AGENDA #10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up Report on University Waste Sites at the Horace Williams Property
DATE: August 26, 2002
This report responds to Council directions for follow-up on the July 26, 2002 report about two inactive waste sites on the University’s Horace Williams property.
BACKGROUND
At the July 26 Council meeting, the Council received and discussed information regarding two inactive waste sites on the Horace Williams property. The Council requested this information in response to a June 24 petition from Mr. Bob Epting, Ms. Julie McClintock, and Mr. Dan Coleman regarding the University’s deferred clean-up of the sites.
The two sites are more formally known as the UNC Old Sanitary Landfill (Landfill Site) and the UNC Airport Waste Disposal Site (Chemical Site). Neither site appears on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund priority list, and neither has been designated as a priority for clean-up by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
The Town operated a sanitary landfill on 35 acres generally north of the airport runway until 1973, when it was closed and the Orange County Regional Landfill was opened on Eubanks Road. The site was used for Chapel Hill and Carrboro garbage disposal, as well as disposal of University solid waste and chemicals from the University’s science labs and hospital from 1967-72. In 1973, the University received State approval to create a separate waste chemical burial site. From 1973-79, the University buried about 20,000 cubic feet of waste chemicals in a 0.28-acre site next to the landfill site.
A draft Remedial Investigation Report for the landfill site was prepared by RUST Environment and Infrastructure in 1997. According to the University, this is the most recent report available on the landfill site. The RUST report is indexed in the summary of information in Attachment 1 and is available for review on the Town’s web site (www.townofchapelhill.org). The full report and other University materials can also be purchased on compact disk from the Town Clerk’s Office. The report is also available in printed form in the Council Reading Room of Town Hall.
The University has provided the Town with a remedial investigation report and an action plan for the Chemical Site, as produced by the firm of Geraghty & Miller in 1996-97. These reports were provided in the July 26 agenda packet and can be viewed on the Town’s web site in the July 26 meeting file. The University states that these are the most recent reports available on the chemical site. The July 26 memorandum to the Council, including the citizen petition, is provided as Attachment 2. We have also provided a map, produced by Geraghty & Miller, which lists the two sites (Attachment 3).
According to the Geraghty reports, approximately 0.2 acres of the tract were used from 1973-78 to dispose of chemical waste in 16 separate burials. An adjacent 0.289-acre expansion was proposed and approved by the State for use when the area was full; two (2) burials were made in 1979. In 1980, on recommendation from NCDENR, the University covered the site with clay, graded it to minimize water infiltration, and installed three monitoring wells. In 1984, sampling results from one of the monitoring wells at the chemical site showed the presence of groundwater contamination, including benzene, chloroform, and methylene chloride.
In 1996, as stated in a July 24 letter from Ms. Charlotte Jesneck, Head of the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch of NCDENR, the University pursued voluntary remedial actions at the chemical site (Attachment 4). However, the University did not have sufficient funds to enter into a remediation agreement. Funding must be obtained by the University prior to beginning voluntary clean-up efforts.
DISCUSSION
Provide a broad outline of the materials provided by the University.
We have inventoried the materials, totaling more than 5,100 pages, which we have placed in 11 spiral binders in the Council Reading Room. The outline of reports provided by the University is included as Attachment 1.
Identify the other three (3) University toxic waste sites mentioned in the NCDENR letter.
The July 24 letter from Ms. Jesneck (NCDENR) lists five University sites that are on the State’s hazardous site inventory. Two of those sites are the Landfill Site and the Chemical Site. The other three are summarized below:
· The Hazardous Materials Facility, 488 Estes Drive, is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Waste Management’s Hazardous Waste Section. According to Linda Culpepper with NCDENR’s Division of Waste Management, the site – a State-permitted storage facility located off Estes Drive Extension – constitutes a small portion of the tract of land and includes the University’s Scientific and General Storerooms and Physical Plant shops (Attachment 5). The majority of hazardous wastes to be processed at the facility are generated off-site. Wastes are stored at the facility and then hauled to an off-site location within two years. Like the Horace Williams sites, this site has been archived in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Archive database (Attachment 6). EPA Archived information is viewable at www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/arcsites/index.htm, which contains information on hazardous waste sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of Superfund sites. Archive status indicates that, to the best of the EPA’s knowledge, Superfund has completed its assessment of a site and has determined that no further steps will be taken to list that site on the National Priorities List.
· The Finley Golf Course Road Site, also referred to as the Mason Farm Site Low-Level Radioactive Waste Site, is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Water Quality’s Groundwater Section. According to Mr. Rick Bolich, a hydrogeologist with NCDENR’s Division of Water Quality, the University has removed the radioactive source material from the site, although there is some groundwater contamination to remove. The University will use extraction wells to remove these materials. Mr. Bolick says that many of the contaminants will degrade rapidly over time.
· The Venable Hall Site has been assigned “no further action” status and has no issues remaining, according to Ms. Jesneck. Like the Horace Williams sites, this site has also been archived in the EPA database, and no further remedial action is planned (Attachment 7).
Provide information about how the public can remain involved in mitigation efforts.
NCDENR has public participation steps in place for those who are interested in finding out how to assist with a site clean-up. Interested parties can contact NCDENR and be placed on a mailing list for notification of remediation efforts.
NCDENR staff provides access to its files at the NCDENR headquarters, 401 Oberlin Road in Raleigh. NCDENR staff request that appointments be scheduled by calling (919) 733-2801 ext. 328.
Officials with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are preparing further information about citizen involvement. We have not yet received this information, but will distribute it to the Council upon receipt.
A mitigation plan and timetable from the University
The July 19 letter from Chancellor Moeser cites the Remedial Action Plan from 1996. The letter does not specify a particular timetable (Attachment 8). The letter states that the University plans to remediate the Horace Williams sites in conjunction with the planning for development of Carolina North. We understand that a timetable is also dependent on securing funding for clean-up.
NCDENR’s Ms. Jesneck reports that the sites are not a top State priority because there are many other sites across the State that are considered to be more contaminated, and for which there are no financial resources to remediate. Therefore, according to Ms. Jesneck, the State has not required remediation action from the University at this time.
Determine to what extent new development at or near the two sites would affect the sites’ future placement on the Superfund list.
According to John Bornholm of the EPA’s Superfund Section, any new information that the EPA receives about the sites could trigger a reassessment. However, he noted that there would have to be a significant change to create a direct exposure at the sites in order for the EPA to place the sites on the Superfund Priority List. Direct new exposures would not necessarily occur with development around the property. We have requested this information and writing and will distribute it to the Council upon receipt.
If new information triggers a reassessment of the sites, NCDENR is the agency that would conduct the investigation. The EPA has an agreement with NCDENR to reassess the sites before they could be placed on the Superfund list.
Determine if there is Brownfields legislation that will provide funding for the mitigation of the Chemical Site.
A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Brownfield is a facility that is not in full use, where there is redevelopment potential, and where re-use or redevelopment of that site is slowed due to real or perceived concerns about actual or potential contamination. The initiative was established by the EPA to encourage the reuse of potential Brownfields so that the land better serves the needs of the community either through more productive commercial or residential development or as a greenspace (Attachment 9).
We have not been able to determine whether or not the Chemical Site would qualify for Brownfields funding assistance, and we have not been able to determine if the University has considered this funding option. There is an application process, available at the EPA’s web site (www.epa.gov). We understand that the web site criteria will not be updated until September.
Public Works Underground Fuel Storage Tanks
With this report, we have also provided information about the replacement of Underground Fuel Storage (UFS) Tanks at the Town’s Public Works facility (Attachment 10).
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
We will continue to provide information to the Council about the waste sites as we receive it. Specifically, we will:
We welcome any further direction from the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Landfill Site
Book 1
Chemical Site
Book 1
· June 20, 1995 Letter and Analyses from IEA, Inc., to Geraghty & Miller (146 pages). These are the results of water samples from the Chemical Site submitted to Industrial and Environmental Analysts (IEA) in June 1995.
Book 2
Book 3
Book 4
Book 5
Book 6
Book 7
Book 8
Book 9
Book 10
· IEA, Inc., Data Summary Package, December 15, 1997 (Received December 19, 1997) (72 pages). This is data provided by American Environmental Network (AEN) from December 1997).
Book 11
AGENDA #3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up on Request regarding Toxic Waste Disposal on Horace Williams Property
DATE: July 26, 2002
At the June 24 Council meeting, the Town Council received and referred the attached petition from Mr. Bob Epting, Ms. Julie McClintock, and Mr. Dan Coleman regarding the University’s deferred clean-up of a toxic waste site and burial sites on the northern portion of the Horace Williams Tract (Attachment 1). This memorandum provides information that we have obtained since the Council meeting.
BACKGROUND
The June 24 petition quoted a University announcement of intent to shift current development plans for the tract so as to begin development along areas adjacent to Estes Drive, instead of beginning development in the northern portion of the property. The petitioners raised concerns about groundwater contamination from the toxic wastes on the property.
The Council requested that the Manager obtain certain information from the University (Attachment 2). Mayor Foy wrote to Chancellor Moeser on June 28, requesting:
The Council also authorized us to communicate with officials from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) to determine what State efforts have been made and are being made to meet the State’s duties of oversight of this clean-up. Additionally, the Council requested that we communicate with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clarify State and federal responsibilities regarding clean-up of the site and to determine how citizens may become involved and assist in seeing that this site is cleaned up now in accordance with law.
DISCUSSION
Chancellor Moeser wrote to Mayor Foy on July 19 (Attachment 3), stating that the two sites on the Horace Williams Tract are considered “Inactive Sites” by the State and are formally known as the UNC Airport Waste Disposal Site (chemical site) and the UNC Old Sanitary Landfill (landfill site). Chancellor Moeser stated that neither site contains a toxic waste pond, and that neither site appears on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund list.
According to information provided by the University in November 1995, the Town operated a sanitary landfill on 35 acres generally north of the airport runway until 1973, when it was closed and the Orange County Regional Landfill was opened (Attachment 4). The site was used for Chapel Hill and Carrboro garbage disposal, as well as disposal of University waste solids and chemicals from the University’s science labs and hospital from 1967-72. In 1973, the University received State approval to create a separate waste chemical burial site. From 1973-79, the University buried about 20,000 cubic feet of waste chemicals in a 0.28-acre site next to the landfill site.
Chancellor Moeser’s letter states that a draft Remedial Investigation Report for the landfill site was prepared by RUST Environment and Infrastructure in 1997. According to the Chancellor’s letter, this is the most recent report available on the landfill site. The University provided this material to the Town Manager’s Office on the afternoon of Friday, July 19. Due to the large amount of paper required for the report, we have not recopied the information for this Council packet. However, we will make this information available for review upon request and have placed it in binders in the Council Reading Room at Town Hall.
The Chancellor’s letter cited reports prepared for the chemical site and provided to the Town, most recently in April 2002. The Remedial Investigation Report: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Airport Road Waste Disposal Area, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Volume I, dated November 20, 1996, and the Remedial Action Plan: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Airport Road Waste Disposal Area, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Volume II, dated February 1997, are included as Attachments 5 & 6. The reports were prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., which investigated groundwater conditions at the University’s Airport Road Waste Disposal Area. The Chancellor’s letter states that these are the most recent reports available on the chemical site.
According to the Geraghty reports, approximately 0.2 acres of the tract were used from 1973-78 to dispose of chemical waste in 16 separate burials. An adjacent 0.289-acre expansion was proposed and approved by the State for use when the area was full; two (2) burials were made in 1979. In 1980, on recommendation from NCDENR, the University covered the site with clay, graded it to minimize water infiltration, and installed three monitoring wells. In 1984, sampling results from one of the monitoring wells at the chemical site showed the presence of groundwater contamination, including benzene, chloroform, and methylene chloride (Attachment 6).
An April 8, 1996 letter from the University to NCDENR outlined the University’s project schedule and progress up to that point (Attachment 7). The letter expressed the University’s desire to pursue voluntary remedial actions at the chemical site. An October 31, 1997 letter indicated that the University did not have sufficient funds to enter into a remediation agreement (Attachment 8). NCDENR has advised the University that the necessary remediation funds must be obtained by the University prior to clean-up efforts (Attachment 9). NCDENR staff or NCDENR-approved consultants must still provide oversight of voluntary remedial actions (Attachment 10).
Oversight of the sites shifted to the State’s Inactive Hazardous Waste Program at NCDENR after the sites were not designated as part of the EPA’s Superfund, which is described below. We have written to the NCDENR offices to request more information about the sites. Ms. Charlotte Jesneck, Head of the Inactive Hazardous Site Branch, responded orally to our inquiry. Ms. Jesneck said that the sites were not a top State priority because there are many other sites across the State that are considered to be more contaminated, and for which there are no financial resources to remediate. Ms. Jesneck said that there are restrictive covenants on the sites to reduce exposure. According to Mr. Peter Reinhardt, Director of the University’s Office of Environment, Health, and Safety, NCDENR has not pressured the University to clean up the sites. When the University finds the funding to remediate the sites, the University will voluntarily proceed. We anticipate further information about how Town citizens can be actively involved in the remediation process.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites nationwide. According to the EPA web site, (www.epa.gov), Superfund Sites are listed on the National Priorities List, which is the EPA's list of the most hazardous waste sites. The Horace Williams property is not listed as a Superfund Site. However, both the landfill and chemical sites were reported, archived in the EPA’s records, and given EPA Identification Numbers. The EPA Archive database, viewable at www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/arcsites/index.htm, contains information on hazardous waste sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of Superfund sites (Attachment 11). Archive status indicates that, to the best of the EPA’s knowledge, Superfund has completed its assessment of a site and has determined that no further steps will be taken to list that site on the National Priorities List. According to an August 22, 1995 memoranda from the EPA, the EPA removed both sites from the EPA’s Superfund inventory, stating that both sites “have been screened and determined to require no remedial action under the Federal Superfund Program based on information available as well as on conditions and policies that currently exist” (Attachment 12).
We have written to the EPA to request further information about the site. The EPA responded to our written inquiry on July 9, stating that we should receive a reply to our written inquiry within 20 working days (Attachment 13). We anticipate that the EPA response will provide further information about how citizens can stay involved in the remediation process.
Chancellor Moeser’s letter states that while there are no State or federal orders requiring remediation, the University plans to remediate the sites in conjunction with planning for future development. The Chancellor stated the University’s intent to remediate the sites “at the appropriate point in the planning for the development of Carolina North, or as funding is identified.”
NEXT STEPS
We will continue to research these issues and will gather more information. We hope to receive additional information from the University, EPA, and NCDENR that we will provide to the Council at the August 26 business meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
* Attachments 5 and 6 are individually numbered. Page number of Attachment 7 will begin where Attachment 4 ended, beginning with p. 17.
The University also provided the following materials to the Manager’s Office on July 19. Much of the material details various groundwater testing results of the sites. Due to the volume of material, we have not recopied the information, and these materials are not included as attachments with this memorandum. The submitted materials are included in binders that can be found in the Council Reading Room and available for review:
Landfill Site-Related Documents
Chemical Site-Related Documents