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