resampled
in 2018 for TCE, all of which had levels exceeding NCAC 02L groundwater standards.56
The cap that has been installed on SWMU No. 1 (On -Site Landfill) is an ineffective solution to
prevent leaching. Because mowing has not been maintained, trees were reported growing on the
cap on SWMU No. 1 in 2019, allowing surface water infiltration into the contaminated fill
material.s' Ensuring these fill materials dry out is likely impossible due to the topography of the
sites. SWMU No. 1 (On -Site Landfill) sits in a natural ravine that will continue to serve as an
intermittent tributary to Badin Lake during winter months. SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove
Area) is level with Badin Lake and within 50 feet of the Badin Lake Public Swimming and
Access area. Given its proximity and even elevation with the lake, its fill materials will remain
saturated or under the water table. In both the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report and in
the 2012 Phase III Corrective Measure Study, all of the boreholes dug in the Pine Tree Grove
Area for soil and groundwater sampling had wet or saturated soils. Given that cyanide and
fluoride leach from spent potliner when saturated, these fill materials will continue to leach
unknown quantities of contaminants into Badin Lake.
54 Law Engineering North End Subsurface Exploration, supra note 36.
55 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
56 Environeering, Inc., Groundwater Sampling Report for the Badin Business Park Facility (2018).
5' RCRA Inspection Report, supra note 21.
26

2. SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill)
2.1 Site Descriptions
SWMUNo. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill)
SWMU No. 2 is one of two off -site SWMUs owned and operated by Alcoa. SWMU No. 2 is 14
acres in size and is located 500 feet southwest of the plant (Figures 11 and 12). The unit was
constructed in 1916 to contain industrial waste generated by the Alcoa plant, as well as
municipal waste from the surrounding town of Badin. From 1916 to October 1980, the unit
actively accumulated waste, including waste generated from an extensive Alcoa plant renovation
in 1965.58 Municipal garbage was also brought in unchecked. The unit was positioned within a
natural ravine located southeast of Wood Street and extending to the edge of the Little Mountain
Creek floodplain (Figure 13). The ravine was filled with approximately 13 to 42 feet of a mixture
of municipal refuse, process material from the plant, and native fill material.59 Between the mid-
1970s and 1990, the unit was graded, covered with native soils, and seeded with grass.60
However by 1990, very little vegetation had become established, and the area was undergoing
erosion via gullying.61 Methane gas from the landfill caught fire in 1991 and burned for over
three months.62 In 1994, Alcoa admitted that the present landfill cover was inadequate and began
characterizing air -emissions. In response, Alcoa re -graded the site in 1997 and added two feet of
low permeability clay and six inches of topsoil to promote the establishment of a vegetation
cover and reduce infiltration. Alcoa also installed eastern and western concrete -lined flumes to
intercept storm runoff.63 Three seeps (western, middle, and eastern) are present at the base of the
landfill.
58 NC Supedund Section, NC DEQ, Site Inspection Report (2016).
59 CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
60 1990 RFA, supra note 13.
" 1990 RFA, supra note 13.
62 Stanly News & Press, Alcoa keeps eye on landfill flame (1991).
" CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
27

Figure It. Imagery of SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill). Image captured from Google Earth
in June 2019. Sites of interest within the landfill include 1) the eastern and western concrete
flumes, 2) the western, middle, and eastern seep and drainage sites, and 3) the floodplains.
W

O S2-HA-06
ABL-MW-1 Plant Area
O OS2-HA-05
ABL-MW-2
ABL-l�W-6
• MWO--FO-2
S2-HA-030 •
Alcoa -Bad S2-HA-04
O; ��
AB -MW-� Landfill
N
A L-MW-
0 0.1 0.2 Mi
OW+� r
Figure 12. Hillslope (top) and terrain (bottom) maps of SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill).
The blue line is Little Mountain Creek. Red circles and triangles show the locations of soil
samples collected in the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report.
29

w
w
SOUTH
A
NORTH
A'
SA
'�.' • � is
[1l Lana l.0!
...�.ERAGFt. rwuR[
� •.... un.rti rr.om.arcx r $ 11l Ll.CRINC. CvncgluM Sk! Madle
$
w�.,... y i.....r... inw ,�.ae..e.: •r.n .w..
Figure 13. Cross -sectional diagram of SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill) from the 2001
RCRA Facility Investigation Report. The floodplain of Little Mountain Creek is at the toe of the
landfill, shown on the left-hand side of the figure.
Little Mountain Creek
Little Mountain Creek traverses the valley bottom immediately south of the Alcoa-Badin
Landfill and is adjacent to the steepest segment of SWMU No. 2 at the toe of the landfill.
Alcoa's property line approximates the midstream of the creek. Little Mountain Creek originates
north of the Stanly County Airport and travels 4.5 miles before reaching the Alcoa-Badin
Landfill. From the toe of the Alcoa-Badin Landfill, the creek flows southeastward and, after 1.5
miles flow distance, feeds into Mountain Creek, a tributary to the Pee Dee River. The upstream
section of Little Mountain Creek is classified as secondary recreation (class C), while its mid and
downstream sections are classified as a source of drinking water in a moderately to highly
developed watershed (class IV). Lower water quality of the middle and lower stream sections
may be due to urbanization, the Stanly County Airport, and the Alcoa-Badin Landfill.
In 1984, an underground pipeline located near Building 134 released 3,500 gallons of No. 2 fuel
oil. Alcoa discovered the release in 1985 and excavated 1,300 cubic feet of soil contaminated by
the release. Alcoa also installed two groundwater monitoring wells, one of which (MW-FO-2)
remains.
30

2.2 Summary of Sampling Record
Historic chemical data suggests that groundwater discharge from the three seeps present at the
base of the landfill pass through fill materials given their high cyanide and fluoride
concentrations (Table 5). Sampling from 1996 to 2001 showed cyanide and fluoride leachate
coming from the Middle and East Seep of the landfill. Cyanide concentrations were up to 957
µg/L and fluoride concentrations up to 29 mg/L in the Middle Seep. At the East Seep, samples
collected on 25 out of 32 sampling dates yielded total cyanide concentrations above the NC 02B
surface water standard (5 µg/L). For fluoride, every groundwater sample taken from the East
Seep was above the NC 02B surface water standard (1.8 mg/L). Sampling was biased towards
the East Seep, with no samples taken at the West or Middle Seep for the final eight sampling
dates. The 2012 Phase III RCRA Corrective Measures Study stated that "recent groundwater
sampling results demonstrate the beneficial effects of the cover system upgrades," because
available cyanide and fluoride did not exceed NC 02L groundwater limits in any well. However,
the report did not include data after 2001 for surface water from the seeps or within Little
Mountain Creek.64
Cyanide and fluoride concentrations in Little Mountain Creek were higher downstream of the
landfill compared to upstream (Table 5). Fluoride concentrations exceeded NC 02B surface
water standards three times. Total cyanide exceeded NC 02B surface water standards nine times.
Cyanide and fluoride concentrations have remained elevated despite interim cap measures and
the installation of a collection trench in the 1990s. In 2015, fluoride was 9.1 mg/L and cyanide
was 63 µg/L in the Little Mountain Creek floodplain. Fluoride concentrations in the three seeps
(West, Middle, East) were 0.26, 33, and 27 mg/L, respectively.
Current cyanide and fluoride concentrations in the area's groundwater wells suggest
contamination is ongoing (Table 6). Monitoring well 5 (ABL MW-5), in the Little Mountain
Creek floodplain, had total cyanide up to 310 µg/L and free cyanide up to 288 µg/L between
1991 and 2000. Thirteen samples taken during this period in MW-5 had cyanide levels exceeding
NC 02L groundwater standards. In contrast, MW-3, upstream of the landfill in Little Mountain
Creek, had zero samples exceeding NC 02L groundwater standards. Such large variability over
such a short distance can only be explained by contaminants leaching downgradient from the
landfill into the floodplain. Upgradient of the landfill, at MW-1 and MW-2, cyanide and fluoride
have never been detected at significant concentrations.
Electromagnetic and Ground -penetrating Radar ("GPR") surveys conducted during Phase III of
the RCRA Corrective Measures Study estimated carbon -rich debris was buried beneath
approximately 6.5 acres of the landfill and one acre of the switchyard (Figure 14). The deepest
areas of fill material had the highest levels of conductivity. There were at least two hotspots of
carbon -rich waste along the southwestern boundary of the landfill, abutting Little Mountain
Creek floodplain. The electromagnetic survey also found material with elevated conductivity
64 CMS Phase III, supra note 23.
31

beyond the fence of the property, suggesting plumes of contaminants from waste materials have
65
mobilized over time, or that Alcoa dumped waste material around the landfill.
Table 5. SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill) seep data into Little Mountain Creek from 1996
to 2000.66
LMC Upstream
LMC Downstream
ABL West Seep
ABL Middle Seep
ABL East Seep
Date
Total CN 1 Free CN 1 Total F2
Total CN Free CN Total F
Total CN Free CN Total F
Total CN Free CN Total F
Total CN Free CN Total F
9/24/96
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.20
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.97
1/6/97
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.30
<"5.0<
50
2/12/97
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.22
3/31/97
<10.0
<10.0
<0.10
<10.0
<10.0
0.40
4/24/97
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.10
< 10.0
< 10.0
0.30
5/28/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.15
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.56
0
6/24/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0®
Dry
Dry
Dry
7/21/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
1.1
Dry
Dry
Dry
8/29/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0®
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0 0
9/30/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.26
10/23/97
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.11
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.29
11/17/97
<5.0
<5.0
0.11
<5.0
<5.0
0.18
27
<51
12
12/15/97
<5.0
<5.0
0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.20
24
<51
13
1/21/98
<5.0
<5.0
0.14
<5.0
<5.0
0.23
<5.0
IT
2/25/98
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.15
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.18
< 5.0
11
3/26/98
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.12
<5.0
<5.0
13
4/30/98
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
16
5/26/98
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.17
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0
6/15/98
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.33
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0 < 5.0 I
7/20/98
< 5.0
< 10
< 0.10
< 10
< 10 �
< 10
0.69
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 10 < 10
8/24/98
< 5.0
< 5
0.17
9A
< 5.0
1.4
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0
9/23/98
< 5.0
< 5
0.15
12
7.2
1.4 ®
0.31
Dry
Dry
Dry
10/23/98
< 5.0®
0.15
< 5.0
0.70
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
11/10/98
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.16
6.9
6.3
0.50 ®
< 5.0
0.54
Dry
Dry
Dry
12n198
<5.0
<5.0
0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.33
<5.0
<5.0
0.44
1/11/99
<5.0
<5.0
0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.16
<5.0
<5.0
0.37
2/10/99
<5.0
<5.0
0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.16
<5.0
<5.0
0.40
<5.0
3/29/99
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0 <0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.39
<5.0
4/19/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.14
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.40
Dry
Dry
Dry
5/28/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10®
< 5.0
0.76
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.50
Dry
Dry
Dry
6/23/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.12
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.24
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.46
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0
7/20/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.69
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
8/11/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.11®
0.99
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
9/22/99
< 5.0®
0.15
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.42
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
10/28/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.22
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.31
Dry
Dry
Dry
11/17/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.33
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.44
Dry
Dry
Dry
< 5.0
12/30/99
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.23
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.40
< 5.0
1/1/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
NS
NS NS NS
2/8/00
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.11
<5.0
<5.0
0.11
<5.0
3/29/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 0.10
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.12®
< 5.0
0.46
I
4/24/00
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.17
<5.0
<5.0
0.49
<5.0
<5.0
5/19/00
<5.0
<5.0
<0.10
<5.0
<5.0
0.34
<5.0
<5.0
0.51
NS
S
NS
6/27/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.13
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.41
NS
NS
NS
NS
< 5.0
7/21/00
<5.0
<5.0
0.19
<5.0
<5.0
0.84
NS
NS
NS
NS
<5.0
8/16/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.12®
< 5.0
1.00
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
I
9/22/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.14
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.52
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
10/31/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.21
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.25
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11/1/00
< 5.0
< 5.0� NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS NS NS
12/1/00
< 5.0
< 5.0
NS
&�
J&L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS NS NS
1/4/01
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.17
< 5.0
< 5.0
0.32
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
< 5.0
I Total CN and free CN reported in ug/L
z Total F reported in mg/L
Dark red: Values exceed NC 02B surface water standards of 5 ug/L for cyanide and 1.8 mg/L for fluoride
NS: Not sampled
65 CMS Phase III, supra note 23; see also Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., Geophysical evaluation at the Alcoa Power
Generating, Inc. Yadkin Division Switchyard and the SWMUNo. 2, Alcoa/Badin Landfill, Badin, North Carolina
(2008).
66 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
32

Table 6. Historical groundwater data for monitoring wells around SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin
Landfill).67
ABL-MW-1
ABL-MW-2
ABL-MW-3
Total CN' Free CN'
Total F2
Total CN'
Free CN'
Total F2
Total CN' Free CN'
Total F2
6/7/91
<5
<50
0.115
<5
<50
<0.1
<5
<50
0.111
7/15/91
<5
<50
0.2
<5
<50
<0.1
<5
<50
0.2
9/16/92
<10
<10
0.2
<10
<10
<0.1
<10
<10
0.2
12/8/92
<10
<10
< 0.2
<10
<10
< 0.2
<10
<10
0.209
2/17/93
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
5/6/93
<10
<10
0.12
<10
<10
<0.1
<10
<10
0.18
8/9/93
<10
<10
0.2
<10
<10
<0.1
<10
<10
0.2
12/1/93
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10�
<0.2
3/7/94
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
5/11/94
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
0.51
8/30/94
<10
<10
<0.2
<10�
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
12/15/94
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
6/26/96
< 5
< 5
< 0.2
< 5
< 5
< 0.2
< 5
< 5
0.2
9/25/96
<10
<10
0.06
<10
< 10
0.02
< 10
<10
0.17
12/5/96
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
0.21
4/22/98
<10
<10
< 0.2
<10
< 10
< 0.2
< 10
<10
0.23
10/21/98
<5
NS
<0.2
-
NS
<0.2
<5
NS
<0.2
9/24/99
<10
<5
<0.2
<10
<5
-IM
11
<5
<0.2
1151001
<10
<5
<0.1
<10
<5
<0.1
<10
<5
<0.1
ABL-MW-4
ABL-MW-5
ABL-MW-6
Total CN'
Free CN'
Total F2
Total CN'
Free CN'
Total F2
Total CN'
Free CN'
Total F2
6/7/91
<5
<50
<0.1
68
<50
0.136
<5
<50
0.356
7/15/91
<50
0.2
' I
<50
0.1
<5
<50
0.4
9/16/92
< 10
0.2
I
0.1
<10
<10
0.2
12/8/92
< 10
< 0.2
< 0.2
<10
<10
0.731
2/17/93
<10
<0.2
I
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
5/6/93
<10
<10
0.11
I
<0.1
<10
<10
0.17
8/9/93
<10
<10
0.1
31
0.1
< 10
<10
0.2
12/1/93
<10
<10
<0.2
19
<0.2
<10
<10
0.55
3/7/94
<10
<10
<0.2
241
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
5/11/94
<10
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
0.51
<10
<0.2
8/30/94
<10
<0.2
17
0.3
<10
<10
<0.2
12/15/94
<10
<0.2
21
<10
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.2
6/26/96
0.1
'
1.2
< 5
< 5
0.1
9/25/96
0.13
250
110
0.28
< 10
<10
0.1
12/5/96
<10
<10
<0.2
130
<0.2�
<10
0.24
4/22/98
22
<10
< 0.2
1
13
0.25
< 10
<10
0.21
10/21/98
16
NS
<0.2
1
NS
0.28
-
NS
0.23
9/24/99
36
<5
<0.2
42
5
<0.2
<10
<5
-
1/5/00
16
<5
0.98
I
57
0.15
<10
<5
<0.1
'Total CN and free CN reported in µg/L
2Total F reported in mg/L
Dark red: values exceed NCAC 02L groundwater standards of 70 µg/L for CN and 2.0 mg/L for fluoride
Red: Values above detection limit for cyanide
NS: Not sampled
6' 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
33

In 2019, another electromagnetic and GPR survey found seasonal fluctuations in the landfill
boundary, with greatest expansion during the summer and early fall months (Figure 15). The
results show that seeps are still leading to contaminant plumes, and hotspots show preferential
flow of contaminants in buried channels.68 Both surveys were carried out by the same consulting
company. Interestingly, the 2019 map has improper scaling, and so the results could be
misleading with regards to where the highest spots of conductive waste are leaching. Areas
around the former seeps were still found to have elevated conductivity, despite the installment of
a collection system at the toe of the landfill slope.
LEGEND
SUM OF MSIM
RESULTS OF SUM OF
CONDUCTIVITY EM DATA
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
CONDUCTIVITY
M ULTF REQDENCY EM
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
RADH LANDFILL
6ADH, NORTH CAROLINA
S ITE P LAN
o am
SCALE N FEE!
16644-00 1664600 16WDO 1665DOO 1665200 16654DO 1665600 rlwKE
Figure 14. Map of soil and groundwater conductivity based on electromagnetic survey in 2007.
Areas in red represent high levels of buried carbon -rich waste, including spent potliner.69
68 Geo Solutions Limited, Inc., Geophysical evaluation downgradient of the Alcoa Badin Landfill to evaluate
potential seasonal variability in electromagnetic response (2019).
69 Geophysical Evaluation, supra note 65.
34

'
I L-, i
'Y
§Wa `♦
u
FIGURE 5
LEGEND
Apparent Cord —wiry
Data
3219a W
' 100
74
56
— 59
11
31
26
10
2
-14
-22
-30
38
-46
-64
62
70
-,a
;'� ----- Collection Trench
MULTIFREQUENCY EM
GEOPHYSICAL EVALUATION
Quarter 2
Surveyed: 0711112018
or Alcoa Badin Landfill, Badin NC
hlzp sa-+le (R)
C 150 300 450
Figure 15. Map of soil and groundwater conductivity in Little Mountain Creek floodplain,
downgradient of SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill).70
2.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
The installation of a low permeability clay cap will not be sufficient to reduce the zone of
saturated fill materials. This is due to the fact that groundwater will continue to enter landfill
materials through discharge from the interface of bedrock and fill materials. A 2-year piezometer
study of the Alcoa-Badin landfill found significant interaction between groundwater and fill
material (Figure 16), with groundwater intercepting the landfill for over half the 2-year time
period." The lack of an impervious lining in the landfill and its proximity to a naturally high
groundwater table ensures continual interaction between groundwater and the landfill, allowing
for the mobilization of contaminants into Little Mountain Creek.
70 Geophysical Evaluation, supra note 65.
" TestAmerica with Environeering, Inc., Appendix H of Phase III Engineering data collection for the corrective
measures study Badin Works Facility, Badin, North Carolina (2012).
35
I L-, i
'Y
§Wa `♦
u
FIGURE 5
LEGEND
Apparent Cord —wiry
Data
3219a W
' 100
74
56
— 59
11
31
26
10
2
-14
-22
-30
38
-46
-64
62
70
-,a
;'� ----- Collection Trench
MULTIFREQUENCY EM
GEOPHYSICAL EVALUATION
Quarter 2
Surveyed: 0711112018
or Alcoa Badin Landfill, Badin NC
hlzp sa-+le (R)
C 150 300 450
Figure 15. Map of soil and groundwater conductivity in Little Mountain Creek floodplain,
downgradient of SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill).70
2.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
The installation of a low permeability clay cap will not be sufficient to reduce the zone of
saturated fill materials. This is due to the fact that groundwater will continue to enter landfill
materials through discharge from the interface of bedrock and fill materials. A 2-year piezometer
study of the Alcoa-Badin landfill found significant interaction between groundwater and fill
material (Figure 16), with groundwater intercepting the landfill for over half the 2-year time
period." The lack of an impervious lining in the landfill and its proximity to a naturally high
groundwater table ensures continual interaction between groundwater and the landfill, allowing
for the mobilization of contaminants into Little Mountain Creek.
70 Geophysical Evaluation, supra note 65.
" TestAmerica with Environeering, Inc., Appendix H of Phase III Engineering data collection for the corrective
measures study Badin Works Facility, Badin, North Carolina (2012).
35

Figure 16. Groundwater hydrographs (black and green) for piezometric groundwater wells in
Alcoa-Badin Landfill. Area shaded in blue is the height at which groundwater table is in fill
material for well PZ-2S (black line).'
3. SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill)
3.1 Site Description
SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill) is the second of Alcoa's off -site SWMUs used for spent
potliner disposal. The Old Brick Landfill is a 3-acre disposal site located on a heavily forested
hillside approximately 0.75 miles northeast of the Alcoa-Badin Works plant and adjacent to
Badin Lake (Figure 17). In a letter, dated October 30, 1990, the environmental engineer for
Alcoa stated that "the site is not a landfill but is an above ground storage pile used for the
disposal of spent potliners and furnace brick... 1173 The Old Brick Landfill accepted furnace brick
and spent potliner from 1915-1960 and accumulated an estimated 22,000 cubic yards of Alcoa's
industrial waste over this time period.74 Following the storage pile's closure in 1960, SWMU No.
3 remained unlined and uncovered until 1987, when the site was covered with 12 inches of
compacted clay and a drainage ditch was constructed to collect and divert stormwater. The
landfill was also regraded to flatten its slope towards Badin Lake, which was originally at 37.5
72 Id.
73 1991 Screening Site Investigation Report, supra note 24.
74 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
36

degrees from the horizontal.75 In 1991, the site was screened as a potential superfund site under
CERCLA. In the report, the surface runoff pathway from the waste pile was said to be well-
defined to Badin Lake, and water was observed seeping from the toe of the landfill.76 Today, a
chain -link fence with locking gates surrounds SWMU No. 3.
Figure 17. Imagery of SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill). Image captured from Google Earth in
June 2019.
3.2 Summary of Sampling Record
In 1987, Law Engineering drilled nine soil test borings in the fill area as part of the CERCLA
screening site investigation. This report referred to the area as an "off -site waste pile" and
commented that water was seeping from the downslope toe of the waste pile towards Badin
Lake." Based on these nine borings, the report concluded that fill material ranged from 8 to 29
feet in depth. Fill material consisted of loose black to dark brown silty sand containing pieces of
iron, concrete, asphalt, brick, wood, and some putty type material. Rubble was encountered in
several boreholes. The report found a residual, firm silty clay layer beneath the fill material.
Water seeping from the downgradient slope of the fill was thought to result from water perched
in the fill moving laterally on top of the underlying clay layer and outcropping near the toe of the
steep slope.'$
" Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., Work Plan Old Brick Landfill Cap Geotechnical Exploration,
Alcoa-Badin Works, Badin, North Carolina (1996)(prepared for Alcoa, Badin North Carolina).
76 1991 Screening Site Investigation Report, supra note 24.
" Law Engineering, Report of Subsurface Exploration Off -Site Waste Pile, Badin Works Plant, Badin, North
Carolina (1987).
7R Id.
37

asw(o
a[wrcll
syo —
ILL IACA
� we[oMnL
sso —
Y.S IT - .SSW[0 z-yN TNL[
yyp
so 1 1
Figure 18. 1987 cross section of the Off -Site Waste Pile (now SWMU No. 3, Old Brick
Landfill). The blue arrow points to where water was seeping from waste pile.79
Subsequent investigations at the SWMU No. 3 have included the collection of soil borings and
the collection of groundwater from six monitoring wells (OBL-MW-1 through OBL-MW-6).
Monitoring Wells 1 and 5 are located upgradient of the landfill, and we would not expect the
presence of leached contaminants in these wells. Monitoring wells 2, 3, and 4 are located
downgradient of the landfill, and monitoring well 6 was installed downgradient of well 2 during
phase II of the RCRA Facility Investigation (Figure 19). While arsenic and chromium have been
found in the soil to exceed North Carolina Screening Levels, this section focuses primarily on the
results of the groundwater investigations.
A series of groundwater investigations through the 1990s revealed the presence of total cyanide
and free cyanide at concentrations that exceed NCAC 02L groundwater standards (70 µg/L for
free cyanide) in the wells located downgradient of SWMU No. 3 (OBL-MW- 2, OBL-MW-3,
and OBL-MW-4) (Table 7). Total cyanide was detected up to 3,840 µg/L and free cyanide was
detected up to 1,070 µg/L. Fluoride was also detected at elevated concentrations, up to 1.2 mg/L,
but below the NCAC 02L groundwater standard (2 mg/L). Cyanide and fluoride were rarely
detected in the wells located upgradient from SWMU No. 3 (OBL-MW-1 and OBL-MW-5) and
never above NCAC 02L standards.
The aforementioned groundwater investigations through the 1990s prompted Alcoa to investigate
SWMU No. 3 in their RCRA Facility Investigation. Alcoa's consultants reported in Phase I of
2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report that total cyanide still exceeded NC 02L groundwater
79 Id.
W

standard for free cyanide in all three of the monitoring wells located downgradient of SWMU
No. 3 (OBL-MW- 2, OBL-MW-3, and OBL-MW-4). Free cyanide was present above the NCAC
02L standard in two of the downgradient wells (OBL-MW-2 and OBL-MW-4). Fluoride was
also detected in OBL-MW-4 at 0.93 mg/L (NC 02L groundwater standard for fluoride is 2
mg/L).
In 2004 and 2005, Alcoa conducted a hydrologic study of the site that concluded that the current
landfill cap was not effective in preventing infiltration into the landfill,80 which is consistent with
the geochemical data of the downgradient wells. In 2006, Alcoa updated SWMU No. 3's cap in
an attempt to reduce surface water infiltration and eliminate the point source discharge of
leachate to Badin Lake under the facility's NPDES permit."
Alcoa investigated the effectiveness of the cap upgrade in the 2012 Phase III Corrective
Measures Study by collecting groundwater samples from the six monitoring wells on three
occasions (November 2011, May 2012, August 2012).12 It is important to note that Alcoa's
consultants measured fluoride and free cyanide in these samples, but not total cyanide. Free
cyanide was detected in three monitoring wells located downgradient of the Old Brick Landfill
(OBL-MW- 2, OBL-MW-3, and OBL-MW-4) and above the NC 02L groundwater standards in
OLB-MW-2. Fluoride was again detected at noteworthy concentrations in OLB-MW-4 (0.56 -
1.2 mg/L). While these concentrations are still lower than the NC 02L groundwater standard for
fluoride, they are above the concentration in upgradient groundwater and within the same range
of the fluoride concentrations measured in OBL-MW-4 throughout the 1990s (0.31-1.19 mg/L),
prior to the cap upgrades.
80 Environeering, Inc., Corrective Measures Study Phase I at Pg. 7 (2010) (Prepared for Alcoa, Inc).
81 Environeering, Inc, Drawings for Cap Maintenance for Old Brick Landfill (2006).
82 CMS Phase III, supra note 24.
39

�
I
_
MW-4
J
7 1�
h IIIY
MW 5 :{
MW-3
-
i
I �
h.� . Mw_s �
MW-1
MW-2
f
i
�. �
N
0.05
0.1 Mi
© SWMU Area
Q Monitoring Wells
Q Background soil sample-.
1 Outfalls
SWMU Area
Q+ Monitoring Wells
Q Background Sal sample!
1 Outfalls
Figure 19. Hillslope (top) and terrain (bottom) maps of the SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill)
showing the location of the soil borings and monitoring wells.
M

Table 7. Groundwater data for monitoring wells around the SWMU No. 3 (Old Brick Landfill)
from 1991-2012.83
OBL-MW-1
Total CN'
Available CN'
Free CN'
Total Fz
OBL-MW-2
Total CNl
Available CN' Free CNl Total Fz
OBL-MW-3
Total CN'
AvailableCN'
Free CN'
Total Fz
6/8/91
<5.0
NS
<50
<0.10
NS
<50 <0.10
NS
<50
<0.10
7/15/91
<5.0
NS
<50
<0.10
NS
<50 <0.10
NS
<50
<0.10
9/16/92
<10
NS
<10
<0.20
NS
<0.20
NS
<0.20
12/8/92
<200
NS
<10
<0.01
NS
<0.20
NS
<0.20
2/17/93
<10
NS
<10
<0.10
NS
<0.10
NS
<0.10
5/6/93
<10
NS
<10
<0.10
NS
<0.10
NS
<10
<0.10
8/9/93
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
15 <0.2
NS
<0.2
12/1/93
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<0.2
3/7/94
NS
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<10
<0.2
5/11/94
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
68 <0.2
NS
<0.2
8/30/94
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<0.2
12/15/94
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<0.2
6/26/96
<5.0
NS
<5.0
<0.02
NS
NS
<0.2
9/25/96
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<0.2
12/5/96
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
110
<0.2
4/23/98
<10
NS
<10
<0.2
NS
<0.2
NS
<0.2
10/1/98
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS <0.2
NS
NS
<0.2
9/25/99
<10
<10
<5.0
<0.10
5.4 <0.10
30
<0.10
1/7/00
<10
<10
<5.0
NS
NS
NS
9/6/00
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11/17/11
NS
DRY
NS
DRY
NS
NS �
NS
18
NS
5/7/11
NS
DRY
NS
DRY
NS
55
NS Q
NS
16
NS
<1
8/3/12
NS
DRY
NS
DRY
NS
NS <1
NS
NS
<1
6/8/91
7/15/91
9/16/92
12/8/92
2/17/93
5/6/93
8/9/93
12/1/93
3/7/94
5/11/94
8/30/94
12/15/94
6/26/96
9/25/96
12/5/96
4/23/98
10/1/98
9/25/99
1/7/00
9/6/00
11/17/11
5/7/11
8/3/12
CN' Available CN'
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
OBL-MW-5
Free CN' Total Fz Total CN'
<50 <5.0
<50
<10
<0.2 <10
<10 0.95 <10
<10 0.6 <10
12 0.8 <10
15 0.31 <10
12 1.13 NS
19 1.19 <10
31 0.95 <10
17 0.9 <10
1.03 <5.0
11 0.79 <10
1 <10
34 <10
NS <0.2 NS
22 0.93 0 <10
®NS <10
NS NS NS
NS NS
NSENS
NS
NS
Total CN, Available CN, and Free CN reported in ug/L
2Total F reported in mg/L
OBL-MW-6
Available
CN' Free
CN' Total Fz Total CN'
NS
<50
<0.1 NS
NS
<50
<0.1 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.1 NS
NS
<10
<0.1 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
_NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<5
_NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
<10
<0.2 NS
NS
NS
NS NS
<10
<5.0
<0.10 NS
<10
<5.0
NS NS
NS
NS
NS <10
<2.0
NS
_NS
<2.0
NS
<1 NS
NS
<1 NS
Dark red: Values exceed NCAC 02L groundwater standards of 70 ug/L for cyanide and 2.0 mg/L for fluoride
Red: Values above detection limit
NS: Not sampled
83 2001 RFI, supra note 22.
Available CN'
Free CN'
Total Fz
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<10
<10
NS
<2.0
NS
<0.2
<2.0
NS
<1
-NS
<1
41

3.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
Groundwater data collected from monitoring wells from 1990-2012 indicate that cyanide and
fluoride are present in groundwater downgradient of the SWMU No. 3 at significantly higher
concentrations than upgradient. This is consistent with the leaching of spent potliner from the
Old Brick Landfill. Free cyanide and fluoride were detected in downgradient wells even after the
2006 improvements to the cap. Total cyanide in the groundwater was never measured after the
cap improvements. While the groundwater beneath the SWMU No. 3 is not used for drinking
water, it discharges to Badin Lake.
In Alcoa's initial combined Phase 4 and Phase 5 of the Corrective Measures Study, they
recommended "Monitoring with Institutional Controls" which would include annual
groundwater monitoring events for five years as the means of corrective action for the Old Brick
Landfill.84 However, we expect that the estimated 22,000 cubic yards of waste housed in the Old
Brick Landfill will continue to leach contaminants into Badin Lake unless the waste is physically
excavated and sent to a hazardous waste landfill.
It is not clear that the upgrades to the Old Brick Landfill cap have been beneficial enough to
warrant monitoring as the only means of corrective action. Alcoa based the success of the cap
improvement off of three sampling events in 2011 and 2012. Free cyanide was still detected at a
concentration (78 µg/L) exceeding the NC 02L groundwater standard in 2011 in OBL-MW-2.
While free cyanide in OBL-MW-2 was below this standard in the two subsequent sampling
events (55 and 31 µg/L), it is difficult to conclude from these very few events that free cyanide in
the groundwater is consistently below the standard. Additionally, is impossible to know whether
the upgrades to the cap led to a decrease in total cyanide concentrations in the groundwater since
total cyanide was never measured in the 2011-2012 sampling events. Finally, fluoride is present
at consistently elevated concentrations in the water downgradient of SWMU No. 3, albeit at
concentrations below the NC 02L standard, both before and after the 2006 cap improvements.
The history of the site suggests that the landfill cap will degrade with time and should not be
relied upon as a long-term remediation strategy. In 1997, the cap to the Old Brick Landfill had to
undergo a significant repair when a section of the western cap failed and caused a landslide.15
The cap again had to be upgraded in 2006, after a hydrologic study revealed that it was not
preventing infiltration into the landfill.
4. Former Ballfield Area (Area of Concern)
4.1 Site Description
The 14-acre grassy, graded field located east of Alcoa-Badin Works facility, across State
Highway 740 and on the shore of Badin Lake, is referred to as the "Former Ballfield Area"
84 Environeering, Inc., Phase 4- Corrective Measures Alternatives and Phase 5- Justification and Recommendation
of the Selected Corrective Measure Alternative for the Corrective Measures Study (2013) (Prepared for Alcoa, Inc.).
85 Letter from Alcoa to HW S re: Notification of Planned Landfill Cover Repairs (August 25, 1997)
42

because it was used as a baseball field for a large part of the 20' century (Figure 20). Historical
images taken throughout the 20th century indicate that the Former Ballfield Area was
undeveloped until approximately 1938-1950, after which the ballfield was constructed (Figure
21).86 Imagery shows that, in 1999, the grandstands were removed, and the baseball diamond
began to grass over. Two shallow drainage swales run along the outside of the former baseball
diamond and drain to a stormwater catch basin approximately 35 feet from the shore of Badin
Lake. The property also contains the remnants of an abandoned railroad that once curved along
the banks of Badin Lake. The area of the former railroad as well as the banks of Badin Lake
contain a significant amount furnace brick, floor brick, and demolition debris. Today, Badin
residents and visitors largely use the area for general recreation, to access the public boat launch,
and occasionally for shoreline fishing.
Figure 20. Imagery of the Former Ballfield Area. Image captured from Google Earth in June
2019.
" Environeering, Inc., Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area: Badin Business Park Facility, Badin,
North Carolina (August 9, 2018).
43

1950
� ,r-f
993. "
a
0
Figure 21. A subset of the aerial imagery of the Former Ballfield Area from 1950 to 1999.

4.2 Summary of Sampling Record
The Former Ballfield Area was not initially identified as a SWMU or AOC in the RCRA Facility
Assessment conducted in 1990. However, following the 2014 request by the Duke
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic on behalf of the Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.,$' the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("NC DENR" now known as "NC
DEQ") Hazardous Waste Section required Alcoa to conduct sampling in the Former Ballfield
Area to identify the potential presence and releases of buried hazardous waste." The Clinic's
concern about contamination in the Former Ballfield Area arose from their own investigation
conducted in 2012 and 2013. The Clinic found rock fragments comprised heavily of Mullite and
Graphite, minerals that are directly associated with aluminum smelting activities. Additionally,
members of the Badin community indicated that Alcoa had dumped smelting waste offsite
through the 20' century, including in the drainage swales of the former ballfield and potentially
other locations on the property.89 Indeed, in an aerial photograph from 1957, the western
drainage swale appears to have a walking bridge passing over it and connecting the parking lot to
the ballfield, suggesting that the swale was once much deeper than today (Figure 22). Prior to the
Clinic's investigations in 2012 and 2013, the only sampling activities remotely associated with
the Former Ballfield Area were the collection of sediment and surface water samples from Badin
Lake.
= r��
� r
''C 1K I -P : r
Figure 22. Aerial photo taken in 1957 by the highway commission of the Town of Badin, North
Carolina. The red circle outlines what appears to be a walking bridge connecting the parking lot
to the ballfield.
87 Longest, Ryke, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, letter report to Franklin Hill, Superfund Division
Director, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Request for Preliminary Assessment for Areas
Surrounding Alcoa Badin Works Facility in Badin, NC (2014).
88 NC DENR, Sampling of Little Mountain Creek and the Ball Field (2015) (Prepared for Mr. Prezbindowski, Alcoa
Remediation).
89 NC DEQ, Expanded Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessment (EPSA) (2015) (Prepared for Ms. Carolyn Callihan,
RPM, NC Superfund Site Evaluation Section).
45

Beginning in 2015, Alcoa began investigating the potential presence of industrial contamination
in the Former Ballfield Area. In July 2015, Alcoa's consultants along with NC DENR collected
50 surface soil samples in a grid pattern (ABF-SB001-F001 (0.5'-2') through ABF-SB051-F001
(0.5'-2')),90 eight subsurface soil samples, two sediment samples, two surface water samples, and
three groundwater samples from temporary monitoring wells. Samples were analyzed for total
cyanide, free cyanide, fluoride, RCRA metals (including arsenic), mercury, volatile organic
compounds ("VOCs"), semivolatile organic compounds ("SVOCs"), and polychlorinated
biphenyls ("PCBs").
Results from 2015 sampling of the Former Ballfield Area revealed the presence of SVOCs,
VOCs, one PCB Aroclor, arsenic, fluoride, and cyanide in the soil and sediment.
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(123-cd)pyrene exceeded Soil -Exposure Benchmarks and/or EPA Regional Screening
Levels for residential surface soil in four samples. Based on these findings, NC DEQ indicated
that the Former Ballfield Area warranted further investigation to specifically address the
following issues:91
1. SVOC contamination detected in former Ballfield surface soils.
2. SVOC and PCB contamination detected in sediment on former Ballfield property and in
the adjacent Badin Lake.
3. Whether arsenic concentrations in former Ballfield surface soils were elevated or
represented natural background levels (example: additional surface soil sampling in the
town of Badin, outside of the Ballfield property).
4. Allegations that a large ditch formerly crossed the property and was subsequently
backfilled with spent potliner (example: completion of a surface ground -penetrating
RADAR or electromagnetic survey).
Evident disposal of Alcoa -related solid waste material along the Badin Lake shoreline,
and possibly within the adjacent railroad grade. Based on the time frame, pre-K088
regulation, the potential existed for presence of coal -tar pitch and spent potliner at these
locations.
Alcoa aimed to address numbers one, two, and four of the abovementioned issues in 2018, when
they conducted a geophysical survey of the property, collected an additional six soil samples
from the drainage swales (ABF-SB0052-F002 through ABF-SB057-FO02), and collected one
additional sediment sample from Badin Lake.92 The results of the 2018 geophysical survey
indicated the presence the old railroad tracks along the shoreline of Badin Lake, suspected utility
lines, and a submerged object with elevated apparent conductivity in the parking lot located
between the former Ballfield and State Highway 740. This object was estimated to be 50 feet
90 Excludes ABF-SB047-F001 (0.5'-2') as Alcoa believed it to be located on property not owned by Alcoa.
91 Parker, Stuart and Lown, David, NC DEQ, letter report to Carolyn Callihan US EPA, Expanded Pre-CERCLIS
Screening Assessment for the Former Ball Field (September 25, 2015).
9' Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area, supra note 86.
M.

long, 30 feet wide, and six inches deep. No effort was made to excavate and examine this object,
which could be a source of observed SVOC contamination. Results from 2018 soil sampling of
the drainage swales again revealed the presence of SVOCs, metals, fluoride, and cyanide in the
soil. Benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(b)fluoranthene exceeded Soil -Exposure Benchmarks and/or
EPA Regional Screening Levels for residential surface soil in two samples.
4.3 Threat of Ongoing Contamination
When taken together, the surface soil results from the 2015 and 2018 reports indicate that the
highest concentrations of SVOCs, PAHs specifically, are localized along the drainage swales
(Figure 23), and the concentration of the PAHs increases as you move further away from Badin
Lake. While the 2018 geophysical survey does not support the presence of buried materials in the
drainage swales, the geochemical data suggests that the drainage swales of the Former Ballfield
Area have been contaminated by Alcoa's industrial activity.
Total PAHs from 2018 Sampling (uglkg)
AL 0-385
AL 385 - 1185
❑ 1187-2754
AL 2755-5932
AL 5933-12178
Total PAHs from 2015 Sampling (uglkg)
1� 0-385
O 385 - 1185
O 1187-2754
2755 - 5932
5933 -12178
Estimated Total PAHs (ugtkg)
358 — 555
555-1,111
1,111 — 1,832
1,832 — 2,974
2,974 — 4,781
4,781 — 7,544
. 7,544— 12,178
N
0 25 50 Meters
I i I
"Estimated Total PAHs determined byKriging
interpolations based on 2015 and 2018 soil samples"
Figure 23. Total PAHs in soil in the Former Ballfield Area from the 2015 and 2018 sampling
events.
Alcoa and their consultants have suggested that the levels of PAHs observed in the Former
Ballfield Area are within the range of the results of background sampling conducted in the 2001
RCRA Facility Investigation. However, we urge that the specific source of the elevated PAHs in
the Former Ballfield Area should be further investigated to prevent further contamination in the
area and to Badin Lake. Total PAHs (the sum of the US EPA's 16 priority pollutant PAH
compounds) in the drainage swales of the Former Ballfield (up to 12,000 µg/kg) are at similar
47

levels to those found in soils collected from large cities such as New York, Phoenix or Beijing,
rather than rural towns.93 While these levels are found in highly urbanized environments with
populations over a million people, such levels in a small, rural town like Badin likely reflect an
industrial source. Additionally, the methodology for background sample collection from the
2001 RCRA Facility Investigation Report is seriously flawed and likely is not representative of
soil unaffected by Alcoa's industrial operations. Background samples were collected in very
close proximity, and at times down gradient, of known contaminated sites including the northern
end of Alcoa-Badin Works. Additionally, two background samples near the Old Brick Landfill
were designated as background samples only after analysis according to the 2001 RCRA Facility
Investigation Report, which states:
Samples S3-HA-03 and S3-HA-06 were collected to assess if releases had occurred
along each side of the landfill. These data were considered to be potentially useful
for background purposes in addition to delineation and as a result were analyzed
for both landfill COIs and background parameters VOCs, SVOCs (including
PAHs), total metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and
mercury), total cyanide, weak acid dissociable cyanide, and fluoride. Based on the
similarities in constituent concentrations and the location in the field, the sample
results for S3-HA-03 and S3-HA-06 were incorporated into the background data
se t. 94
As part of investigating the source of the PAHs in the Former Ballfield Area, we suggest that
Alcoa sample deep soil borings specifically from the drain swale areas to investigate the physical
presence of spent potliner and its associated contaminants (PAHs, metals, fluoride, cyanide).
Additionally, the 2018 geophysical survey indicates the presence of an unidentified, buried
object located underneath the gravel parking lot and in the vicinity of the soil samples with the
highest PAH levels, which has yet to be investigated. We recommend that Alcoa excavate the
buried object to determine whether it is buried industrial waste.
5. Spent Potliner Disposal at Other Sites
In its first RCRA Part A permit application dated November 1980, Alcoa estimated that it
generated 4,800 tons of spent potliner for approximately 60 years (1917 to mid-1970s). We
estimate that, over this time period, Alcoa generated and disposed 288,000 tons of spent potliner
that would have been subsequently disposed of prior to RCRA regulations. Assuming that spent
potliner has a density95 of 2 g/cm3, this amounts to a volume of 131,000 cubic meters of spent
potliner (or 170,000 cubic yards).
Alcoa indicates that 22,000 of the estimated 170,000 cubic yards of spent potliner are currently
stored in the Old Brick Landfill. Accordingly, it is likely that the majority of the remaining
93 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); Morillo et al., Soil pollution by PAHs in
urban soils: a comparison of three European cities, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 9, 1001-1008 (2007).
94 2001 RFI, supra note 22 at Pg. 116.
9s Vemdrame Flores et al., Evaluations of spent pot lining (SPL) as an alternative carbonaceous material in
ironmaking processes, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 8, 33-40 (2019).
M

148,000 cubic yards of spent potliner waste are stored in the Alcoa-Badin Landfill and the On -
Site Landfill, but an unknown amount has also been disposed in various other areas around the
town of Badin. In 2014, the US EPA identified eight additional areas where spent potliner was
alleged to have been disposed of based on interviews with former Alcoa employees as well as
field reconnaissance (Table 8).96
Table 8. Additional sites in Badin, NC can potentially contain Alcoa's buried spent potliner.
Stop:
Address:
Alleged Disposal
1
Yadkin Brick Road,
Pot liner buried in former clay mining pits (burial
New London, NC
depth: 10-15 feet) across Yadkin Brick Road from
former Yadkin Brick Plant.
` 3
Wood Street, Badin, NC
Alcoa Badin Landfill (S)VW #2).
4
Jackson, Sherman and Lincoln
Pot liner buried for several years on. property
Streets, Badin, NC
currently forested and owned by Alcoa. *
5
34474 Kirk Ave, Albemarle, NC
Pot liner disposed on property .parcel by former
property owner (local waste hauler; deceased).
Pro e is now residential.
6
Jackson Street, Badin, NC
Pot liner disposed at former wastewater treatment
plant pTpeq, owned by Alcoa.
8
Falls Road, East of Badin, NC
Road -side disposal of pot liner.
9
End of Ash Street, Badin, NC
Pot liner disposed within 1000 feet of road on Alcoa
ra ert .
11
"Ball Field",. Hwy 740 at Badin
Pot liner disposed on Alcoa property subsequently
Lake, Badin NC
used as a Baseball Field. Property is currently used
as open sace and as a boat launch to the lake.
`Also described by citizens during EPA interviews.
Due to the immense volume of spent potliner disposed of in the North End SWMU Area
(including SWMU No. 1, the On -site Landfill and SWMU No. 44, Pine Tree Grove Area),
SWMU No. 2, and SWMU No. 3, we first and foremost recommend the excavation and removal
of the spent potliner from these sites. However, we consider this recommendation rather lenient,
given the number of sites in and around Badin where untreated, spent potliner is potentially
buried.
Conclusions
In our review of thirty years of sampling data from the former Alcoa-Badin Works aluminum
smelting facility in Badin, NC, we found that contaminants associated with spent potliner are
leaching into the groundwater from the three SWMUs: North End SWMU Area (including
SWMU No. 1, the On -site Landfill), SWMU No. 2 (Alcoa-Badin Landfill), and SWMU No. 3
(Old Brick Landfill). We also found that further investigation at the Former Ballfield Area is
warranted. A brief summary of our most pertinent findings for each of these sites are described
below.
96 US EPA, Hazardous Waste Section, Expanded Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessment for SPL Disposal
Area I and SPL Disposal Area 2 (2015).
M

North End SWMU Area, including SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill): North End of Plant
• The majority of fill material contains buried spent potliner, with upwards of 15 feet
buried within SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill). Due to its mixture of gravel, silt, and
sandy silt, fill material is well drained and is not underlaid by a subsurface liner. These
conditions enable contaminants to leach from buried spent potliner into groundwater.
• Beneath the cap area at SWMU No. 1 (On -site Landfill), fill material has remained
saturated over time. A dry well in 2001, bored into buried spent potliner, was one of the
most contaminated wells in 2012. Because mowing has not been maintained, roots from
plants will allow infiltration into fill material.
• An electromagnetic survey found three distinct areas of elevated conductivity in the fill
material in SWMU No. 44 (Pine Tree Grove Area), an area described as "a landfill with a
tree cover." Chemical signatures of spent potliner have been found beneath the water
table. NPDES Outfall 11, which discharges to Badin Lake within 50 feet of the Badin
Lake Public Swimming and Access area, is immediately downgradient of the zone of
highest conductivity.
Wells sampled for both the 2001 RCRA Facility Investigation report and the 2012
Corrective Measures Study show no decrease in cyanide or fluoride concentrations in
groundwater. In 2012, weak acid dissociable cyanide was present in five wells above the
NC 02L Standard of 70 µg/L, and fluoride was detected in 14 wells above the NC 02L
Standard of 2 mg/L. Half of the 18 wells contaminated in 2001, located throughout the
North End SWMU Area, were not resampled in 2012.
SWMU No. 2: Alcoa-Badin Landfill
An electromagnetic survey found material with elevated conductivity beyond the fence of
the Alcoa-Badin Landfill, suggesting plumes of contaminants from waste materials have
mobilized over time, or that Alcoa dumped waste material around the landfill.
Cyanide and fluoride have historically been detected in excess of NC 02L and NC 02B
standards in the seeps, groundwater, and stream water at the site. Cyanide and fluoride
concentrations have remained elevated despite interim cap measures and the installation
of a collection trench in the 1990s.
SWMU No. 3: Old Brick Landfill
Elevated concentrations of cyanide (total and free) and fluoride were routinely detected in
the groundwater downgradient of the disposal site throughout the 1990s. Concentrations
of cyanide and fluoride in the groundwater upgradient of the landfill were almost never
detected.
After Alcoa made improvements to the landfill in 2006, Alcoa monitored groundwater
for fluoride and available cyanide on three occasions. Fluoride was detected after 2006 at
similar concentrations to those measured before the cap improvement. It is impossible to
know if the cap reduced total and free cyanide concentrations in the groundwater because
Alcoa did not monitor for total or free cyanide. Available cyanide was detected in one
instance above the NCAC 02L standard for cyanide.
The Former Ballfield Area
50

Soils in the Former Ballfield Area have elevated concentrations of several PAHs, with the
highest concentrations localized to the drainage swales. The drainage swales are where
former Alcoa employees indicated that Alcoa buried hazardous waste. Elevated
concentrations of PAHs in the soil are also in the vicinity of an unidentified buried object
that has yet to be investigated.
While Alcoa's consultants concluded that PAH concentrations were similar to
background concentrations, the methodology by which background samples were
collected is seriously flawed. Background samples collected for the 2001 RCRA Facility
Investigation Report were collected in the vicinity of and downgradient from known
contaminated sites.
The sampling data makes it clear that interim measures employed at the site, namely landfill caps
and diversion trenches, are not adequate to prevent the escape of contaminants into the
environment. We recommend that Alcoa excavate and remove the hazardous waste and
contaminated soils from the three largest SWMU areas (North End SWMU Area, SWMU No. 2:
Alcoa-Badin Landfill, SWMU No. 3: Old Brick Landfill) and dispose of them in a hazardous
waste landfill. At the Former Ballfield Area, we recommend that the source of the PAHs is
further investigated, starting with the excavation of the unidentified object located under the
parking lot and the sampling of deeper soils in the drainage swales. Source removal would be the
most effective and permanent means of remediation and would ensure that there is no longer a
source actively leaching contaminants into the environment and Badin's water resources. We
recommend that rigorous groundwater monitoring is still conducted upgradient and
downgradient from the sites following source removal of the spent potliner, but we expect that
the duration of this monitoring could be shorter than if Alcoa's only remediation strategy was
monitoring with institutional controls.
51

Duke
N I V E R S I T Y
December 12, 2019
Bud McCarty
N.C. Division of Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW and POLICY CLINIC
The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic submits this letter on behalf of Yadkin
Riverkeeper, Inc., regarding the Department of Environmental Quality's November 19th public
meeting on closure and corrective action measures for hazardous sites at Alcoa-Badin Works.
DEQ should require Alcoa to excavate and remove the hazardous waste and contaminated soils
from the On -Site Landfill, Alcoa-Badin Landfill, and Old Brick Landfill to protect public health
and the environment. The Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic has submitted multiple
rounds of comments to DEQ pertaining to various permits, reports and proposals that DEQ
proposed in response to requests by Badin Business Park and various other wholly -owned
subsidiaries of Alcoa, Inc. By continually changing subsidiary relationships, changing
consultants, changing sampling approaches, and changing its site plans, Alcoa has managed to
successfully delay the hazardous waste Corrective Action process for three decades.
During the time since Badin's hazardous waste dumps were covered with dirt by Alcoa,
tons of hazardous waste have been allowed to leach and discharge into the environment. Active
remediation of groundwater and contaminated soils at Alcoa-Badin Works are long overdue. The
first step to any such remediation must be hazardous waste source removal. The three large
SMWU dump locations at the Alcoa-Badin Works were never designed to contain hazardous
waste. Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to correct the
precise problems that Alcoa's dumping of hazardous waste in Badin created.'
To address the concerns explained above and in previous comments to DEQ, 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. Alcoa should then be required to actually
excavate and remove its hazardous waste that is currently covered. Alcoa should also be required
to remediate contaminated groundwater and perform well monitoring quarterly at key sample
locations. Finally, Alcoa must conduct an ecological risk assessment to study the effects of
' In 1984, when enacting the Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA which explicitly addressed
contamination from existing hazardous waste dumps, Congress found that "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).

decades' worth of hazardous waste contamination on local ecosystems and environmental
health.2
I. Alcoa's contamination puts Badin's human and environmental health at risk.
For over 70 years, Alcoa disposed hazardous waste, including spent potliner, in at least
three unlined solid waste management units (SWMUs) throughout the Badin community. The
EPA listed spent potliner (SPL) as a hazardous waste in 1988 because of its high concentrations
of cyanide and fluoride. These dumps were not built to the minimum technological standards
now required by North Carolina and were constructed without liners or leachate collection
systems. The absence of any liner or subsurface barriers means hazardous wastes have leached
into groundwater and discharged into surrounding surface waters, contaminating soil,
groundwater, and surface water for years.
These SWMUs also fail to comply with current siting requirements for hazardous waste
sites meaning they are both unlined and placed with no regard to the water table, surface waters,
drinking water supplies, wetlands, or other vulnerable ecosystems in their proximity.3 They are
constructed in low-lying areas susceptible to leaching and discharge. The On -Site Landfill, a
former natural ravine draining into Badin Lake that Alcoa filled with hazardous waste, is located
near the shores of Badin Lake, level with the lake's water table. Downslope of the On -Site
Landfill, spent potliner was detected below the lake's water table in another SWMU (Pine Tree
Grove Area), deemed "essentially a landfill area with tree cover" in Alcoa's 2001 facility
investigation. The Alcoa-Badin Landfill poses similar dangers to groundwater and surface
waters, because its fill material drains into Little Mountain Creek's floodplain. Despite Alcoa
installing a collection trench at its base, seepage from the Alcoa-Badin Landfill is still generating
contaminant plumes that flow directly into Little Mountain Creek from adjacent wetlands. Three
decades worth of interim measures and stopgap approaches have not stopped the contamination
of groundwater with hazardous waste, a form of ongoing disposal by neglect. Source removal is
necessary to ensure that hazardous waste does not continue escaping into the environment
indefinitely.
As shown by Alcoa's most recent non-compliance with its stormwater permits, the
contamination from the dumps is uncontrolled and ongoing. Two of the outfalls from the Alcoa-
Badin Landfill and the On -site Landfill, Outfall 013 and Outfall 005 respectively, have both
repeatedly exceeded acceptable limits for cyanide. Outfall 005 also repeatedly exceeded the
limits for fluoride and chlorine [see Map 1, below]. Removing the source of the contamination
by excavating the dumps would eliminate the threat of future discharges and leakage —it is the
best method available to protect public health and the environment. Leaching cyanide is a public
health and environmental concern. Chronic exposure to cyanide can result in neurological effects
like confusion, hallucination, headaches, weakness, and dizziness, as well as decreased body
2 The Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic has previously submitted comments on the need for an ecological
risk assessment. See Comments from the Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic to Robert C. McDaniel, RE:
Comments on Alcoa's Proposed Investigative Work Plan for Phase 4 & 5 Corrective Measures Study (June 29,
2017), https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/edoc/705422/NCD003162542_Alcoa_Corrective%20Action_
20170629.pdVdbid=O&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=b869f268-19cd-43e9-9fca-dce07291 f6b9.
3 See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 130A-294(h).
W

PUMA NCOODU 7e
- riaLnFe ,
s•
R"Y
•'�
Gt}yl 076 1 /
'
-
J
•Oufiall616 i
- -
' ��ti oUffaM WA0WAM
an
- . i 'L Dulfa6 005 �Gs j+
�1
.'w'ww•• Fps .
• - �i ' +c rf i
.! � l•. .� � "r,I __ '
,~
yil�
!'r r
� FM*IDS
Alcoa, Inc_ Baffin works — $caney County Location Nap
fte x+ v %� fson +Fm rrnaw• ww1.w Ur a ume Fwam cram
sul w d %A3*M rr>H CF s e.n W$ fx r
1 ■
PA" 0"n yaftohm De.*
U50 QUO f: F 1r(, F UAW bs S Mix tv*m W. Ncoo"308
paar 26 of 26
Map 1: EPA outfall map from 2016 Superfund Site Inspection Report
weight, altered thyroid levels, nausea, and chest pain. Chronic ingestion of fluoride can result in
increased bone fractures, thickened bones, and skeletal deformities. Heavy metals, such as
cadmium, arsenic, and lead that are also present in the landfills, have been linked with several
cancers and other diseases related to oxidative DNA damage.
Though declared closed, these dumps are not clean. At the On -Site Landfill (SWMU No.
1), soil samples from boring holes containing spent potliner have fluoride levels up to 3900
mg/kg and cyanide levels up to 560 mg/kg. Spent potliner has also been leaching into the
groundwater around the SWMUs. Groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells at the
Alcoa-Badin Landfill have repeatedly exceeded the 70 ug/L limit for free cyanide and nearly
exceeded the 2 mg/L limit for fluoride. The monitoring well down gradient of the landfill and
adjacent to Little Mountain Creek reached as high as 310 ug/L of free cyanide and 1.2 mg/L of
fluoride in the mid- I990s. In 2012, the most recent groundwater data indicated there was still

contamination at this monitoring well. Measured seeps from Alcoa-Badin Landfill have
historically been high in cyanide and fluoride, with upwards of 983 ug/L cyanide and 29 mg/L in
adjacent surface waters. Geophysical surveys conducted in 2018 still indicated elevated
conductivity at the base of the landfill, spilling over the most recently constructed collection
trench and into the Little Mountain Creek floodplain.
Elevation Map of SWMU Areas
SWMU No. 1: On -site Landfill, in North End SWMU Area 0 SWMU Areas n outfalls
® North End Fill Area — Little Mountain Creek
SWMU No. 2: Alcoa-Badin Landfill
O Monitoring wells . Elevation: 740 meters
SWMU No. 3: old Brick Landfill El SWMU No. 2 Seep Locations Elevation: 330 meters
❑ Background soil samples
The RCRA Corrective Action process began in 1989, but Alcoa has yet to complete
Phases 4 and 5 of the process. Removing the source of the hazardous contamination is the best,
first step to completing the remedial activities and moving the sites towards clean closure.4
Meanwhile, the dumps are still leaking hazardous substances into the soil and surrounding waters
from hazardous waste dumped by Alcoa more than three decades ago. Timely cleanup of Alcoa's
SWMUs is well overdue. Leaving hazardous waste in unlined dumps benefits the dumper at the
expense of the Badin community and the environment. Now, DEQ is presented with an
opportunity to take decisive action and remedy Alcoa's decades long history of hazardous waste
dumping through excavation and removal of hazardous waste in Alcoa's SWMUs.
4 Clean closure is the approach to facility closure that requires the removal of all wastes from the SWMU and
decontamination.
E

II. DEQ has the authority to require excavation and removal and should exercise it to
minimize any future risk to Badin's human and environmental health.
The North Carolina General Statutes mandate that DEQ "provide for the protection of the
environment and public health through the regulation of solid waste and hazardous waste
management and the administration of environmental health programs."5 DEQ implements this
mandate through its Division of Waste Management, created in Chapter 130A of the General
Statutes. Chapter 130A echoes Chapter 143B's language, reiterating that DWM must promote
and preserve the environment to ensure that it is conducive to public health and welfare, to
prevent the creation of nuisances, and to avoid the depletion of the State's natural resources.6
DEQ has a responsibility to the people of Badin to protect their health and the environment.
As part of that responsibility, DEQ can require excavation and removal under its
Corrective Action authority. North Carolina's statutes grant DEQ the authority to require
corrective action measures "for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid
waste management unit at a treatment, storage, or disposal facility seeking a permit under G.S.
130A-294(c), regardless of the time at which waste was placed in such unit."7 Therefore,
corrective measures can be implemented regardless of when Alcoa dumped its hazardous waste
in the SWMUs. North Carolina's hazardous waste statutes also enable DEQ to require corrective
measures outside the boundaries of Alcoa-Badin Works, where DEQ decides such action is
"necessary to protect human health or the environment."8 Under this authority, DEQ could issue
a corrective action permit requiring excavation and removal of hazardous waste at Alcoa's
SWMUs in order "to protect human health and the environment" from the threats of leaching
cyanide and other contaminants.9
Final Corrective Action remedies should be both protective of human health and the
environment and maintain protection over time.10 North Carolina specifically requires remedies
for other landfills to:
(A) be protective of human health and the environment; (B) attain the approved
ground -water protection standards; (C) control the source(s) of releases so as to
reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, further releases of
constituents into the environment that may pose a threat to human health or the
environment .... 11
Alcoa must be required by DEQ to meet these same standards. The excavation and
removal of the existing hazardous wastes protects human health and the environment by
eliminating the source of contamination. Source removal also prevents further leakage and
5 N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14313-279.2
6Id. § 130A-291(a).
Id. § 130A-308(a) (emphasis added).
8Id. § 130A-309.
9Id. § 130A-309.
10 Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities,
61 Fed. Reg. 19432 (May 1, 1996).
11 15A N.C. ADmiN. CODE 13B.0545(d)(2).
5

contamination of groundwater. This method eliminates future releases in a way that is both
technologically and economically feasible. In fact, Alcoa has already removed several tons of
contaminated soil from another SWMU on the Alcoa-Badin Works property. Excavation and
removal ensures that Badin's health and environment will no longer be subject to Alcoa's delays
and evasive actions; the town's health and environment will be permanently protected.
III. EPA could require excavation and removal to abate imminent hazards.
If DEQ chooses a less rigorous remediation method or decides to endorse closing the
SWMUs with the hazardous waste left in place, then excavation and removal is potentially
enforceable under the "imminent hazard" provisions of RCRA by citizen suit or by EPA. Under
Section 7003 of RCRA, the EPA could require Alcoa to remediate the contaminated Alcoa-
Badin Works SWMUs if they "may present imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
the environment" in the Badin community.12 RCRA also allows citizens to bring suits against
any person under the same requirements as Section 7003.13 The three basic requirements of both
a Section 7003 and a citizen suit imminent hazard case are that:
(1) conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
the environment; (2) the potential endangerment stems from the past or present
handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous
waste; and (3) the person has contributed or is contributing to such handling,
storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal ... 14
Once these conditions are demonstrated, the Administrator of the EPA or any person can
bring suit against past or present owners or operators in the appropriate district court "to restrain
such person from such handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal, to order such
person to take such other action as may be necessary, or both."15 This broad authority "includes
both short- and long-term injunctive relief, ranging from construction of dikes to the adoption of
certain treatment technologies, upgrading of disposal facilities, and removal and incineration."16
The SWMUs in and around Alcoa-Badin Works likely meet the three requirements of
Section 7003 triggering the citizen suit enforcement provisions because: (1) the leaching and
discharge of contaminants from the SWMUs may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the Badin community's health or the surrounding environment, including Badin
Lake and Little Mountain Creek; (2) the potential endangerment stems from the disposal of
hazardous wastes, such as spent potliner, in the SWMUs; and (3) Alcoa, now Badin Business
Park, contributed or is contributing to that disposal. The EPA has issued guidance on the use of
12 42 U.S.C. § 6973(a).
13 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
14 EPA, GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF SECTION 7003 OF RCRA 9 (Oct. 1997); 42 U.S.C. § 6973(a); 42 U.S.C. §
6972(a)(1)(B).
15 42 U.S.C. § 6973(a) (emphasis added); 42 U.S.C. §6972(a)(2).
16 H.R. Comm. Print No. 96-IFC 31, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (1979); see also United States v. Waste Indus., Inc.,
734 F.2d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 1984).
on

Section 7003 and provided a list of ten factors to consider when determining whether a site
presents an imminent hazard 1 of the ten provided, Alcoa's SWMUs fulfill seven.
Regardless of a RCRA 7003 or citizen suit action, the SWMUs clearly fulfill many of the
factors characteristic of imminent hazards, such as high levels of contaminants in various media,
the existence of a connection between the hazardous waste and air, soil, groundwater, or surface
water, and a history of releases at the facility or site. DEQ should consider the implications of these
factors when considering remediation measures. Excavation and removal is the best method to
address the imminent hazard factors present at the SWMUs and to protect public health and the
environment now and into the future.
North Carolina's General Assembly enacted changes to the hazardous waste programs of
the State of North Carolina that are more stringent than the minimum standards under RCRA and
its implementing regulations. NC DEQ has enacted rules to implement these standards for
hazardous waste disposal facilities. None of Alcoa's SMWUs meet these standards and they
continue to discharge hazardous waste to groundwater and surface water. Interim corrective
measures have not corrected this ongoing disposal activity. The sources of these hazardous waste
disposal activities must be excavated and treated in accordance with the requirements of North
Carolina's rules for hazardous waste sites.
We thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns in detail and thank you for your
service on behalf of the people of North Carolina.
Very Truly Yours,
/s/
Ryke Longest, Co -Director
Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic
17 The ten factors are: (1) the levels of contaminants in various media; (2) the existence of a connection between the
solid or hazardous waste and air, soil, groundwater, or surface water; (3) the pathway(s) of exposure from the solid
or hazardous waste to the receptor population; (4) the sensitivity of the receptor population; (5) bioaccumulation in
living organisms; (6) visual signs of stress on vegetation; (7) evidence of wildlife mortalities, injuries, or disease; (8)
a history of releases at the facility or site; (9) staining of the ground; and (10) "missing" (i.e., unaccounted for) solid
or hazardous waste.
7