[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL CONTAMINATION ON
SMALL BUSINESSES AND SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES - POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL AND URBAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
DECEMBER 8, 2008
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 110-118
Available via the GPO Website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-609 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member
CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona TODD AKIN, Missouri
MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MELISSA BEAN, Illinois MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas STEVE KING, Iowa
DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii
Michael Day, Majority Staff Director
Adam Minehardt, Deputy Staff Director
Tim Slattery, Chief Counsel
Kevin Fitzpatrick, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITEE ON RURAL AND URBAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman
RICK LARSEN, Washington JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,
MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine Ranking
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland
YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Shuler, Hon. Heath............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Hill, Mr. Franklin Director, Superfund Division, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.... 2
Matthews, Mr. Dexter Director, Division Of Waste Management,
North Carolina Department Of Environment And Natural Resources. 5
Hanks, Mr. Neal , President, Beverly-Hanks & Associates,
Realtors, Asheville, North Carolina............................ 7
Macqueen, Mr. Peter ``Tate'', Member, Cts Community Monitoring
Council........................................................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Shuler, Hon. Heath............................................... 23
Hill, Mr. Franklin Director, Superfund Division, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.... 25
Matthews, Mr. Dexter Director, Division Of Waste Management,
North Carolina Department Of Environment And Natural Resources. 29
Hanks, Mr. Neal , President, Beverly-Hanks & Associates,
Realtors, Asheville, North Carolina............................ 32
Macqueen, Mr. Peter ``Tate'', Member, Cts Community Monitoring
Council........................................................ 36
(iii)
EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL CONTAMINATION
ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES - POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
----------
Monday, December 8, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., at
the Skyland Fire Department, 9 Miller Road, Asheville, North
Carolina, Hon. Heath Shuler [Chairman of the Subcommittee],
presiding.
Present: Representative Shuler.
Chairman Shuler. The hearing will be called to order.
Before we get started, there are a couple of folks I would
like to introduce, and certainly someone who has done an
outstanding job and worked on this project on the state level,
and that is Representative Charles Thomas.
[Applause.]
Chairman Shuler. Charles (Representative Thomas) has done a
great job helping the community and being very active and
involved.
Also, Jonathan Mitchell with Senator Burr's office.
[Applause.]
Chairman Shuler. The Senator and I have been working
together on this issue and others and I commend him for his
hard work and Jonathan's outstanding job in the District. I get
to see him quite frequently and we all appreciate their
efforts.
Today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Rural and Urban
Entrepreneurship will examine how the contaminated CTS site in
the Skyland area has affected the community. We are going to
discuss both what has been done in the past to clean up the
site, as well as steps that can be taken in the future.
For most of the 20th Century, lax environmental standards
brought short-term benefits to communities through jobs and
industrial development. But when factories closed and jobs
moved on, the long-term damage remained.
The economy of the Asheville area, especially its small
businesses, is dependent on the conditions of the surrounding
environment. The Asheville Chamber of Commerce cites the
quality of life that Asheville enjoys as one of the greatest
reasons for individuals and businesses to relocate. National
magazines have ranked Asheville as one of the top places to
raise a family, live a healthy life, and start a business. For
all these reasons, it is vital that a strong emphasis is placed
on maintaining the environmental quality of the area.
I want to take a brief moment to commend residents of the
area surrounding the former CTS site. They have taken the
initiative to investigate a situation that threatens the health
and the livelihood of families in their community, and they
have persistently taken their concerns to government officials.
For those members of the community who are here today, I extend
a special welcome. I appreciate your determination, and I am
grateful to have the opportunity to join you in your efforts to
clean up this site. I am determined to do whatever it takes in
my power to help these families get the truth about the
environmental conditions of their community. I am also
determined to ensure that damage is contained, hazards are
eliminated, and long-term health effects are addressed.
I also wish to welcome all of our witnesses, including
representatives from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. These agencies are charged with overseeing
the effects of the cleanup of this site and preventing harmful
exposures. I thank them for their work to date on the CTS site
as well as joining us here today.
Because of budget constraints and we know all about budget
constraints at this point--and the large number of hazardous
waste sites in America, these agencies are unable to address
all sites simultaneously. Systems for prioritizing sites have
been created to allow these agencies to work on those requiring
immediate attention first. I look forward to hearing more about
these systems, how they affect the cleanup process for a site,
and how a site that is not listed as a top priority can still
be decontaminated.
I would also like to thank the Skyland Fire Department for
allowing us to use this space.
Our first witness, Franklin Hill, the Director of the
Superfund Division of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency in Region 4. Mr. Hill, you have five minutes
to give your opening testimony. And I appreciate you and all of
our guests for being here today.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN HILL DIRECTOR, SUPERFUND DIVISION, UNITED
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4, ATLANTA,
GEORGIA
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Shuler and also to the
citizens of the Skyland Road community, and Buncombe County. I
agree with you Congressman I think they have done an
outstanding job of bringing awareness to this community
regarding the activities associated with the CTS site.
I am the Division Director of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Region 4 office in Atlanta. The Superfund
Division oversees the implementation of the Superfund program
in eight states in the southeast.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
effects of contamination on small business and the surrounding
community. I also want to emphasize that EPA and the State of
North Carolina have worked extremely hard and very closely on
the activities that have been conducted to date at the CTS
site.
EPA has employed two Superfund authorities at CTS, which I
have been told by my staff is at the heart of the discussions--
the emergency removal authority, as well as the remedial
authority. Those are two distinct authorities. Removal has the
responsibility for short-term cleanup, mainly stabilization of
imminent and substantial hazards; and the remedial authority
addresses long-term cleanup, investigation, much longer
groundwater investigation and remedial action activities.
After operations at the plant ceased in 1985--and I am
going to go through a chronology here, just to bring the
picture of the site up to date, the preliminary assessment was
conducted at this site, which is the first phase of the site
assessment and remedial process.
From that investigation, which is also at the heart of
discussions in this community, there was a ``no further
action'' designation given to the site following that
preliminary investigation, which is mainly just a review of
operational records of the site and any releases at the site at
the time. So that recommendation was no further action after
the preliminary assessment.
In 1989, EPA conducted a re-evaluation of a number of sites
in North Carolina, including the CTS site. The re-evaluation
recommended an investigation with sampling, which was completed
in 1991. This investigation did not identify residential wells,
springs, use of potable water. Therefore, there was another
``no further action'' designation. Again, two ``no further
action'' designations in this community after two phases of the
early investigations of this site.
In the summer of 1999, following a citizen's complaint, the
North Carolina DENR confirmed that the spring and one
residential well near the site were contaminated and contacted
EPA. EPA's removal program provided bottled water to the
affected residents and funded the connection of those
residences to public water. EPA performed a more extensive
investigation of the CTS property, and discovered that soils
beneath the building were contaminated with trichloroethylene.
Based on these findings, EPA negotiated an Administrative
Order with the CTS Corporation and Mills Gap Road Associates,
as responsible parties, using our removal authority. The AOC
requires the CTS and Mills Gap Road Associates group to clean
up soils in the unsaturated zone, to test residential wells
most likely to be impacted by contamination and to evaluate
technologies that can mitigate surface water contamination at
the springs located on the Rice property adjacent to the site.
In 2006, CTS completed installation of a Soil Vapor
Extraction System to remove contaminants from the unsaturated
zone. That system has removed to date over 3900 pounds of
contaminants. So we feel like that system has been successful.
What can EPA continue to do? We continue to require the
respondents to perform additional work under the AOC that's
consistent with our removal authority. And some of those
negotiations are underway at this point. There is an ozination
study proposed at this point that will continue to address
contaminants in the surface water bodies.
Because of the continued concerns of the citizens living
near the site, EPA and North Carolina DENR, the Buncombe County
Health Center personnel conducted drinking water well sampling
in November of 2007 at 63 residences. There has been a
comprehensive well survey in this neighborhood, which includes
two rounds of sampling, 63 residential wells the first time in
2007; and in 2008 there was a follow-up sampling of 72
additional wells. There have been hookups as a result of those
well surveys and the analytical results that have been
delivered to us.
And I want to thank especially the Buncombe County
officials, who have really stepped up and taken an aggressive
role to protect the citizens of Buncombe County.
Again, as I said, in 2008, those private wells have been
sampled. That data has been provided to the citizens of
Buncombe County, and additional hookups have been made as a
result of Buncombe County officers' efforts to bring public
water to that community.
EPA continues to evaluate the CTS site's eligibility for
the National Priorities List. I know this is again another
issue in this neighborhood--why is this site not on the NPL. As
you said in your opening remarks, how can we address this site
off the NPL. Hopefully I can provide some clarity on that issue
during the question and answer period.
For the record, the NPL serves as a primary informational
tool, identifying for states and the public those sites that
are the worse sites in the country, not necessarily
guaranteeing that there is a cleanup and not necessarily
guaranteeing liability of the responsible party. But again, as
a list of sites that will receive funding if they rise to that
level of remedial action. CERCLA does not require EPA to list
all sites that qualify on the NPL, given the agency's broad
discretion, consideration of other factors such as other
federal authorities and the states' willingness to undertake
site remediation.
In closing, I would like to say that EPA remains committed
to keeping you and the community informed as we move forward as
a part of our continued outreach. EPA and North Carolina DENR
representatives recently met with your staff and other
Congressional staff to discuss our site remediation efforts as
well as current and planned future activities for this site. At
that meeting, EPA and the North Carolina DENR agreed to keep
the Congressional offices and other elected officials informed
about the ongoing activities at the CTS site through monthly
updates that may be distributed to your constituents and
community.
I want to thank you for this opportunity, as I said
earlier, to provide some clarity to what is going on currently
and what is planned in the future for the CTS characterization
effort and cleanup. So thank you.
Chairman Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
[The statement of Mr. Hill is included in the appendix at
25.]
Our next witness is Dexter Matthews, Director of the
Division of Waste Management in the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.
Mr. Matthews, thank you for being here. You have five
minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DEXTER MATTHEWS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Matthews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dexter
Matthews. I am Director of the Division of Waste Management,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The division houses environmental regulatory programs for solid
waste, hazardous waste, underground storage tanks, Superfund
(both state and federal activities for contaminated site
cleanup) and brownfields redevelopment.
I would like to begin by saying that a number of federal,
state and local agencies have been working on the CTS site in
Asheville, North Carolina where trichloroethylene is the
primary contaminant of concern. Although each agency has its
own regulatory authority and limits, all have been working
together in a cooperative and supportive manner. The state has
conducted several sampling events of private wells with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Buncombe County and
also conducted surface water and soil testing at the CTS site
and in an area within one mile of the facility. A safe drinking
water source has been ensured for the public surrounding the
CTS site. EPA's Emergency Response and Removal Branch has
provided bottled water as needed and the county has done an
excellent job of extending water lines in response to needs in
the area.
The EPA has been directing the handling of immediate
exposure issues from the CTS of Asheville site. CTS Corporation
has an agreement with the EPA to conduct certain removal action
work. Removal actions are limited in scope. These activities
are not a complete cleanup, but consist of abatement of
immediate elevated exposure. In addition, the EPA, with the
support from the North Carolina Superfund Section of the
Division of Waste Management, has been evaluating the site for
full cleanup under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act authority, by listing
the site on the National Priorities List. At this time,
however, it is questionable whether the CTS site will rank high
enough to qualify for NPL status. For this reason and in
response to concerns by residents in the area, the state has
focused on engaging CTS Corporation in a complete assessment
and cleanup of the remainder of the site under state authority.
The state solicited CTS's cooperation in November 2007 in
conducting an assessment to define the extent of contamination.
The purpose of this study is to determine where the various
liquid and solid source materials exist and the resulting
groundwater contamination has migrated and to assess all other
contaminated media at the site. Determining contaminant
migration in groundwater will require an evaluation of the
geology and fracture systems at the site and in the surrounding
area through subsurface data collection. The first phase of
this assessment takes place at the plant, close to the areas of
chemical spillage and disposal, and proceeds outward from
there. The first phase is presently underway and several phases
of work are likely. Planning, sample collection and analysis
and reporting for this type of work most often takes at least
five or six months, at a minimum, to complete for each work
phase. The complete assessment of the site necessary for an
efficient cleanup, therefore, may take approximately a year and
a half or longer to complete.
CTS has indicated it is willing to enter into an agreement
with the state to conduct the remaining full assessment and
cleanup. While an agreement is not yet in place, the assessment
work has commenced.
The state's remediation authority for addressing sites
contaminated with hazardous substances include the North
Carolina Inactive Harardous Sites Response Act and North
Carolina water quality standards. At priority sites, the state
first solicits the responsible party's cooperation in
conducting an assessment of the contamination. Once the nature
and extent have been defined, a remedy can be developed. The
state then solicits the responsible party's cooperation in
conducting the remedial action of the contamination. The state
will require an executed agreement prior to development of the
cleanup plan.
The cleanup plan will undergo public comment. A public
information meeting was held prior to the implementation of the
first phase of assessment of the CTS site. Another public
meeting will be conducted to receive public comment on the
cleanup plan at the time it is developed.
If a responsible party does not agree to conduct an
assessment or cleanup at a site determined to be a priority,
the state may issue an administrative order, seek an injunction
to compel compliance with the order and issue administrative
penalties. Penalties for violating state standards governing
groundwater contamination and cleanup are up to $10,000 per day
per violation and up to $25,000 per violation per day for
subsequent penalties issued within five years.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act has a provision
whereby a responsible party is not obliged to spend
individually more than $3 million on remedial action conducted
voluntarily for a site under an agreement with the state. We
will not know the cost of site cleanup until the assessment is
completed and a remedial plan action is submitted.
Though CTS operated an electroplating plant at the site for
about 27 years and is the primary responsible party, it may not
be the only responsible party for this site. Prior to CTS'
operation, International Resistance Company operated an
electroplating business for about seven years. In addition,
Mills Gap Associates may have some responsibilities as an owner
with knowledge of the contamination when the property was
purchased. If actions by CTS do not complete the necessary
remedial action work, the state can evaluate those other
potentially responsible parties and others it identifies in
addressing the remainder of the remedial action work. Depending
on the final cleanup plan for the site, the cleanup could take
several years to complete.
I have staff with me today who work in the state Superfund
program and have provided me information on the CTS site for my
remarks. We will be happy to provide any answers to questions
you have regarding state activity at the site.
Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Matthews.
[The statement of Mr. Matthews is included in the appendix
at 29.]
Our next witness is Neal Hanks, President of Beverly-Hanks
& Associates, Realtors in Asheville.
Mr. Hanks, you will have five minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF NEAL HANKS, PRESIDENT, BEVERLY-HANKS & ASSOCIATES,
REALTORS, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hanks. Thank you, Congressman Shuler.
I am Neal Hanks, I am a resident of Buncombe County and
President of Beverly-Hanks & Associates, Realtors, a real
estate brokerage firm practicing real estate in Buncombe,
Henderson and Haywood Counties in North Carolina. I have been
in the real estate business since 1987 and served in my present
role since 1999. I am appreciative of the opportunity to
address the Committee regarding the impact on small business,
specifically the real estate sector, of the industrial
contamination on the site formerly owned by CTS Corporation,
located on Mills Gap Road in Buncombe County.
It is a well-documented fact that the former CTS site
contains numerous toxic chemicals and is one of approximately
1500 Superfund sites in the state of North Carolina. Recent
off-site investigations have determined the presence of these
chemicals in areas of the surrounding community as well, which
many believe to have migrated from the former CTS site.
As realtors, we have a professional obligation to disclose
to clients the presence of material facts related to the
purchase of real estate. The interpretation of facts deemed
material is often subjective, but a common interpretation of
material facts would be those factors which influence the
decision of a potential purchaser to purchase real estate.
Given this interpretation, it may seem obvious that potential
purchasers of property in the surrounding vicinity of the
former CTS site should be notified of the contamination of the
site and the possible migration of contaminants to other
property. The challenge for those of us in the real estate
profession is determining what parcels of property in the
vicinity of the CTS site would require such a disclosure. Do we
discuss the CTS site with only those prospective purchasers
interested in a property adjoining the CTS site? Those within a
one mile radius? A five mile radius? A 10 mile radius? Those
properties upstream or downstream from the site? It is pretty
difficult for those of us in the profession to determine where
do we draw a circle around the CTS site to determine those
properties that might be potentially impacted.
As a professional realtor, how do we determine which
properties in our community might be impacted by contamination
of the CTS site. As realtors, we have responsibility to protect
the interests of our clients, both buyers and sellers. The
presence of industrial contamination in a community creates
significant hardship on both buyers and sellers of real estate
in analyzing what impact, if any, there may be upon a specific
property located in the community. This situation creates a
very untenable situation for realtors until such time as the
property in question is appropriately cleaned up. The
uncertainty of the extent of contamination, the possible
migration of contamination to other properties, and the
timetable for cleanup creates unnecessary hardship upon the
property owners in the community, the buying public and the
real estate community trying to serve the needs of both.
An expedited cleanup of the site is in the best interest of
our community and its tax paying citizens and it is my hope
that the Committee can assist our community in this effort.
Chairman Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Hanks. Thank you for your
testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Hanks is included in the appendix at
32.]
Our next witness is Tate MacQueen, member of the CTS
Citizens Monitoring Council. This group consists of seven
members appointed by the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners
to inform the Board of the cleanup efforts at the CTS site.
Mr. MacQueen, you will be recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER ``TATE'' MACQUEEN, MEMBER, CTS COMMUNITY
MONITORING COUNCIL
Mr. MacQueen. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the time
that you are taking and your staff, Brian Fitzpatrick and Erin
Doty in particular, as well as the Senators Byrd and Dole and
their staff, John Mitchell and Graham Field.
I am a resident living within one mile of the former CTS
plant and I am very concerned over the toxic waste exposure to
my community and family. In January 2008, I became involved in
the Community Monitoring Group investigating and studying the
contamination and the role of CTS Corporation, Mills Gap Road
Associates, Biltmore Group and the various government agencies.
For almost a year, we have spent numerous hours compiling a
definitive history of the CTS Corporation, the actions of
local, state and federal agencies. What we have discovered has
been alarming and discouraging. This contaminated hazardous
waste site could not have been managed more poorly.
The property owners adjacent to the plant were exposed
unnecessarily for eight years to highly toxic substances, which
include trichloroethylene, an industrial solvent, and vinyl
chloride, which is rated as the fourth most dangerous chemical,
according to the CDC, for human exposure. We believe, based on
the records that we have collected as part of the Community
Monitoring Group, that the Southside Village development was
built illegally and that the responsible parties may have
committed fraud in getting approval for that development.
My experience in interacting with the community and meeting
citizens who have lost family members to cancer while living in
close proximity to the plant has been disheartening. There is
one resident who has lost eight aunts and uncles, including his
father, to cancer. All lived within a mile and a half of the
CTS plant, they all drank well water and spring water.
This crisis has plagued our area for more than two decades.
We depend on our government and its agencies to provide for the
safety and wellbeing of our community. Our home values have
suffered, which pales in comparison to the health issues many
are struggling with and continue to face. We need action to
rectify this matter so that our health is taken care of as well
as being able to promote a strong area for smart growth, both
commercially and residentially. And we would like to submit for
the record that history that we have compiled and also at some
point would like to address some of the findings on the site
with regard to ``no further action'' status.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement of Mr. MacQueen is included in the appendix
at 36.]
Chairman Shuler. Thank you, Mr. MacQueen.
At this time, we will be opening the hearing up for
questions. Typically we have five minutes per member. I am the
only member here, and that is typical when a member actually
has an opportunity to hold a hearing in a district. It is
pretty difficult, most of the members of Congress are with
their constituents, and rightfully so. That is where they
should be, especially during the difficult times that we are
facing in our country and our economy and trying to get back in
a much better alignment with the world. We have a lot of work
ahead of us.
But in saying that, we certainly have a lot of work to do
in our district here. One of the most important tasks that we
have is to make sure that our families and the children who are
being raised in these communities have a great quality of life.
Part of that quality of life requires that we have clean air to
breathe and water to drink.
RFor Mr. Matthews or Mr. Hill, either of you certainly have
the opportunity to respond. Is there any possibility - and I am
using the word possibility here - is there any possibility that
any of these contaminants has adversely affected a person's
life who lives in this community?
Mr. Matthews. Mr. Chairman, I can only answer from the
standpoint of information that has been provided to us, and I
think to the community as well, to this point, from a study
that was done by the Department of Health & Human Services,
which is again a separate state agency, but a state agency in
North Carolina, the Division of Public Health.
A cancer cluster investigation was performed by them with
limited data within a one mile radius. They were specifically
looking at cancer and what they had reported to us was that the
investigation did not find elevated numbers of types of cancers
that could be possibly associated with chemicals related to the
CTS site. Now they also have qualified that in that they are
doing a more comprehensive study and have been involved with a
more comprehensive study and it is being funded by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
They told us just recently that the report should be
completed and submitted to ATSDR in February 2009. That is all
the information that I have concerning the work of DHHS.
Chairman Shuler. Mr. Hill, does EPA have any comments?
Mr. Hill. I do not have any further information. I do have
the reference that Dexter was just making regarding North
Carolina Department of Public Health's statement, which
basically says they have not identified a cancer cluster, but
follow-on work will be conducted.
So that is all the information that I have at this time.
Chairman Shuler. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews, do you have the status of the first phase of
the groundwater testing results that was underway at the CTS
site?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, sir, the results came in late last week.
The staff has been reviewing the analysis from the first set of
data. There were, if I remember right, six locations where
wells were installed and approximately 10 wells, both shallow
and to bedrock. That information is currently available, it is
available to the public as well. That will give us information
for the next phase where we will have deep wells installed, to
try to get an understanding of the subsurface, any fractures
where contaminants might move. There will also be off-site
wells eventually that will be installed and may be done
concurrently with the on-site additional wells that would be
installed.
The levels that were found--one well basically up gradient
from the site will be used as a background well. There were no
contaminants found in that particular well, so it will serve as
a background well. Where the source site is and previously
where EPA's investigation was, they found very high levels of
contaminants, trichloroethylene. Actually, the levels that we
found seem to have come down in that particular area, which is
kind of behind the building. Moving over towards the Rice's
property, the contaminants in that area where those wells were
placed was high, which would lead us off-site again with the
investigation. Also going toward Mills Gap Road, again there
were wells placed there and contaminants were found there as
well that were relatively high. I don't have the specific
levels--my staff do--with me, but generally that was what was
found at the site.
But we do want a thorough understanding of the geology of
the site and certainly going into bedrock and seeing what type
of fractures we are dealing with will be paramount in
understanding where contaminants have moved or will move and
direct our investigation going forward.
Chairman Shuler. Obviously there is cost associated with
drilling these wells. When you go off site, will you be able to
utilize some of the wells owned by residents, assuming they
would like to volunteer? The federal government wastes more
money than any group I have ever known. So is there an
opportunity for the residents to play an important and vital
role, obviously saving the federal government money? I mean the
government could utilize that money elsewhere. I have drilled a
couple of wells in my day and they can cost five, ten, or
fifteen thousand dollars, depending upon the depth of the well.
Are there opportunities for people in the community to
volunteer their wells?
Mr. Matthews. The drinking water supply wells that exist,
under a plan that is currently being or has been developed by
EPA, will continue to be monitored. So they actually will be a
part of making sure that everyone has a clean water supply. So
those wells that are out there will be part of a monitoring
plan going forward anyway. But additional monitoring wells will
need to be installed at various depths to determine again the
extent of contamination and the migration of contaminants off
site. So my answer would be a combination.
Chairman Shuler. Mr. Hill, testing completed in 1991 tested
only one drinking well and that was one mile away, up hill from
the CTS site. Why didn't they test areas closer to the site
where the contamination was found actually in the groundwater?
Mr. Hill. That is a good question, Congressman. I reviewed
that report from our contractor, and actually I toured the site
this morning. I do not have an answer for why there was not a
much further in-depth investigation, other than the fact that
they were concerned with source contamination and this was
going to be a removal action, a short-term action to basically
minimize our threat to surface water, and not looking to a
longer term type of investigation. The removal program just
does not perform that type of a characterization effort. I
think the effort that you are talking about is certainly what
is going on right now under the state's leadership.
But as far as why there were not more samples taken, I do
not have an answer and the record is not very clear on why they
did not. My assumption, based on what I saw this morning down
gradient from the site,is that if I had been doing the
investigation, I would have gone a bit further.
Chairman Shuler. Thank you, sir.
For the record, Mr. MacQueen, does the Rice family now have
good quality drinking water?
Mr. MacQueen. They were placed on municipal water in 1999
following tests that yielded results of 21,000 parts per
billion of TCE in their spring well, which is their water
source. The maximum contaminant level for the state of North
Carolina is three parts per billion, the maximum contamination
level for the EPA is five parts per billion. The call that was
made in 1990 by Dave Ogren is what triggered the action on both
agencies' parts, the EPA and NC DENR. And the report that was
provided from NUS, which was contracted to do that well
sampling, which was again, 4226 feet away from the site, what
they said was the highest concentrations of these metals were
found in CASB-03, which was collected in an old lagoon pond
area. This source was off-site from the nine acre site. It was
actually in what is now Southside Village. And they said that
high levels of trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, PAHs and
several unidentified organic compounds were also found. These
compounds were found in CASW-02, which was collected at the
intersection of two streams on the northwest portion of the
facility, once again outside the fenced-in area. The surface
water pathway is of concern because of its use for fishing,
boating and swimming and high concentrations of contaminants
were found in the sediment and surface samples. This report
also said that the groundwater sample from a private well
contained high levels of iron, but was not attributed to the
plant operations. Again, it was 4226 feet away. The groundwater
pathway is of concern, however, because there are approximately
397 wells within three miles of the facility. The air pathway
is of concern because 3887 people live within one mile of the
facility and high concentrations of metals and organic
compounds were found in the surface soil samples. This was in
1991.
So this was originally done as a result of Dave Ogren's
phone call. Unfortunately, because the decision was made by NUS
to go so far away, the Rice property, which should have been
tested first since it was closer than 350 feet, they were
exposed to 21,000 parts per billion of TCE until 1999. They are
now on municipal water.
Chairman Shuler. are there any health concerns in the Rice
family?
Mr. MacQueen. The health concern certainly would be what
happens when trichloroethylene anaerobically breaks down and
becomes vinyl chloride. And again, CDC rates that as the fourth
most dangerous chemical or compound. And, you know, that,
similar to radon, can penetrate clay foundations, dirt
foundations, which is what Mr. Terry Rice has at his home. And
so fortunately, EPA has done a follow-up suma canister test for
the air quality. There have been two done I believe in the last
year and a half. So the main concern would now be vapor
intrusion for the Rice family.
Chairman Shuler. Gentlemen, I think the most important
thing is that we look back at what could have happened or
should have happened. It is very, very important that we do not
make the same mistakes that were made in 1991, that we can
proceed forward and try to investigate this issue to the
fullest extent. And I know and understand the impact of budget
constraints.
If you look on the 1500 contaminated sites in North
Carolina, where does the CTS site rank, judging from the
information you presently have? I think that is very important
to understand. Heaven forbid, the contamination is 10 times
worse in the next results that we get back from the testing;
but how are we going to be able to put this on a fast track so
that we can get it cleaned up, and to what levels of
contamination are we going to have see before we move to the
top priority? Are we months or weeks from starting process of
decontamination?
Mr. Hill. Well, Congressman, first let me back up and just
addressed one thing that you mentioned about funding, and I
agree with you, there is not enough to go around for everybody.
It is hard for me to hang the decisions that have been made on
this site on funding.
I think what we have to look at are authorities, distinct
authorities of individual programs who came in and actually
performed their responsibilities according to their
authorities. And then handing off that part of the program to
the other program and then looking at the process of who does
what once one authority decides to vacate, if you will.
I think what we have here is a site evaluation, a decision,
a re-evaluation, a program that was working under limited
authority that didn't necessarily go into a full scale type of
an investigation. So again, I do not think it is funding, I
just want to be clear on that issue. Clearly, process-wise, we
could have done a much better job; communications-wise, we
could have done a much better job.
Chairman Shuler. So what is the relationship between the
EPA and DENR? What is your relationship? How does each one of
you feel about this relationship? I am not here to cast stones
or lay blame on either of you, but do you have a working
relationship? Do you have a relationship in which the
information is transparent to one another's agency so that you
are able to benefit the community?
Mr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Matthews. Part of really what makes the relationship
work, when I mentioned the Superfund within the Division of
Waste Management, I mentioned that there was both federal and
state involvement. EPA provides funding to the states, to North
Carolina, for staff that interact directly with them and have
been interacting directly with them throughout this process.
Now once the removal action is complete, normally if the
site is not going to rank on the NPL, then it shifts over to
state authority. In this particular case, what we are doing, we
are pursuing both now. We are moving forward with state
authority to enter into an agreement with CTS, who by the way
is responsible for paying for the investigation I talked about
a few minutes ago, but we are pursuing them to clean up the
site now as a priority site while we are still working with EPA
on the possibility of ranking the site. So both are moving
forward now.
Chairman Shuler. So when do you expect another ranking?
Because if we are at midway, if we are at 750 in our ranking
out of the 1500, how long would it take to actually clean the
site up?
Mr. Matthews. When I say ranking--actually I think Mr. Hill
may need to respond--but when I say ranking, I am talking about
the federal ranking for NPL. We have already made the site a
priority site under state authority and will continue to pursue
that while the ranking package is being looked at by EPA.
Chairman Shuler. Very good.
Mr. Hill. And the 1500 number is a national number,
Congressman.
Chairman Shuler. Yes.
Mr. Hill. Actually, in North Carolina, we only have 32
National Priorities List sites, 212 in the region. So just to
bring that back to an appropriate perspective as well, there
are 32 here in North Carolina.
As far as the ranking and the work that we have done on
this site, we have attempted to rank this site at least on
three different occasions. As we look at the mathematical
method to rank the site, during the early phases, it lacked
targets in certain areas even though we have the high
concentrations in the spring that are emanating from the source
at the facility, which is why we have an ongoing removal action
underway right now at the facility. Again, it was to address
that immediate threat and release to that surface water body.
I think as you investigate sites and as information becomes
available, you find out additional information. And the one
thing that was clearly lacking here that I think everyone has
basically already acknowledged, is that this site lacks a
comprehensive groundwater study to really understand the hydro-
geologic conditions of what is going on at the site.
The initial phases of the response, I think, were
appropriate to deal with the surface water impact. But it did
lack that long-term component. Now, we are at that point and I
am happy to hear you ask about where do we go from here from
the standpoint of getting the site on track and making sure
that citizens of Asheville are protected.
I think the state has done an admirable job of bringing CTS
to the table and moving forward in developing a cleanup plan
and strategy, or at least a characterization plan and strategy.
They are not yet at the cleanup phase. But that is fully
underway. The removal action that we continue to operate at the
site, and the treatability study that is proposed right now
will continue to minimize contaminants in surface water. So we
are tackling this from all angles, and right now, we have our
removal authority fully engaged, the state is fully engaged as
well as our remedial program.
As far as where does the site rank? 28.5 is the trigger for
the National Priorities List and, as I said earlier, even if it
scores 28.5, a discussion needs to be held as to whether or not
that is the appropriate place to place this site from a cleanup
perspective. Is it the NPL? Is it under our Superfund
alternatives program? Or is it in the appropriate place as a
state lead cleanup? The effectiveness of either of those
programs are seamless. I mean, the cleanup will be of NPL
caliber. So whether or not it goes to the NPL or not isa
discussion that I know we will have at some point, but that is
no guarantee that you get a better cleanup than a cleanup that
is conducted by the state.
Chairman Shuler. Would you talk about the relationship
between the CTS Corporation and the EPA?
Mr. Hill. Well, it is my understanding that CTS is
performing according to requirements of the Administrative
Order. They have agreed to the ozination study, they have
agreed to the vapor intrusion study that was conducted where we
found levels that were well within our risk range and not any
immediate health hazard associated with that study.
So they are cooperating. It also sends a positive signal to
me that they are cooperating, that they have now entered into
an agreement with the state to do the further groundwater
characterization that is needed.
Chairman Shuler. Do you know of any past history that CTS
has had on other sites, that we can look at the history of how
they performed in other locations and maybe get an idea of how
they may perform on this one?
Mr. Hill. I am aware of one other site, I think it is in
Region 9, where they have taken some activity, mainly that
included an excavation and cleanup. That site was ranked and
was listed on the National Priorities List and they did proceed
under an enforcement lead to clean that site up. So we are
talking about excavation, where it has not happened in this
community, and I would not recommend it in this community until
we understand the hydro-geologic conditions of that site.
Chairman Shuler. Speak about the relationship with
contaminated wells that have been tested in the past. Some have
shown high levels of contaminants and then the next time they
are tested the others may not have as high levels as they once
did. And I think it goes back to what Mr. Hanks was talking
about with the movement of contaminants, it looks like the
ground water underneath is moving. How are we able to
determine, you know, how far a scope should we be managing on
this site? I mean is it, like Mr. Hanks said, is it one mile,
five miles, ten miles? Because we are seeing levels elevated at
one point and then fall off and then elevate again. Is that
based upon the drought that we have or is it based upon--you
know, give me an idea of what I should expect as a lay person
looking at it. You know, I do not know hydrologically what is
happening under the ground to be able to determine these
different levels at different times.
Mr. Hill. I think you bring up an excellent point. A number
of things contribute to that. Drought is one, whether or not
elevations in groundwater are up or down. Clearly there is
fractured bedrock here, which we do not really understand where
the fractures are and how groundwater is flowing. And hopefully
the study that the state is leading and conducting will help us
with that. There are a lot of unknowns about what is happening.
Also, I will say to you that this investigation could
potentially turn up other sources. That is the thing that no
one has talked about in this community, but clearly as you look
at the landscape, the site kind of sits in a bowl. And one of
the subdivisions that has been impacted is up gradient to a
certain degree. It is really difficult to understand that
without the associated study, in order to get a good feel for
how groundwater is flowing and how those fractures are really
impacting groundwater. Whether or not there is another source
or a separate source, we are not certain, but we may find one
as a result of this investigation.
Chairman Shuler. Very good.
Mr. Hanks, if this site is cleaned up in a relatively quick
manner, how will it impact small businesses, I mean based on
relocation of businesses or relocation of homes or selling of
homes in those particular areas?
Mr. Hanks. Well, I think it would obviously help
significantly if the site is cleaned up, from a number of
perspectives. I mean, you have got--obviously that property is
sitting empty and will be sitting empty until the site is
cleaned up and it is an appropriate site for business, for
manufacturing. And it is a great site and we are lacking sites
in Buncombe County. So simply from the aspect of that site
alone, it would make a significant impact, but from an impact
upon residential properties in that immediate surrounding area,
I think the uncertainty of impact on the surrounding properties
is the major concern. And a cleanup would remove uncertainty of
the source or potential source of contaminants. So I think it
would be a very positive impact on the community, both for
small businesses and for the residents in the vicinity of the
former CTS site.
Chairman Shuler. Mr. MacQueen, are you aware of any other
potential sources, contamination sources?
Mr. MacQueen. We have heard different stories of people
using degreasing agents for their own personal use, including
stripping golf club grips and automobile degreasing. It has
been established under the leadership of Dr. James Webster back
in 2002, on April 4, when he proposed an emergency action order
which was signed off by Mr. Green of EPA, that what he found
was that there was an imminent threat of groundwater
contamination under the plant based on studies done under Greg
Powell from REACT, and the drawing or map that was provided by
Map Tech clearly showed that there is a bedrock foundation that
forms a bowl if you look only at the east-west cross section.
Unfortunately, if you look at the north-south cross section,
that bowl then becomes a trough where it is feeding south to
north. And coincidentally, that is the direction of Printers
Cove which ultimately leads to the Oaks Subdivision.
I have not heard of any other sources of contamination. All
I can say is that it was accepted by Dr. Webster in 2002, it
was signed off by Mr. Green, that this rose to the level of--to
the serious nature that they thought that it should be
immediately remediated and mitigated, because of the numbers of
830,000 parts per billion directly under the slab flooring of
the plant. That order still stands and in fact, we have had
some great dialogue with the agencies about their interest in
perhaps pursuing that action order.
Chairman Shuler. Very good.
Mr. Matthews, you mentioned earlier other potential
responsible parties like Mills Gap Road Associates. To what
extent have you had contact with them?
Mr. Matthews. We have not. We have talked to CTS about
entering into the agreement. We have not done a full
potentially responsible party search. That is an option, as I
said. There is a three million dollar cap, which I know has
been discussed at length, and I wanted to make sure that there
was an understanding that other responsible parties would have
that cap as well, it would not be $3 million just for the site
and the $3 million would only count towards remediation, not
the assessment part. So the assessment part would have to be
funded and then the three million cap would come into play so
far as CTS is concerned.
Our attorneys are still in conversation--
Chairman Shuler. Before you go on, if you would, explain
that cap, why that cap of three million is in place? Why is the
magic number three million? Of course, I know, but there may be
someone here that may not understand why there is a cap of
three million dollars.
Mr. Matthews. I will speculate why the three million dollar
cap is there. The legislation that was passed was passed before
I was in this position and I wasn't involved with that
particular bill. I assume that the $3 million was put in place
to try to bring more parties to the table to get a cleanup
faster. I would guess that is why the $3 million was put in
place.
Chairman Shuler. Do you think it was also there to be able
to incentivize businesses to come to an area, that they know
that their liability may only be three million dollars?
Mr. Matthews. I am sorry?
Chairman Shuler. Do you think there would be some incentive
for potential businesses to actually come if they may only have
a liability of cleanup of three million, based on the
contaminants that may knowingly be put on a piece of property?
Mr. Matthews. I would be speculating even further to say
whether or not that $3 million has any kind of incentive for
somebody to come in and certainly any kind of incentive to
pollute. I would certainly hope that it would not be that. On
top of that, there are also penalties that can be assessed for
violation of groundwater contamination. So it is not that you
could just come in and be able to pollute. But I really believe
that the three million dollar cap was put there as an incentive
to bring parties to the table for a cleanup at the site. But
again, that three million only applies to each responsible
party. So we could have well more than three million that
ultimately could be spent on the site.
I did want to say we have not finalized an agreement with
CTS. Our attorneys are meeting with their attorneys I believe
the 11th of this month and hopefully that will move things
forward. But as I said earlier in my comments, CTS has moved
forward with the assessment outside of the agreement.
Chairman Shuler. Very good.
Let us talk about extractors, Mr. Hill. Explain to us about
the extractor that you have on site right now, about what its
purpose is, what you expect out of it.
Mr. Hill. The soil vapor extraction system--
Chairman Shuler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hill. --was designed to address the unsaturated zone in
soil. That is the soil that is just above the groundwater
table. That system is now operating, and as I said, it has
pulled 3900 pounds of TCE off of the saturated zone.
I know there was a lot of discussion about the building
coming down and excavation. It was designed basically to do
exactly what it is doing. It is performing perfectly, we think
it was an excellent design. We think that remedy is performing
as built.
Chairman Shuler. Out of the 3900 pounds, what percentage of
the overall contamination--how many pounds are there? Did you
extract .1 percent or 15 percent?
Mr. Hill. Well, now you want me to speculate.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hill. To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea.
I do not think anyone does at this point. There was a boring
through the floor of the facility that basically identified
that there were elevated levels of TCE there. And this was the
short-term action to address the impacts to the surface water
body and streams. So we think is still working. Is there
additional work that needs to be done at the site? I would say
that there is.
Chairman Shuler. Mr. Matthews, when can an agreement
between CTS and DENR be expected?
Mr. Matthews. I would hope that the meeting that I
mentioned a few minutes ago that is supposed to occur the 11th
of this month will get us very close, if not to the agreement.
But the agreement has to be in place prior to the remediation
plan being approved.
Chairman Shuler. Before we close here, I think it is very
important that we all realize that we can continue to look back
and we know that--I think we can all allude to the mistakes
that have been made. I think it is of the utmost importance
that this information is readily available to the public, which
I know it is, and I would like to be able to put that
information on our website so that the members of the community
can go to our website to be able to find the updates. It would
obviously take a lot of pressure off you and your staff if we
can get the information on our website.
It is also very important that we actually now work
together. And I know there is probably some animosity between
the community and the two different agencies. It is so
important that we now say what can we do to help, how can we
help this process, in order to move it forward. And I know Mr.
MacQueen has done a really great job and the council has done a
great job of sparking the interest. I mean, to be quite frank,
if it was not for the council, we would not be here today. I
mean the times that Mr. MacQueen actually came up to our
office, I think our staff would agree that it was probably the
longest meeting that we have had in our two years in office.
But we have to work with one another.
So, before we close, if you could, just give us a time line
of what we should expect in the next month, two months or three
months from the testing, the relationships, the contracts
between CTS and I know you have obviously answered that. But
give us an overall expectation as a community, what should we
expect from the two different agencies and how we can proceed
and move forward.
Let me just give you one example. We met back in September
and I think that the first testing was supposed to take place
on September 8. And, for an example, it was supposed to take
three weeks for us to get the information back. You tell me we
just got the information a few days ago. That is not the type
progress that we need. That is not what helps make a community
happy. So when we give these time lines, let us make sure that
we can give time lines which we can actually meet. The worst
thing that can happen is a time line of one month that turns
into six months. And the federal government is great at that,
they know how to do that very, very well. And the state
government does as well. But what we have got to do is we have
to be completely honest with our community and our citizens--
[Applause.]
Chairman Shuler. --to ensure that we actually have this
information.
So give us an overview. But I want the community to
realize, now we have got to work together. Now we have to work
together and to make sure that we help support our agencies. I
mean if the council is having to do this work on their own, it
is very expensive and so we need to work together as one
community, as a group, to be able to give the assistance that
the agencies need and give them an opportunity to discover the
issues and find out more of the information, more of the
contaminants, what is to be done, what are the procedures to be
followed up with and how can they work together.
If we shout and we drag down the process, it is going to
slow the entire system down. They do not have all the staff to
answer these questions every single day. But if they will give
us a time line, we can put it on our website and then we can
get--obviously the relationship that we have with the council,
we can get the information back to them. Then we can proceed
forward and then we can find out where we rank. Then hopefully
we can find the money somewhere in our budget to make sure that
EPA and DENR have the money to be able to assist in the cleanup
of the site. And most importantly, the burden should not fall
on the taxpayers. That is what is so important, so the CTS
Corporation has to step up.
[Applause.]
Chairman Shuler. They have to step up to the plate, because
if all of our tax dollars are going in it, the next time this
happens, we are going to be setting a precedent. And I know
that is certainly not what the agencies want. They want to make
sure that CTS is held responsible. That is what we as citizens
and taxpayers want, as well.
So before we close, if you could, just give us a time line,
what we should expect as a community. Mr. Hill, you first.
Mr. Hill. All right. As far as CTS stepping up, it has
always been EPA and the state's position that the responsible
party pays. So we have a serious position on holding CTS' feet
to the fire from the standpoint of funding this cleanup.
[Applause.]
Mr. Hill. As far as the actions that EPA will be
conducting, the ozination study is in the developmental stages
right now, there is a treatability study that will be
associated with that. We expect full deployment by the spring
of next year. So that is underway. There is also an attribution
study underway right now that EPA has undertaken in an effort
to continue to try to accomplish a 28.5 score or to have the
site listed to the National Priorities List.
As I said, I think we need to have a discussion about that
with the real estate community. Number one, I heard their
concerns about contamination in this area and how it is
impacting the economic values of homes in this area. And I
think we need to talk about what an NPL designation means for
this community before we go down that path.
So those are the activities that we will continue, as well
as quarterly monitoring of private wells in this community. So
the ozination study is underway, an attribution study is
underway and quarterly monitoring of private wells will be
ongoing.
Chairman Shuler. Very good, thank you, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Matthews.
Mr. Matthews. As I mentioned, we are moving forward with
negotiations with CTS to enter into an agreement. We hope
certainly to have that moved forward prior to the end of the
year. There is a public comment period that is involved with
the agreement before it would be finalized. So you are looking
sometime after certainly the first of the year before it could
be finalized. But we do want to get public comment on that as
well.
The second phase of testing on the site that I mentioned
earlier that would give us much better indications of the
subsurface so far as bedrock and fractures at the site, now
that we have the analysis from the first phase, that plan will
move forward. However, there also may be some off-site testing
as well. Staff are currently working with CTS's consultants to
develop that. So once that is developed, a time line will be
involved with that and we will certainly share that with you so
you would be able to post that on your website as well.
We also will be assisting EPA in the sampling that Mr. Hill
mentioned, the plan that has been developed to sample private
wells around the site, that will begin next year and I believe
the plan calls for quarterly sampling.
Chairman Shuler. Very good.
Mr. Hanks, is there anything else that would help you in
the business community, or is this information adequate for you
to make some decisions going forward? And I know there is a
disclosure statement that you give, but I certainly think it
would be helpful to be able to identify that mandatory distance
away from the site.
Mr. Hanks. Well, I think your suggestion of placing the
information on your website gives us a central point of
information for which we can direct citizens to do further
investigation, and for our realtors in the community to do
further investigation. So I think that central source of
information would be very helpful to all of us.
You know, that is critical to us in the real estate
industry, is having proper information to share with the public
about the site. It has been very difficult to obtain and to
keep up with. So I think your suggestion is a good one if it
will give us a central point of information.
Chairman Shuler. Mr. MacQueen, is there anything you would
like to add, based upon the community's response?
Mr. MacQueen. Yes, Mr. Congressman.
As a history teacher currently at Owen High School, you
know, that is what my job is, is to look back. And part of
teaching history is to identify and then rectify problems to
prevent them from occurring in the future. So I hope that it
comes across in the spirit that I am giving it and that is that
this is not about vilifying, this is not about casting
aspersions, this is simply about finding common ground and an
appropriate solution.
I am very grateful to Mr. Hill's work with Camp Lejeune and
our soldiers and the groundwater work that you have been doing
for the TCE issue down there. I know how hard the folks from
DENR have been working.
I do know that--since everybody had an opportunity to
speculate, I would just love to be able to speculate about
Mills Gap Road Associates and their lack of cooperation. On
August 13, 1997, they appeared in front of the Board of
Adjustment with Richard Green from Biltmore Group, they said
that they had achieved ``no further action'' status from the
State of North Carolina, they were not asked to produce a
document. It is our understanding they have never reached a
``no further action'' status for that site. Because of that
interaction and lack of follow-up, we had a development under
construction nine days later, that 44 acres came off of the
original site.
And one other point is, in terms of going forward, part of
EPA's decision to determine it a low priority was, one, based
off of the NUS study that sampled one well 4226 feet away, and
previously, prior to that was in 1985 when the EPA submitted a
hazardous incident worksheet for CTS Corporation to fill out
from EPA; long-term employee, Norman Lewis, filled that out.
There was no follow up on that. Mr. Lewis--his own mother lived
across the street from the plant and it is on the record that
he was stating that no one lived within 1500 yards of the
plant--five football fields--and the Rices clearly lived
within, you know, one football field.
And so we have to look back. We are not doing it to try and
not be on the same team. You know, when I make a mistake, I
have students call things to my attention. I am grateful for
it. And as a coach, I ask my players to be willing to make
mistakes because that is how they become better players. But in
this case, we are talking about life and death and economic
impact and, you know, with Scott Socia from Foot Rx, he wants
to recommend foot trails and he is not comfortable recommending
that area for his clientele. I know that Pet Supplies Plus has
seen a rise in companion animal cancers associated with where
they live in proximity to that plant.
We are here to work together. I had a good conversation
with Mr. Doring beforehand, I look forward to interacting with
him more. Mr. Hanks, my former employer, I would love to brief
you with the information that we have and continue to work with
the dialogue that you have facilitated. I know that you were
saying me personally, but I am not comfortable with that
pronoun, it was not me, it was a collection of individuals with
Barry Durand and Dave Ogren and a number of other people that
have worked tirelessly and have done a lot of the work for you.
We want to work any time, you know, 24/7. And trust me, we have
done 24/7, to get this cleaned up. But the NPL status, whether
it rises to the criteria, the word that you used was caliber.
You could not ask for a better word. One of the things that NPL
caliber status would give us would be the ability to have
independent data collected, to have a secondary source of data.
[Applause.]
Mr. MacQueen. So I just want it to be clear, this is not--
there is no acrimony, we are not--we just want to work
together. So I appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us.
Chairman Shuler. Well, I think that is clear. Hopefully
this hearing will indicate that we have to work together. And I
have to commend both of the agencies--the EPA and DENR--for
their appearance here. Sometimes these can be very difficult
hearings and you guys just better be thankful that the
Chairwoman is not here. She is really good.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Shuler. You do not have to put that in the
transcript, by the way.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Shuler. She is the best Chair in Congress.
But I want to commend both staffs, everyone in my staff
included, for their hard work on this. Let us work together and
get the information out. Transparency and oversight are the
key, especially when it comes to federal and state agencies.
I know I recognized Charles Thomas for his hard work and
dedication on this issue and I know that Representative Jane
Whilden is also here and she will be working very diligently on
the state level to make sure that we have this oversight and
that we have the transparency for our community in order to
provide a better quality of life. I mean we are very, very
blessed to live in a community like we do. We do not want that
cloud to be covering over a community that has been such a
wonderful place to live and raise children, as many people have
recognized. I mean there are a lot of people here that may not
have grown up in Buncombe County or maybe even in this region.
They moved here because of the quality of life. But the most
important thing is they stay here because of our people. And I
think together as a community, we are going to make this--let
us make sure that our families have a better quality of life.
And so to the agencies and to Mr. Hill and Mr. Matthews and
Mr. Hanks and Mr. MacQueen, thank you for your testimony today.
Let me see, I have one last piece of housekeeping to do. I
ask unanimous consent that the record be held open for five
days for members to submit their statements. We have DVD copies
of a CTS presentation related to this issue which the Committee
will keep in the hearing file for future reference.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]