AGENDA #5a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Questions Raised about Horace Williams Disposal Sites
DATE: October 7, 2002
The purpose of this report is to provide the most recent information that we have obtained about waste disposal sites on the Horace Williams property and to answer questions raised by the Council at the August 26 meeting.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On August 26, the Council received the attached report from the Manager on the status of two waste disposal sites at the Horace Williams property (Attachment 1). The two sites are more formally known as the UNC Old Sanitary Landfill (Landfill Site) and the UNC Airport Waste Disposal Site (Chemical Site). We have also attached the adopted minutes from that discussion (Attachment 2).
The Council and a citizen raised several questions for follow-up, and the Council requested that we return with a progress report in October. We have attempted to answer these questions below.
Questions/Comments from Council Members:
1. Follow-up on the possibility of brownfields funding to clean up the Horace Williams sites.
2. Request whether the University has considered the possibility of brownfields funding assistance to help finance remediation of the Chemical Site.
Mayor Foy wrote the attached letter to Chancellor Moeser on September 5, 2002, and included the Manager’s August 26 report and Council questions, which included inquiries about brownfields (Attachment 3).
A brownfields site is a property for which redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that $100 million will be available to make up to 200 grant awards in 2003.
Conference
The EPA has scheduled the Brownfields 2002 Conference in Charlotte from November 13-15 (Attachment 4). A Town staff member will attend the conference, and we understand from Mr. Peter Reinhardt, Director of University Environment, Health, & Safety, that a University representative will also attend. The conference will provide information from legislative and policy drafters about the direction of federal, state, and local programs. Other presentations will include community involvement, legal liability, new state programs, land conservation, and remediation technology.
Grants
According to the EPA’s web site, (www.epa.gov), the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act expands the potential financial assistance for brownfield revitalization and broadens the entities that are eligible for funding. Brownfields grant programs are divided into three categories. We believe that the University could be eligible for assistance under all three categories, but we hope to learn more about these options at the Brownfields Conference:
· Assessment grants provide assistance to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfield sites. Eligible entities may apply for up to $200,000 to address contaminated sites, and up to $200,000 additionally for sites contaminated specifically by petroleum. It is possible that the University could meet the eligibility requirements for this category, and we will try to determine this requirement more clearly at the Brownfields Conference.
· Revolving loan fund (RLF) grants, which enable the recipient to capitalize a revolving loan fund and provide subgrants to carry out cleanup activities. Eligible entities may apply for up to $1 million for an initial RLF grant. An RLF award requires a 20 percent cost share. To be eligible for an RLF grant, the fund recipient must own the site for which they seek funding. We believe that the University could be eligible for this grant.
· Cleanup grants, which provide funding for recipients to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. As with RLF grants, cleanup grants require a 20 percent cost share. Also as with RLF grants, the fund recipient must own the site for which they seek funding. We believe that the University could meet the eligibility requirements of this grant.
Process
Applicants must send Initial Proposals to the Regional EPA representative and to EPA Headquarters by November 27, 2002. Initial proposals will be evaluated and ranked by Regional EPA panels, based on such criteria as community need, financial need, ability to manage grants, and community notification procedures.
The following schedule will apply to the grant proposals:
State Assistance:
Although there is a State brownfields program, the University is not eligible to participate. According to Bruce Nicholson, Special Remediation Site Head with NCDENR, the University is not eligible because the program is designed for a developer “who did not cause or contribute to the contamination of the property” (Attachment 5).
3. So far, the contaminated groundwater has not gone beyond the Horace Williams property. What happens if it does go beyond their border? And if it does, would that be a trigger (for a new exposure and reassessment)?
We have included this question in the information sent to the University with Mayor Foy’s letter. We have not received a reply from the University. But we have also asked these questions of representatives of the EPA and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), who have replied as noted below.
EPA
According to Mr. Jon Bornholm of the EPA’s Superfund Section, if contamination reaches some private potable wells, this would first trigger an Emergency Response action. In that case, either the EPA or the University, under an enforcement agreement with the EPA, would take the necessary action to supply clean water to the affected residents. Mr. Bornholm said that the site would probably be reassessed.
NCDENR
Ms. Charlotte Jesneck, Head of
the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch of NCDENR, explained that if any hazardous
substances migrated and immediately threatened a water receptor such as a well,
surface water intake, or spilled onto residential property, both the State and
the federal government would evaluate the conditions and see if any immediate
action were needed. Ms. Jesneck said that the State would not know about
these conditions unless they were reported to NCDENR.
Ms. Jesneck said that NCDENR would work with the University on a voluntary remediation action in the future. If development expands or worsens a problem, that party would become responsible and may be the subject of an order depending on what happened.
4. Where does the buck stop? Who has responsibility/authority to make sure this clean-up is done? What is the relationship between the clean-up and when development begins? (Question from a citizen.)
EPA
According to Mr. Bornholm of the EPA, the University can develop these properties without cleaning them up. However, under Superfund, the owner, operator, or transporters can be deemed a potentially responsible party. Therefore, as owner of the property, according to Mr. Bornholm, the University will bear some responsibility for any problems associated with the property.
Mr. Bornholm said that both the EPA and NCDENR have the responsibility and authority to make sure that a site is cleaned up. Superfund is a risk-based program; therefore if the contamination present at the sites does not equate to a certain degree of risk, then EPA (under the Superfund law) cannot spend money to clean-up the site. In cases like this, the sites usually fall in the State's Inactive Site Program, according to Mr. Bornholm.
NCDENR
Ms. Jesneck of NCDENR’s Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, said that both the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program and the federal Superfund program were established to ensure that sites contaminated with hazardous substances are addressed. There are hundreds of sites catalogued in the State, according to Ms. Jesneck. But by law, the sites must be addressed in order of priority based on their threat to human health and the environment.
While the University sites have contamination that will have to be addressed by the responsible parties, those sites are not currently among the worst threats, according to Ms. Jesneck. Thus, it may be some time before the State would compel action. However, if the owner, operator or responsible party would like to volunteer to take action, the State could work with them as part of the voluntary cleanup program.
5. There is a difference between the Superfund List and the Superfund National Priority List. (Statement of a citizen.)
Yes, there is a difference. According to the EPA’s Jon Bornholm, the EPA Superfund program maintains two lists:
CERCLIS is the “universe of all sites,” according to Mr. Bornholm. Once a site is discovered, it is placed on the CERCLIS list, and will remain there indefinitely. All sites on the CERCLIS list will eventually be evaluated. The two Horace Williams sites are on the CERCLIS list.
However, the Horace Williams sites are not on the National Priority List (NPL). The worst (most contaminated) sites on CERCLIS would become Superfund or NPL sites. If a site does not score high enough, the State may take the lead in requiring the potentially responsible parties to address the site under NCDENR’s Inactive Site Program, or there will be no further action required under Superfund. Being listed on the NPL allows the EPA to spend monies to remediate the site.
Mr. Bornholm said that, in EPA terms, it is correct to say that the Horace Williams sites are not Superfund sites because, even though they are on the all-inclusive CERCLIS list, they are not National Priority List sites.
Remaining Questions
We have not received a reply from the University regarding the following questions. We will provide information to the Council when we receive it:
6. Is the Chancellor committed to or intend to clean up this toxic site during his tenure at UNC?
7. Does "concurrently with the planning of Carolina North" mean the site will be cleaned up while Carolina North is being developed, or does it mean the site won't be cleaned up if roads and utilities and other structures can be sited without conflict with the site?
8. Is the Chancellor committed to cleaning up this site whether or not Carolina North is funded?
9. Will cleanup of this site have to await the completion of Carolina North, or will the costs of cleaning up the site be anticipated and included as a part of the Carolina North development costs?
10. Can you give us a "no later than" date by which the toxic dump will be cleaned up regardless of whether plans for Carolina North are funded and come to fruition?
11. Engage the University in discussions of whether it is possible to set a timetable and work toward getting the site cleaned up by a certain period of time.
12. Can the Council receive a commitment from the University for early notification of any future studies or remediation efforts? (Question from a citizen.)
13. Can the University identify a point person in the Administration who is knowledgeable on these issues and who can be available to work with Town staff on these problems? (Question from a citizen.)
14. Can the Town Manager receive regular updates from the University on new developments regarding hazardous materials buried at Horace Williams? (Question from a citizen.)
Public Involvement Questions
The Council has requested that we obtain additional information about how citizens can stay involved in the remediation process.
NCDENR
According to Ms. Jesneck, the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program mails notice to interested parties at two points: (1) when they plan to enter into an agreement with a responsible party or owner to cleanup a site; and (2) when they receive a remedial action plan pursuant to that agreement for approval. If a party would like to be placed on a mailing list to receive either of these notices for a site, the program staff will make a note in their files with the interested parties' names and addresses. The mailed notices will tell those interested parties where they can review the agreement or remedial action plan.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Program does not mail out copies of the plans, agreements or files because of costs involved. At sites determined to have a lot of community concern, Ms. Jesneck said that program staff will do more than the statute requires by setting up local information repositories that would house a copy of the file. Program staff may also prepare fact sheets or meet with citizens, depending on the level of concern.
EPA
The EPA provided the attached information on community involvement, which we summarize briefly and have attached with this report:
CONCLUSION
We will continue to provide information to the Council as we receive it. In particular, we hope to provide:
· Information from the University in reply to questions submitted earlier
· Information obtained at the Brownfields 2002 Conference in November.
We welcome other direction from the Council.
ATTACHMENTS