August 7, 2023

TO: Elizabeth S. Biser, Secretary

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
MSC 1601, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

 Information: Named, Director, State Energy Office, NCDEQ

MSC 4345, Raleigh, NC 27699-4345
(Previously of the Division of Waste Management)

Information: Named, Director, Division of Waste Management, NCDEQ

MSC 1646 , Raleigh, NC 27699-1646) (Via HWS email)

Information: Named, Project Manager, Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Waste

Management, NCDEQ. (Copy provided by email)

FROM: Don Gordon, North Carolina Resident

SUBJECT: Public RCRA Comment. This is a request for the Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (hereafter: NCDEQ) to take specific
actions pertaining to the DuPont/DAK Americas Cape Fear Facility (hereafter DuPont),
a Superfund Site, at 3500 Daniels Road NE, Leland, NC 28451: (1) Dismantle and
remove SWMU 54. (2) Test all railroad yards and track beds within the facility for
hazardous waste. (3) Examine a “fresh water” retention pond containing about
375,000 gallons of water from the Cape Fear River likely containing PFAS and
GenX.
I am providing herein an individual community public comment encouraged throughout
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 with Amendments
through 2023. Everything that I am recommending is encouraged by my understanding
of the RCRA Corrective Action Program directives and explained clearly and repetitively
in the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s Public Participation Manual.
The RCRA Corrective Measures Study Model, Scope of Work, strongly encourages
public participation throughout all principal tasks.(Emphasis is throughout not after
the RCRA process is concluded – that is in plain English throughout the RCRA law and
implementing manuals.) All of my comments are directed through NCDEQ DWM, HWS.
My contacts are not with DuPont directly. (See Endnote 1)

My contact information is on file with NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management,

Hazardous Waste Section (hereafter NCDEQ, DWM, HWS) and my return address is
included with an attached letter. My investigation began in 2021 when I requested Julie
Woosley, who was then the Deputy Chief of the Division of Waste Management,
NCDEQ, for assistance obtaining information about the “closed” neighboring DuPont
hazardous waste Superfund facility. Ms. Woosley assigned the HWS, DWM project
manager, (named), who has been fully cooperative and engaging, to assist me in
obtaining information from the NCDEQ Laserfiche Database about RCRA and DuPont.
(Direct contact with DuPont was not authorized.) I have no personal relationship with
DuPont or its subsidiaries. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Page 1 of 60
Overview: DuPont built a manufacturing facility in northwest Brunswick County, North
Carolina, in 1968 when well-paying jobs were hard to find. DuPont provided 650 jobs,
benefits, and a credit union used to help purchase worker homes. The plant produced
materials to make Dacron® and other materials to make recyclable bottles called PET.
Both products widely used everywhere by mostly everyone. Nothing said hereafter is
intended to detract from that contribution and the men and women who made it
possible. There are, however, problems that remain after the plant stopped
manufacturing and shut down in 2013 because it was too expensive to comply with new
laws intended to protect the workforce, environment, and population. The DuPont
Remediation staff and NCDEQ are working now to have the facility (2,235 acres) totally
closure compliant with federal RCRA law in a few years. NCDEQ cannot yet provide an
approximate date.

I present herein three chief recommendations:

First: It is recommended that SWMU 54, a five-acre coal ash landfill be

dismantled and removed from the present site alongside the Cape Fear River and also
adjacent to a new residential area. I explain why in the dialog that follows. DuPont
disagrees and wants it to remain in place forever. When applying for the 2019 RCRA
permit, SWMU 54 was reported closed, demolished, and removed. It was not.

Second: It is also recommended that all closed railroad facilities within the
DuPont site and six miles of rail track bed to the CRX main rail line be inspected and
reported for hazardous herbicide residue likely used for over 56 years. DuPont
disagrees, explaining RCRA does not apply to railroads. (The rails, ties, and plates were
removed in 2019.) I explain why this recommendation is critical for public safety and
RCRA compliance required.

Third: It is recommended that the man-made “fresh water” retention pond

located adjacent to SWMU 54 be examined. The pond should be destroyed and
removed, or protected from trespass by security fencing and signage.

During year 2022, with benefit of access to the database of NCDEQ tests and findings, I
wrote a 5-part series of reports (about 100 pages total) explaining the DuPont Facility
cradle-to-grave history. Those reports are now on file in the NCDEQ Laserfiche
Database and reportedly available for public access and access by DuPont. The Project
manager of HWS DWM can provide instructions for access. Copies are also available
from me at no cost in PDF format by email. My reports were distributed by me locally to
nearby residents and the Brunswick County Planning Department.

Page 2 of 60
 The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site
By Don Gordon: Part 1 September 14, 2022, 6 pages; Parts 2&3, November 2, 2022, 23 pages;
Part 4, 3 pages; Part 5, April 14, 2023, 11 pages. This is a 2011 photo. The plant was dismantled
and the manufacturing equipment shipped to Mexico. The plant is now demolished and the rubble
either buried or relocated.

“E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company changed its name to EIDP, Inc., consistent with its
contractual obligations related to its separation from DowDuPont, Inc. The change was
effective January 1, 2023. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Corteva, Inc. DuPont used a series of mergers, spinoffs, and divestments to
shield itself from claims accusing it of polluting North Carolina with chemicals used to make
Teflon™ according to a still active lawsuit filed by the state of North Carolina Attorney
General. The deals include DuPont’s 2020 merger with Dow Chemical and Chemours –
creating a monolith. The DuPont and DAK Americas relationship and associated financial
manipulations are described at page 10, Part 2, “The Story behind the Neighboring
DuPont Hazardous Waste Site, By Don Gordon, November 11, 2022. “On March 29,
2023, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority filed a suit against EIDP in Delaware’s Court of
Chancery, the authority announced Wednesday to stop Chemours-DuPont from
restructuring to avoid pecuniary responsibility for contaminating Wilmington Area drinking
water with PFAS and GenX from their Fayetteville facility.
https://coastalreview.org/2023/03/cfpua-sues-to-stop-chemours-dupont-from-restructuring/

My First Recommendation: Removal of SWMU 54

This is an RCRA Public Comment and recommendation for the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (hereafter: NCDEQ) to require removal of the
entire fifty-five-year-old Solid Waste Management Unit, SWMU 54, at the DuPont/DAK
Americas Cape Fear Facility, Leland, NC 28451. The SWMU 54 is located at the
furthest northwest (upper left corner of the DuPont property) on the bank of the Cape
Fear River. SWMU 54 is about five acres in size. The map (on next page), in the far
upper left corner labeled “Cape Fear Site”, shows that SWMU 54 (very small orange
square) sits inside a North Carolina approved conservation area (the North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust which is outlined in purple).

Page 3 of 60
Page 4 of 60
In the larger map (above) SWMU 54 is the green square, the fresh water retention pond
(also recommended for action) is outlined in orange, as is the former DuPont
manufacturing main plant area. The conservation area (purple) is still owned by DuPont.

SWMU 54 (originally Landfill 2) was determined “No Further Action” (NFA) in 2007,
based on Phase II and III RFI, November 4, 2000 and August 31, 2004 respectively.
SWMU 54 was next reported “deactivation and demolition” in 2016-2017 in conjunction
with an RCRA permit renewal in May 2017 and final in 2019. The permit renewal was
granted and erroneously reported removal of SWMU 54. Recently DuPont explained in
response to my question that they made a mistake – demolition was not intended and
did not occur. This information from a DuPont RCRA Permit Application in 2017 and a
revised RCRA Permit Application in 2019. (SWMU 54 was recommended for deactivation and
demolition. See Basic References, Number 1, Appendix A, Title: List of Solid Waste Management
Units and Areas of Concern That Require No Further Action at This Time.) Appendix A, page A3.

I begin with this hypothesis: In 1968, SWMU 54, the first landfill but numbered #2, an
uncovered, trench and fill, landfill at first, was placed at the very extreme northwest
corner of the DuPont property on the shore of the Cape Fear River and at that time next
to a private densely forested property. SWMU 54 was as far away from the main plant
as possible likely for two chief reasons: (1) It was a solid waste landfill for coal ash and
everything else. (2) When it leaked it would leak into the river. See map, page 4, above.

Today, however, SWMU 54 is still there, it was not demolished. It is explained as:
“Closed, No Further Action” and to remain indefinitely next to the Cape Fear River and
an adjacent private residential development. It is 56 years old.

SWMU 54 is about 400 feet wide X 500 feet long X 50 feet high (plus 3 more feet deep
dug out), which is a total of 200,000 square feet (about 5 acres), and 10,000,000 cubic
feet, and therefore industrially calculated holding about 195,000 tons of coal ash, and I
contend other suspected hazardous waste.

DuPont claims (there are no records) that only coal ash and nothing else is in SWMU
54, hence categorized as only solid waste. NCDEQ DWM HWS, not SWS, is assigned
oversight as is explained later. Test well results and analysis since 2007, most recently
in 2022, limited and infrequent as they are, strongly suggest that “only coal ash” is not
true. Also consider that there are only four test wells for a 5-acre site with a perimeter of
1,800 feet, and significant immediately-below-surface active hydrology flowing toward
the river, explained in following sections of this analysis.

Historical evidence explains that SWMU 54 was the only major landfill for about five
years suggesting a mixture of solid and hazardous waste mixed with the coal ash. We
do not know for certain, there are no records. Absent EPA required records from 1968 to
2013, DuPont is required by the RCRA to prove, not hypothesize, that there is no
hazardous waste in SWMU 54. By contrast, the public is allowed to hypothesize, that is
to question. Random external well testing, and especially the results, alone are not
adequate for their conclusion. Not in that location and not with its hydrology!

Page 5 of 60
When I asked NCDEQ DWM HWS why the status was changed from DEACTIVATED,
DEMOLITION, and REMOVED to CLOSED, NO FURTHER ACTION, HWS replied in
2023: Because DuPont said in 2023, they made a mistake in 2017. That is quite a
mistake absent records and involving an RCRA permit compliant explanation. The
permit said SWMU 54 to be deactivated and destroyed, but it never was. I remind that
the permit is a certified legal document signed at the highest levels in the company.

I argue that DuPont’s cavalier attitude is contrary to best public interest and the
requirements specified throughout the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 and extensively amended through 2023. The EPA explains that RCRA
is a public law that creates the framework for the proper management of both
hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste and coal ash.

My report herein provides a thorough documentation for my conclusions and

recommendations. This is a long report, 41 pages, because the issue is already 56
years old (1968-2023) and exceptionally complex, involving about 20,000 pages of tests
results, reports, and assessments. The total cost to rehabilitate the once Superfund site
is significant for DuPont. Also, the risk of a potentially flooded SWMU of 195,000 tons
of coal ash is a significant potential cost for adjacent private property and Brunswick
and Pender Counties. (The Cape Fear River at this location provides the border
between the two counties.) It is a significant potential cost for the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Lastly, DuPont understands rules and regulations that favor their objectives,
but not so much understanding when they do not. Many of the 41 pages and two
attachments: (1. Maps and Illustrations and 2. OASIS) are for clarification.

As you read this treatise understand that DuPont was determined by the EPA to be a
hazardous Superfund Site. It is NCDEQ’s responsibility to require compliance with the
RCRA. It is not the public’s responsibility to prove that DuPont is not fully compliant. It is
DuPont’s responsibility to prove that SWMU 54 is not a danger rather than the public to
prove that it is a danger. DuPont has reversed the compliance requirement. Hopefully
NCDEQ will not.

SWMU 54: (1) is within 250 feet of part of the Cape Fear River and its confluence with
the Black River; (2) is located inside a North Carolina Coastal Conservation Trust; (3) is
250 foot distant of a developing residential neighborhood approved by Brunswick
County codes and regulations; (4) is within 250 to 750 feet of natural resources areas
which are a State Game Lands and State Wet Lands; (5) is within 250 feet of a US
Army Corps of Engineers approved private access two-acre recreation area which is
also a boat launch; (6) is surrounded on three sides by a FEMA AE Flood Zone; (7) is
adjacent to a Regulated FEMA Flood Way; (8) sits atop a significant above-and-below-
ground waterway (hydrology) to the Cape Fear River; (9) is inside a planned Brunswick
County Parks and Recreation Zone pending approval; (10) is a 2,250 acre former
Superfund Site now undergoing RCRA Corrective Measures; (11) is within a site so
large and poorly protected that recreational trespass by foot and vehicle, hunting, and
firearm shooting was routine until this year 2023; (12) is depicted in an aerial
photograph showing vehicle tracks driven in multiple circles atop the SWMU 54 mound

Page 6 of 60
 (13) is adjacent to a 375,000 gallon fresh
(See Attachment 1, Page 6, Maps and Illustrations)
water retention pond which is part swamp and an alligator bed that is regularly
trespassed; and (14) is located one mile up river from the 2018 Sutton Lake Duke
Power Coal Ash Catastrophe which could never flood, but did. Duke University’s
Nicholas School of the Environment and Appalachian State University explain why with
an uncanny similarity to SWMU 54. Sutton is further discussed with specific references
in following sections. The Sutton Lake coal ash SWMU is about six times larger than
SWMU 54. The break alone in the larger Sutton SWMU was about the same size as
the DuPont’s SWMU 54.

In addition to the 2,000 to 2,500 residents likely in The Bluffs development adjacent to
Dogwood Road NE, the DuPont site will soon have another new 5,700 total residential
units elsewhere (starting with 400 units in 2020) bordering their 2,250- acre property
along Mount Misery Road NE and also Cedar Hill Road near Interstate 140. The land is
already cleared and the infrastructure being emplaced. DuPont needs to take the RCRA
seriously. https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2019/11/07/in-two-months-navassa-approves-400-
residential-units-as-environmental-proposals-rev-up/

I actively and comprehensively pursued this issue with NCDEQ for over a year. DuPont
and NCDEQ continue to recommend: “No Further Action (NFA)” for SWMU 54 as of this
date (August 2023). They do not agree with me about removal, despite their having
recommended and approved removal in a comprehensive site analysis of all SWMU
and AOC in 2007 and 2016-17 that SWMU 54 be “deactivated and demolished.” (Ibid –
Basic Reference 1).

DuPont recently replied through NCDEQ HWS that their 2007 recommendation and
report was an error. Apparently, an error made at least a dozen times in conjunction with
many inspections and permit modifications. Every time DuPont gets caught in a
contradiction of cost versus safety, it becomes an evaluation error seemingly favoring
cost rather than safety, and HWS seemingly accepts it. That process should end. In
fairness, HWS does catch many other reporting errors and requires compliance.

Another DuPont response is that a RCRA violation of today actually occurred in 1968,
before RCRA, or whatever, whenever, and it is thus “grandfathered” today. That is a
complete fabrication. RCRA does not validate “grandfathering” current safety violations.
Yet NCDEQ lets them get away with it, again and again. Secondly, DuPont uses site
trespassing by the public as an excuse to evade responsibility. Only now has DuPont
begun to correctly protect the site with proper fencing and signage. SWMU 54 is not
“grandfathered” because it is 56 years old and 4X4 vehicles drive on top of it. It is a
difficult site to protect. There are many trails intended for access to utility rights of way
but also used for recreational vehicles, two and four wheeled. A bicycle can easily be
lifted over the main entrance gate, which despite a “keep out” sign seems welcoming.
The old six-mile railroad track bed is also welcoming.

Resolution of SWMU 54 involves the proper disposal of coal ash and also likely
contamination of the coal ash by hazardous chemicals and metals during the Dacron®
and PET manufacturing process, and consistently changing government requirements
Page 7 of 60
for safely handling coal ash since 1968. All this is compounded by North Carolina’s less
than credible history safeguarding coal ash from river flooding. I attempt to make sense
of all this and offer a reasonable solution as you read on.

The RCRA is explicit and insistent that an affected and effected public and community
be involved in the RCRA process for all sites subject to the RCRA. SWMU 54 is
covered by any reasonable standard delineated in the RCRA and particularly the RCRA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.

SWMU 54 History: The SWMU was opened in 1968 at the DuPont/DAK Americas
former Superfund [hazardous waste] Site located at 3500 Daniels Road, Leland, NC
28451, EPA Region 4, USEPA RCRA ID: NCD047369046. SWMU 54 is permitted only
as a solid waste coal ash landfill. Hazardous waste of any kind was not allowed,
unless it was. The chief reason that the DAK Americas manufacturing plant on DuPont
property closed circa 1973 was because it could not afford to comply with RCRA
requirements. It moved all the manufacturing equipment to Mexico. If they could not
afford to separate solid and hazardous waste in 1973 -- what did they do before 1973?

Be aware of this confusion, more like a Rubik’s Cube puzzle: SWMU 54 was the first
landfill, a trench and fill landfill, opened on DuPont property in 1968. Exact records are
lacking, but based on records that exist, SWMU 54 operated intermittently, was closed,
but then reopened in 1973 through 1976. Coincidentally, during that time DuPont had to
dispose of tons of hazardous waste. SWMU 54 was officially closed in 1997. It was
routinely called landfill 2 (not number 1). SWMU 55, a very small landfill, was the
second landfill built in 1968, but was called landfill 1. SWMU 55,56,57,58, and 59 (filled
with rubble and asbestos) were also opened in 1968-1970. 53 and 55 were both called
landfill 1. Landfill 54 was never called number 1. Landfill 56 was also called landfill 2.
Unless you plot all of this on a matrix, it is difficult to keep them straight. But since it is
likely all these coal ash landfills were contaminated with hazardous waste, their SWMU
number is generally irrelevant. I provided a matrix including all 80 SWMU and AOC to
NCDEQ DWM HWS in April 2022 and have not received a correction about my matrix.
Only SWMU 54 is an immediate threat to the Cape Fear River and adjacent residential
areas. Keep track of all those SWMU just cited because 53 thru 56, 58 and 59 are all in
a FEMA flood zone. More about that later.

There are no records of how SWMU 54 was built or what was dumped into it when
opened and closed during 29 years. After five unresponsive FOIA requests, EPA finally
searched with an enthusiasm inspired by our district’s Representative to Congress. For
a period of 56 years, EPA provided about thirty DuPont records, half were totally blank
of SWMU content information and the other half pertained to another DuPont facility in
Kinston, NC, which were completely and correctly completed (DuPont does know how
to complete the form when properly managed). Better accountability conforming to
RCRA is expected.

The HWS Project Manager explained on October 10, 2022 in response to questions
from me: “Based on information provided by DuPont in their RCRA Part B Permit

Page 8 of 60
Application (September 8, 2017), SWMU 54 is an unlined ash landfill that contains non-
hazardous RCRA waste (i.e., solid waste), Dacron Polymer, terephthalic acid (TPA),
Incinerator Ash, and miscellaneous non-hazardous solid waste. Groundwater samples
were collected from four monitoring wells during the Phase III RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI). (1) Arsenic, (2) barium, (3) chromium, and (4) lead were measured
in groundwater collected from one of the four monitoring wells. The other three
monitoring wells were characterized by the absence of detections (i.e., non-detects).
Only lead and chromium exceeded their respective groundwater standards. DuPont
attributed these measurements to turbidity.” (There was no comment by HWS.) By the
way, terephthalic acid (TPA), depending on dilution, is considered a hazardous waste by
many states and OSHA but not by the NC Department of Labor (NCDOL). Arsenic was
likely from the coal ash. Was the Cape Fear River channel ever tested? No, it was not
according to HWS.

DuPont proposed No Further Action again (previously in 2007) because

“concentrations were below risk-based criteria” (DuPont, 2004). HWS said OK. Test
results and analysis strongly suggest that is not true. I would have said, much more
testing and more comprehensive testing is needed because of the proximity to the Cape
Fear River.

We would expect to find arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals from the coal
ash, but not barium and not often chromium. Duke Power Sutton coal ash ponds, as
example, discharged arsenic, selenium, mercury, antimony, cadmium, chromium, lead,
and zinc into the Cape Fear River in 2018 during Hurricane Florence.

All of the chemicals and metals reported found by DuPont-sponsored testing beginning
in 1997 to present (26 years) in the 80 SWMU and AOC were recorded on a matrix-
spreadsheet by me showing a total of 94 hazardous chemicals and metals (many are
chemical variants) in 80 SWMU and AOC. Thirty hazardous chemicals were found
among 17 SWMU coal landfills. Fourteen chemicals were found in SWMU 54, many
toxic or hazardous: (1) Arsenic, (2) Barium (3) Bis (2-ethylhexyl), (4) Cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene, (5) Chromium, (6) Cobalt, (7) 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, (8) Iron, (9)
Lead, (10) Manganese, (11) Sulphur (12) Sulfate-sulfuric acid, (13) Terephthalic Acid,
and (14) Vinyl Chloride. That’s more than only solid waste; it is also hazardous waste.
Needed is for NCDEQ to repeat the matrix construction using the complete NCDEQ
Laserfiche Database to correlate every chemical and metal and combination thereof
reported from every test result conducted on all 80 SWMU and AOC on the DuPont
property by every contractor. It is hard to understand why this was not required by
NCDEQ much earlier -- it is a primary analytical technique . (See my Excel Spreadsheet:
DuPont RCRA Hazardous Waste Spreadsheet, updated through July 21, 2023, NCDEQ Laserfiche
Public Database or from author: The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site
Spreadsheet, By Don Gordon) Note: (Number of chemicals may differ throughout between
sources.)

Though SWMU 54 is presently identified as a solid waste landfill, there is substantive

information that it also contains hazardous waste, and it certainly contains toxic coal
ash. SWMU 54 has been NCDEQ monitored by both the HWS and SWS during its life

Page 9 of 60
span also suggesting probability of both HWS and SWS monitored material. I am aware
why HWS rather than SWS performed the inspections – economy of effort. That is
sensible and not an issue. It does, however, create a confusion about who is in charge
of what.

At this time (August, 2023) the entire 2,250-acre DuPont site is under a RCRA
Corrective Action Permit (May 19, 2019) (ID Number NCD 047369046 R2). The permit
is both a Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA) (1984) RCRA permit which
cites the entire DuPont site specifically as a former “hazardous waste facility.” This is
important because I believe evidence strongly suggests that hazardous waste may also
be present in SWMU 54 and most of the landfills. However, SWMU 54 participated in at
least ten entire site reviews, and in my opinion, was ignored during most, based on an
assumption rather than a thorough investigation that it is exclusively a coal ash landfill.
The RFI, CMS, and closure records show that. (Endnotes 2 & 3)

The permit shows SWMU 54: “closed, demolished, and removed, NFA” but it is not. It is
only closed -- not demolished and removed. SWMU 54 remains closed, containing
195,000 tons of coal ash and likely hazardous waste, and located next to the Cape Fear
River.

The NCDEQ’s 2019 Fact Sheet,

Subject: DAK Americas/DuPont
Cape Fear Plant, State Route 1426
(Mount Misery Road), Leland, NC,
28451, undated, no subject,
announced on page 3 that a “Public
Participation Process is scheduled
for a public meeting on March 10,
2019 in Leland.” The purpose:
Review and comment on the RCRA
Draft Renewal Permit to perform a
Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
and activities. No one from the
public, local government, the US
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District (Cape Fear River), or River Bluff Holdings II, LLC (the real estate
developer, aka BBTB Real Properties NC, LLC which is “The Bluffs on the Cape Fear”
residential development adjacent to SWMU 54) attended the meeting. Only one person
from DuPont attended the meeting, and asked that NCDEQ correct the spelling of his
name. (This was six months before the COVID threat restricted public meetings.)
Otherwise, the Fact Sheet is an excellent summary and available on line by simple
search. Public apathy or poor communication? (Endnote 4-1: NCDEQ 2019 Fact Sheet)
Nothing in that fact sheet suggests SWMU 54 to remain next to the Cape Fear River
holding 195,000 tons of coal ash.

Page 10 of 60
Critical to my recommendation is that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) (1976) is thorough, repetitive, and emphatic that protecting human health
and the environment is the chief objective of both the RCRA and CERCLA. My
contention herein is that SWMU 54, regardless of its contents or date of origin, is
subject to the RCRA with all amendments through 2023. I propose that because of its
location on the edge of the Cape Fear River, SWMU 54 which is now closed, should
be demolished and removed. SWMU 54, according to reports, was initially scheduled
for and “awaited photos of its demolition” in 2016 which is/was required before
classifying the SWMU as NFA. No photos available yet after seven years. No
explanation why DuPont “made a mistake.” See SWMU Description and Operating
History in NCDEQ files. (See also Basic Reference 1 cited at end of this document.)

Nowhere can I find that the 2016-2017 recommendations to close, demolish, and
remove SWMU 54 has been rejected by a Corrective Action review. The only action
concluded is, I am quoting, “awaiting photos of demolition and removal.” Has this option,
though obvious, been considered, evaluated, or further reported after 2017? Not
according to the database. When I inquired about the status, the HWS section said:
“Dupont reports it made a mistake, demolition was not intended.” I have learned that
DuPont likely concluded demolition and removal is too expensive. DuPont has begun
risk-based mediation before announcing it. How did HWS let them get away with this?
How can you not see SWMU 54? It is almost as high as a five-story building.

Prior to RCRA, the SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT (SWDA) [Public Law 89–272;
Approved October 20, 1965] [As Amended Through P.L. 117–58, Enacted November
15, 2021], and specifically Sections 3001-3004 and 8002 and throughout, clearly
provides the requirement for chemical and physical analysis and composition of such
wastes as fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, flue gas emission control waste,
and other byproduct materials generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other
fossil fuels. fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, flue gas emission control
waste, and other byproduct materials generated primarily from the combustion of coal or
other fossil fuels.

From 1965 to 1976, coal ash was considered a potentially hazardous solid waste
requiring special safe handling, recording, and protected entombment in a manner that
protected the environment and human health. A careful reading of the SWDA would
reasonably conclude that coal ash waste should not be contained where it could
potentially contaminate a major United States river, the largest watershed in North
Carolina even in 1965, and yet it was.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers asserts jurisdiction over waters and
wetlands of the United States under two federal statutes: (1) Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and (2) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Wilmington
District has responsibility for the Cape Fear River. There is no report of coordination
between the US Army Corps of Engineers (Wilmington, NC) and NCDEQ about SWMU
54, or 53, 55 ,56, 58, and 59, all also in a FEMA flood zone but none of those as

Page 11 of 60
vulnerable as 54. That despite the Duke Energy Sutton Lake Disaster in 2018 just one
mile down river.

I explain that SWMU 54 is a serious threat to human health, safety, property,

conservation, and the environment. The discussion that follows explains this is chiefly
true because it is increasingly vulnerable to flooding by the Cape Fear River. That
vulnerability has not been professionally evaluated by DuPont as of this date using a
reliable threat analysis methodology.

The NCDEQ exclusive dependence on FEMA Flood Zone AE methodology (flood once
in a hundred years) is, I believe, misconstrued and inaccurately applied in HWS replies
to me about this subject. Why is discussed further in this document using the FEMA
Flood Handbook for Brunswick County.

The irony in all this is that the RCRA Permit submitted by DuPont explains in its final
permit application, NCD047369046_REVISED DuPont/DAK Cape Fear RCRA Permit
Renewal Application_20170908, September 2017, the exact procedures required to
comply with the hydrology requirement for the investigation. See pages B6 to B8 of the
permit, but they were not comprehensively followed by DuPont. It is the same mistake
that Duke Power made at Lake Sutton. Lots of procedures, not much compliance.

SWMU 54 is reportedly full of about 195,000 tons of toxic coal ash and other unverified
contents which are likely hazardous waste, surely toxic waste, as described in the
explanation that follows. What kind of coal waste? DuPont does not know – no records.

I recommend that NCDEQ provide a comprehensive mathematical certainty of at least

95 percent probability and assurance that SWMU 54 will never fail to totally contain its
contents in its present location regardless of structure degradation, the absence not
only of any liner, but absence of the three liners now required by state law. DuPont and
NCDEQ do not know what kind of coal ash. Enough about monitoring wells. Needed
are content records – they were required but likely never completed for SWMU 54.

Stay with me here – it’s typical government gobbledygook, but if DuPont can’t comply,
then demolish SWMU 54, for real this time. There’s no grandfathering allowed. Enough
of that DuPont and HWS grandfathering hyperbole. DuPont is making that up. RCRA,
not grandfather, is the authority.

An excellent description of current safeguards required for new coal ash landfills is
found in the current (June 2023) North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 130A,
Article 9 – Solid Waste Management, Part 1. §130A-295.4. Title: Combustion
products landfills and the definitions set out in G.S. 130A-290(a), and exactly explains
the criteria for a safe coal ash landfill. SWMU 54 fails this standard on every
construction requirement. Even these standards are not intended to protect against
flood. You protect against flood of a major river by not building there. Boldface was
added in the following quote.

Page 12 of 60
 The Department may permit a new combustion products [coal ash] landfill
to be constructed partially or entirely within areas that have been formerly
used for the storage or disposal of combustion products at the same
facility as the coal-fired generating unit that generates the combustion
products, provided the landfill is constructed with a bottom liner system
consisting of three components in accordance with this section. Of the
required three components, the upper two components shall consist of two
separate flexible membrane liners, with a leak detection system between
the two liners. The third component shall consist of a minimum of two feet
of soil underneath the bottom of those liners, with the soil having a
maximum permeability of 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second. The flexible
membrane liners shall have a minimum thickness of thirty one-
thousandths of an inch (0.030"), except that liners consisting of high-
density polyethylene shall be at least sixty one-thousandths of an inch
(0.060") thick. The lower flexible membrane liner shall be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the compacted soil layer. The Department may
approve an alternative to the soil component of the composite liner system
if the Department finds, based on modeling, that the alternative liner
system will provide an equivalent or greater degree of impermeability.
(Endnote 4-2)

Though SWMU 54 is categorized as a solid waste landfill and would routinely be

supervised by the NCDEQ SWS, responsibility was reportedly, administratively, and
understandably, transferred for economy of effort to the HWS because most of the rest
of the DuPont site is classified hazardous waste. My attempts to several times contact
by email (using an address provided by NCDEQ) the recommended NCDEQ SWS point
of contact for SWMU 54, (named), were not successful. I did, however, have very
successful responses from the HWS Project Manager and the supervisor at the HWS; I
appreciate their service and dedication.

NCDEQ recently (2021-2022) again tested SWMU 54 for seepage. I think the annual
testing will now continue after little if any testing from 2007 to 2020. Though detection of
leaking is important, the most significant and likely threat is flooding. A flood washaway
of SWMU 54, perhaps jamming the entire confluence of the Cape Fear and Black
Rivers in a FEMA designated Floodway is critical. SWMU 54 is one mile upriver from
the infamous Lake Sutton coal ash ecological disaster in 2018 (Hurricane Florence)
which Duke Power and NCDEQ assured could never happen (according to the news
media), but it did happen. Review the literature about that disaster: ( Endnotes 5-1, 5-2, &
5-3: Lake Sutton Disaster, Senator calls warning, and Duke University, Wake Forest University)

NCDEQ requires DuPont to prove that hazardous leaking is under control for each
SWMU/HWMU and AOC at the DuPont site. However, there is no requirement that
DuPont prove it cannot be flooded underground or above ground. That should be a
requirement using a reasonable interpretation on compliance described in the RCRA.

The NCDEQ Laserfiche Database reports thousands of pages of test data in this
regard. I read them all. Lots of small picture views, but the big picture is obscured. It is

Page 13 of 60
not only a question of leaking, it should also be a question of the SWMU construction
project life cycle which is reportedly unknown for SWMU 54. Its construction durability,
complete effectiveness, and its life expectancy as a containment facility is unknown.
How long is it guaranteed to last – after 56 years and “before regulation was required” in
this case? How will it withstand flooding or hydrologic erosion?
EPA and NCDEQ do not know or cannot explain specifically how SWMU 54 was
constructed, let alone how long it will survive. The only answer given: permitted closed
1997 by SWS, “closed by an approved contractor” not named, some dirt and matting
used, we planted grass. There are no records. I checked. EPA checked. (footnote: FID
1274582, January 8, 2019, EPA ID # NCD 047 369 046)

I assess that SWMU 54 has been the

least inspected, practically not
inspected, and most ignored SWMU on
the DuPont property. Yet, SWMU 54 sits
practically on the bank of a branch of
the Cape Fear River and can be
flooded by both the Black and Cape
Fear Rivers simultaneously. (See map
left.) Main branch Cape Fear far right in
photo.

If that is not bad enough, DuPont linked

SWMU 54 with AOC GW (groundwater)
in at least one report. My spreadsheet
shows that SWMU 54 was evaluated as
part of AOC GW, during years 1968 to 2013. AOC GW has 29 hazardous chemical
detections, the most of any SWMU/AOC because it is mostly ground water sludge. That
relationship was iterated in the 2017 and 2019 RCRA permit applications. Further
explanation of the SWMU and AOC is needed. I understand how all the hazslop got into
AOC GW, but how and why did GW and SWMU 54 become inspection-linked early on?
(Endnote 6: SWMU 54 and AOC GW)

Discussion: The RCRA is the public law that creates the framework for the proper
management of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. SWMU 54, at 56 years
old, about five acres in size, about 50 feet high, 4 feet deep, 400 by 500 feet in
perimeter, is located at the edge of the Cape Fear River. FEMA shows the base of
SWMU 54 at only 14 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on a summer day. During
Hurricane Florence, in 2018, the base of SWMU 54 was only 18 inches above flood
stage. The likely 3-foot entrenchment of SWMU 54 probably 18 inches below MSL. Did
it leak? Do not know. No testing in 2018-2019. The river never tested.

SWMU 54 is full of coal ash and also suspected other chemicals and toxic metals, there
is no protective liner, let alone the three now required (required by RCRA and Coal
Combustion Residuals (CCR) regulations and North Carolina General Statutes >
Chapter 130A > Article 9 – Solid Waste Management.)

Page 14 of 60
SWMU 54 could not be permitted in its present location today, and it should not be
allowed to remain today as DuPont processes for closure its entire 2,250-acre former
Superfund hazardous waste facility within a year or two, or probably longer; there is not
yet a certain date. SWMU 54 today violates too many RCRA standards and
requirements for year 2023. The NCDEQ compliance sequence is lacking a task,
condition, standard, test methodology. It is mostly about data collection rather than data
consequence. The “standard” part of the equation is: Should an SWMU or AOC be
allowed closed but not demolished and removed? That’s the real issue.

I am advised by the EPA that there are no grandfathering provisions in the RCRA or
CERCLA that permit any SWMU or HWMU an exemption from current law if they
endanger humans, residential or commercial areas, waterways, well water, conservation
or recreation sites, or the environment, regardless of when they were constructed. That
applies to coal ash also. The RCRA requires a safe distance between any WMU and
residents or recreation areas of a minimum 1,000 feet not 250. SWMU 54 is only 250
foot distant. There is no “1968 grandfather provision” for that criteria either. I opine that
DuPont infringed private property whether developed or not at the time – building a 5-
acre coal ash dump immediately next to a neighbor’s property without coordination. It
is the responsibility of NCDEQ to cite law or regulation and EPA approval that allows
SWMU 54 to be located closer than 1,000 feet or any other distance. SWMU 54 could
not be permitted today in its present location and it should not remain there. To date, no
reply by HWS in that regard. Did DuPont notify the adjacent private property owner that
a 5-acre coal landfill would be built? According to county property records DuPont used
part of a large parcel and two smaller parcels to build SWMU 54.

There was limited test-well monitoring during site-wide ground water testing beginning
in the 1990’s, but SWMU 54 was NOT included in Phase I (1991), II, III, or IV of the RFI,
not included in Stage I of the CMS, and not included in the Closure Report.
Investigators assumed rather than tested and inspected. After all, SWMU 54 was only a
landfill and closed long ago. Sort of. (Endnote 7: SWMU 54 Description and Operational
History).

ON SITE MEETING, May 17, 2023: I appreciate the onsite meeting facilitated by the
Project Manager, Hazardous Waste Section (HWS), Division of Waste Management
(DWM), NCDEQ on site. The meeting was held at SWMU 54 and the adjacent retention
pond to which I was invited and which was attended by representatives from NCDEQ,
DuPont Remediation, Corteva-DuPont, DAK Americas, and Pioneer. We discussed
issues involving SWMU 54’s safety, vulnerability, future testing, and also the blatant
trespassing by some public onto the DuPont private property. We also discussed the
removal and destruction of DuPont NO TRESPASSING signs prohibiting trespassing for
any reason, including hunting and fishing in season or out of season, shooting for the
hell of it, which shooting occurred even while site testing was being conducted by
DuPont contractors. The trespassing has been ongoing for generations.

The operation of privately owned 4X4 vehicles and motorbikes in particular occurs
throughout the property and on top of SWMU 54. (See Attachment 1, Maps and Illustrations
at end of this document.) There is illegal trespassing by walking and bicycling on the

Page 15 of 60
DuPont property by those not authorized access. DuPont suggested a fence extension
near SWMU 54 and also more robust and emphatic signage better placed; both actions
are underway and mostly completed by DuPont. I continue to remind the public that
DuPont is a no trespass area. I also understand that in the future law enforcement
authorities will be asked by DuPont to respond to reports of trespassing. This is not
retaliation, it is common sense. The approximate 1,375 acres of North Carolina
Conservation Land Trust (NCCLT) owned by DuPont is not at this time anyway intended
as public access land. The old railway bed remains private, not a public right of way.
That needs to be clarified for the communities in the area. Signs might help. However,
in August 2023, the signs continue to be defaced.

Adverse Possession: There are a lot of dirt trail easement accesses used for vehicle
trespass. The 1,375-acre conservation lands are often misconstrued to be for hiking,
cycling, riding horses, shooting, and likely other activities that have transpired for
generations, entering along Mt. Misery and Cedar Hill roads, as well as what is now The
Bluffs on the Cape Fear residential development. Hunting by long-time local residents is
claimed by adverse possession of easement, and even squatter possession is an issue.

Also discussed during the meeting was the not fenced, approximately 375,000-gallon
fresh water retention pond, adjacent to SWMU 54 on DuPont property and also located
in the no trespassing area. Aerial photos suggest this pond is constructed similar to a
swimming pool – it does have concrete sides. It is a man made, rectangular, raised
swamp pond with a marsh shoreline. With state permit, water is pumped from the Cape
Fear River into the pond to maintain its level. It was originally used as the former fire
hydrant water supply, the hydrants long disconnected. The pond contains alligators; 15-
foot alligators are common. It is suggested that the pond be drained or fenced and
surveillance cameras used. The pond may be construed as an attractive nuisance in the
legal sense. The infrastructure rusting, broken, deteriorating, and dangerous – an
accident waiting to happen. Children can discover anything. DuPont representatives
took note.

We also used this opportunity to discuss the water courses running through and under
The Bluffs on the Cape Fear. We toured this adjacent residential development,
observed the NC Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) 650-acre mitigation swamp
that drains into DuPont property through swales, and underground into, though, and
under the adjacent Bluffs residential area. Hurricane Florence, 2018, provided a
demonstration.

Hazard and Solid Waste: On the DuPont property it appears that emphasis is mostly
directed to hazardous waste management units and that some solid waste and coal ash
waste may not receive the attention intended by the DuPont DEQ permits or EPA. I am
particularly concerned about SWMU 54 located in the extreme northwest corner of the
DuPont site, within 250 feet of the Cape Fear River, and adjacent to a newly developed
neighborhood. As of August 1, 2023, there are about 200 homes already constructed,
approximately 100 more under construction, and eventually having a total of 750 single
family, residential homes, with a population of about 2,000 to 2,500 residents. (I have

Page 16 of 60
owned one of those homes since 2018-19; I do not, however, represent other
homeowners or the developer.)

My assessment is that the danger from flooding, by both the Cape Fear River and the
local hydrology and hydrometeorology, presents a high risk whether from a single event
or persistent erosion. I acquired this conclusion by reading FEMA and local reports and
by talking to long-time area residents and FEMA qualified representatives.

The underground hydrology is reported in DuPont contracted studies as moving from 11

to 17 feet per year from the general area of Mount Misery Road NE, beneath DuPont
(and likely the NCDOT mitigation and residential areas) to the Cape Fear River, about
two miles. That is not fast, but a lot of water measured in square miles or acres. This
entire area was a huge swamp when discovered by Giovanni da Verrazzano in 1524. I
think the risk to SWMU 54 is now significantly higher in year 2023 due to many
hydrology changes created since 1968 and certainly since 2005 when the real estate
developer purchased the 650-acre property adjacent to DuPont. Also, since 2007,
2017, and 2019 when NCDEQ RCRA permitting was approved.

The adjacent real estate developer contracted with the Davey Resource Group (DRG)
in 2022 to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report for the
entire Bluffs Residential Subdivision. DRG reviewed the groundwater potentiometric
map calculated during the 2014 NCDEQ HWS Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
by Parsons and Pioneer for DuPont and NCDEQ. It is ancient history prior to Hurricane
Florence in 2018. But, even in 2014 it showed the flow of underground water chiefly
from the area of Mount Misery Road toward, under, and around SWMU 54. This is likely
now very much increased, after the real estate land infrastructure changes not yet near
completion in 2014, and more excavation on the schedule. FEMA subsequently also
provided more current flood data. I explain what and why further on. I remind that it is
NCDEQ’s responsibility to prove SWMU 54 is safe – cannot flood while being only 250
feet next to a river that floods. It is not the responsibility of the public to prove it is not
safe. (See the RCRA and North Carolina Generals Statues, Chapter 130A, Article 9. Also see
Davey Study, page 3, map page 4, endnote 18.)

The 2017 and 2019 RCRA Permit Renewal Applications defined an excellent
methodology for the required hydrology portion of the permit:
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Characterize Environmental Setting pages B6-B8
SWMU within flood plain? 53, 54,55, 56,58, 59
Hydrology; Ground water flow pattern
Topographic features
Tidal or Seasonal Influences (Yes, Moon Tides!)
Surface water bodies in vicinity of facility (Cape Fear and Black Rivers)
(Largest combined watershed in Southeast United States)
Stress Channels
Inside getting out (not vice versa)
Recreation

Page 17 of 60
 Environmental failures (floods) (Numerous, 2018 Sutton Lake
catastrophe)
Floodplain Standard (page 7, B-46) (within flood plain? YES!)
10 feet above flood level!
The problem with the 2019 RCRA permit is that this is 2023 and there is no meaningful,
comprehensive, hydrology study. The 2018 flood not mentioned. No forecast.

I request that NCDEQ require a quantitative risk analysis showing the probability of
flooding for SWMU 54 based on 2023 data projected forward fifty years, not backward
50 years. The problem is not history but rather the future. North Carolina rivers are
projected rising, as much as 2.6 feet in the next ten years, SWMU 54 does not have a
2.6-foot margin. (Endnote 8: New Studies Show Unprecedented Sea-Level Rise North Carolina
Coast; April 27, 2023, three pages, see citation.) (Endnote 9-1: There is no safety margin for El
Niño and La Niña variations or hurricanes, January 18, 2016, see citation, 9 pages. The Cape Fear-
Black River watershed is the largest in North Carolina.) (Endnote 9-2: Cape Fear Riverkeeper
Reports “ongoing failure” at Sutton, 2018.)

I accessed about 20,000 pages of comprehensive NCDEQ technical reports and

analysis about the DuPont site by Corteva (DuPont) Agriscience and independent
DuPont contractors such as Parsons Technology Group and Pioneer Technologies
Corporation supervised by NCDEQ HWS and available in the NCDEQ Laserfiche®
Public Database. I compiled that data into a five-section, September to November 2022
report, “The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site” with an
accompanying Excel spreadsheet comparing all 80 SWMU/HWMU/AOC with all 56
chemicals detected and reported by the EPA throughout 495 instances of testing by
DuPont contractors. My assessment was also submitted to and included in the NCDEQ
public Laserfiche® Public Database.

My purpose is to inventory threat factors caused by both hazardous and solid waste and
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR). I believe the prevalence of CCR on DuPont
property is greater than attributed in reports to date especially when it is CCR also
containing hazardous chemicals and heavy metals which the literature throughout the
industry explains is highly likely. Conclusive proof that hazardous waste is not present in
SWMU 54 should be confirmed by DuPont to NCDEQ. There is a significant difference
between contents and leakage not regularly and consistently tested for 56 years.
(Endnote 10-1 to 10-5: Parts 2 and 3, The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste
Site, November, 2022)

I assess the coal ash was mixed with other waste by virtue of the Dacron® and PET
manufacturing and disposal process. DuPont persists that only coal ash is in SWMU 54.
I do not think that is true. Parsons found 1,2 Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCB) .000052
MG/L (NC2L: .00004). They found Vinyl Chloride also .00356 MG/L (NC2L: .00003)
See: Project 451927.04060, May 13, 2022. How did that get in an SWMU declared NFA
and closed in 2007? Who owned SWMU 54? First DuPont then DAK Americas, not
Corteva, so how did their waste products get into SWMU 54? (Endnote 11-1: SWMU 54
Description and Operational History)

Page 18 of 60
Coal ash, I submit qualifies as Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR), whether or not used
in a power plant. The several types of furnaces used by DuPont in the Dacron® and
PET process were likely dirtier than electric power plant furnaces converting coal to
steam. If that is not true, then explain how according to the EPA Toxic Release Inventory
Program, DAK Americas and DuPont, between 1968 and 2013, created 527,000 tons of
toxic waste mostly discharged into the atmosphere from furnaces, and a lot left behind.
There is a lot of vinyl chloride in eight different SWMU/AOC and likely including SWMU
54. (Endnote 11-2)

SWMU 54 permitted in1968 by NCDEQ Solid Waste Section (SWS) Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA) (Landfill Permit No.10-06, 1968) reported only as an ash landfill is now highly
likely evolved into a combination of both solid and also hazardous coal ash containing
its own dangerous chemicals and also other chemical waste. I also concluded that the
determination by NCDEQ that SWMU 54 is “No Further Action (NFA)” in 2007 is without
adequate conclusive information and analysis to make that determination. I am
particularly concerned about hazardous coal ash regardless of the manipulation of the
English language by Duke and other coal burning power companies.

SWMU 54 was initially a solid waste landfill permitted by old law and later the NCDEQ
Solid Waste Section (SWS). It was reportedly closed in 1997 by one of DuPont's
qualified contractors under oversight by NCDEQ SWS in accordance with requirements
stipulated by SWS. The HWS now explains that landfill closure was not performed as
part of RCRA despite DuPont being a hazardous waste site and SWMU 54 at least a
solid waste site subject to the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984 (P.L. 98-616, 98 Stat. 322).
(https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-
recovery-act) That contradiction deserves explanation.

Otherwise please explain why SWMU 54 is not covered by the RCRA or HSWA.

EPA Coal Ash and Landfills; Coal Combustion Residuals, or CCR – A Tutorial
https://www.epa.gov/coalash

COAL ASH: The RCRA, amended through 2023, supersedes 1968 standards applied
to SWMU 54. The RCRA treats coal ash differently today and it also emphasizes and
encourages recycling of coal ash, not leaving it in place next to a major river and FEMA
Designated Floodway. It specifically encourages North Carolina to solve the problem not
hide it. DuPont created the problem -- it has an obligation to solve it, not leave it. My
opinion of course. The article cited immediately above, and others at endnote 13,
describe coal ash thoroughly.

Coal ash, according to the EPA, refers to whatever waste is leftover after coal is
combusted, usually in a coal-fired power plant. It contains arsenic, mercury, lead, and
many other heavy metals. Coal ash is commonly divided into four subcategories based
on particle and particulate size. The most voluminous and well-known is (1) fly ash,
which makes up more than half of the coal leftovers. Fly ash particles fly up into the
exhaust stacks of electric power plants and also in the DuPont-Dak Americas

Page 19 of 60
manufacturing process plant’s multiple coal furnaces. In 2023, filters with approved coal
furnace stacks now capture about 99 percent of the ash; today fly ash is totally
recyclable! However, prior to 1992 that was not true at the DuPont facility when the site
set new records creating hazardous waste (see chart below). Fact: the chief reason
DuPont/DAK Americas closed the Leland plant was because it was not cost effective to
meet the required hazardous waste disposal standards required by the RCRA. Instead,
they sent all the manufacturing equipment to DAK Americas in Mexico and “rubbled” the
buildings – the infrastructure and the railroad.

The problem now is that NCDEQ has a propensity to treat chemically contaminated coal
ash and electric power plant created coal ash the same. They are not. And power plant
coal ash has a lot more political influence (leniency) than chemical plant coal ash at
both the state and federal level. The professional literature is ripe with examples.

See the EPA data chart below: About 15,000,000 pounds (7,500 tons) of hazardous
waste in1992. Note that the chart begins in 1987 twenty years after the original DuPont
plant (Dacron® polyester) and SWMU 54 in 1968 were built. An additional plant was
built in 1973 to manufacture Dacron® using terephthalic acid (TPA) which was used
both on site and shipped elsewhere. That was about 20 years before hazardous waste
records were maintained.

There is a reasonable conclusion, not assumption, that a lot of coal waste and chemical
residue is in the old SWMUs like number 54. Some waste was transported elsewhere in
drums – closing records, but no shipping records. In 1968 a lot of waste went out the
DuPont chimneys into the atmosphere and a lot of hazardous waste was also trapped in
chimney filters, but not 99 percent. Instead, it was likely removed as “solid waste” and
sent to a SWMU like number 54. I agree that is a hypothesis based on process not a
demonstrable fact. It was very likely hazardous waste. Can I prove that? No. Can

Page 20 of 60
DuPont prove it was not? Not yet, but that is the DuPont and NCDEQ responsibility, not
the public’s responsibility according to the RCRA.

(2) Bottom ash is the second subcategory and the coarser component of coal ash,
comprising about 10 percent of the coal waste. Rather than floating into the exhaust
stacks, it settles to the bottom of the power plant’s boiler or furnace along with chemical
residue. Bottom ash is recyclable, but it was not recycled by DuPont – no records
anyway. (3) Boiler slag is the melted form of coal ash that can be found both in the
filters of exhaust stacks and the boiler at the bottom. Boiler slag is also recyclable, but it
was not. (4) Flue gas desulfurization material, a material leftover from the process of
reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from a coal-fired boiler, can be a wet sludge
consisting of calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate or a dry powered material that is a
mixture of sulfites and sulfates. There is a lot of coal ash and chemical residue not
accounted for -- tons! There are no records.

The seventeen SWMU and AOC associated with coal residue in DuPont tell that story.
From the spreadsheet: “30 Hazwaste Chemicals Either Created by Coal Ash or Mixed
with Coal Ash.” (Endnote 12: DuPont RCRA Hazardous Waste Spreadsheet, Excel June 11,
2023, Don Gordon); (Endnote 13: Coal Ash Basics – EPA; What is coal ash?)

That is one reason why the DuPont site has seventeen coal waste facilities, SWMU and
AOC, containing various amounts and types of coal ash, chemicals, and metals: 37, 38,
48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74. Was 54 the rare
exception? Not likely. (See endnote 15, previously cited, Excel spreadsheet cited herein)

There is long standing controversy and political influence deciding if coal ash is
hazardous or not. Most state and federal authorities agree at the very least it is toxic.
Electric power companies say it is solid waste. (See endnote 14: “Coal Ash Is Hazardous.
Coal Ash Is Waste; But According to the EPA, Coal Ash Is Not Hazardous Waste; And the Coal
Industry is More than Happy to Keep Things that Way.”)

Scientists and conservationists say coal is hazardous waste. The fish in Sutton Lake
say hazardous too. There is no substantive logical or scientific argument that coal ash
mixed with hazardous chemicals is not hazardous. DuPont explains that the residue of
the polymerization of ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid (TPA) from the
manufacture of Dacron and PET is not hazardous. However, the New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services provides a Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet
explaining in exacting detail why TPA is hazardous. You read you decide and focus on
the word “cancer” throughout. The New Jersey Fact Sheet (use a simple web search) is
provided because the North Carolina Department of Labor (NCDOL) quoting: The North
Carolina Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
explained on June 24, 2023, “… the Division does not create these types of fact sheets
and does not maintain a hazardous materials list.” NCDOL also explained [the federal]
“OSHA has no permissible exposure limit for terephthalic acid.” (Endnote 16-1: New Jersey
Terephthalic Acid (TPA) Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet; Endnote 16-2: Terephthalic Acid Safety
Data Sheet; Endnote 16-3: EPA Site Terephthalic Acid)

Page 21 of 60
The EPA’s recent rules require that states, like North Carolina, shall manage coal waste.
The DuPont plant’s coal ash also contains the chemical residue of about 30 hazwaste
chemicals used to produce Dacron® and PET. The furnaces and wastewater were
used to dispose of manufacturing hazardous waste and other waste prior to 1992.
DuPont created thousands of tons of coal ash laced with chemicals. If this is not true
then ongoing test data would prove that, but it does not. Not that I can find.

I am advised by NCDEQ HWS and the EPA that SWMU 54 was closed in 1997 after 29
years of receiving principally “landfill coal ash waste” and that there are no EPA or
NCDEQ records of how much, what kind of coal ash, or what else it may contain. Since
it was the only landfill for five years, though named landfill 2, it was really the first
landfill. There are almost no records for the earliest landfills (53 thru 58) of which two
are also named number 1.

It is reasonably deductive that SWMU 54 may also have received hazardous waste.
Test records from seventeen of the eighty DuPont HWMU/SWMU/AOC show that they
contain coal ash in some way and also contain 30 hazwaste chemicals either created by
coal ash or mixed with coal ash during the manufacturing and waste removal process.
Dowtherm waste is one example.

Because SWMU 54 was the principal landfill for about five years after the DuPont plant
opened in 1968, it is also logical that it may contain a lot more than coal ash. However,
there are no records to prove what is or is not in SWMU 54. There is only anecdotal
information. We do know that a measurement the size of SWMU 54 suggests that
SWMU 54, about five acres in size that is dug 3 to 4 feet deep and 48 feet high,
contains about 195,000 tons of something with the weight of coal ash. If only coal ash
and nothing else, the threat is still significant and not compliant with the RCRA or North
Carolina regulations (previously cited) now in August 2023. I opine that SWMU 54 would
fail RCRA coal ash retention standards if built today.

There are numerous reasons to question precisely what SWMU 54 contains and its
substantiality and sustainability after 56 years. It was built when there were practically
no standards. It is located on the shore of the Cape Fear River. It is now adjacent to a
large 650-acre residential housing area which includes a US Army Corps of Engineers
approved recreational boat launch, a planned family recreation area, and 15 homesites
that are in close proximity to SWMU 54. Nearby is a state 7,260-acre conservation area
wetlands, including a 2,000-acre State Game Lands (both only 2 to 4 feet above MSL)
and open to hunting and fishing with permit: deer, turkey, fox, quail, rabbit, racoon,
squirrel, and waterfowl among others. Some of the 1,350 acres of the North Carolina
Conservancy Land Trust (the property remains owned by DuPont) are surrounded on
three sides by a FEMA AE flood zone, and categorized by FEMA as a Regulatory River
Floodway. This is where SWMU 54 is located. (Endnotes: 17-1 and 17-2)

A staff member from NCDEQ remarked to me that before RCRA the nation’s rivers were
treated like giant sewers by industry. The Cape Fear River certainly qualified. But not
now. That is why RCRA and CERCLA became law.

Page 22 of 60
There are sound reasons for challenging SWMU 54’s sustainability to flooding. One
thing is certain: SWMU 54 would not meet RCRA flood standards today. Today EPA
would not allow SWMU 54 to be built on the shore of the Cape Fear River. Not after the
several coal ash disasters in North Carolina and Duke Power’s Sutton Lake coal ash
disaster in 2018.

SWMU 54 is not included in the current RCRA Corrective Actions because it is not
determined by NCDEQ to be a hazardous waste site. It is categorized as No Further
Action (NFA) effective 2007, when testing was discontinued because it was going to be
demolished, and before testing began again in 2021 chiefly as a result of inquiry.
However, there was periodic elevated detection of chromium and lead in 1997,
methanol above NC2L in 1999, chromium and lead in 2004, as well as methanol above
NC2L in 2004, and chromium and lead exceeding NC2L, as well as thallium suspected
in 2004. There was also testing by DuPont in 2006 but those DuPont results not made
available within the DEQ Laserfiche Database. Followed by no testing (or no test
results) by anyone 2004 to 2021 (17 years). Despite the NFA status, SWMU 54 was
tested again in 2021-22 with detection of sulfate, dissolved solids, manganese, 1,2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane, vinyl chloride, iron, and cobalt all above NC2L levels. It is still
leaking and leaking more! Recent year 2022 well testing (after 17 years of not testing)
shows SWMU 54 is now still leaking into all four test wells including a replacement well.
(See Basic Reference 1 and Endnote 11, Reference SWMU 54, Parsons’ Description and
Operational History, page 125 of 169, page marked 61 at bottom of page.)

It is explained in the RCRA Permit, 2007, SWMU 54 will likely remain in NFA status
unless periodic testing indicates further action is required. Further testing was
performed in 2021-22, fourteen years later. The results are disturbing to me but not to
NCDEQ. SWMU 54 remains in NFA status.

There is significant information that more than only coal ash waste was dumped into
SWMU 54, and it is beginning to leak again. The leak is not excessive but it does
exceed NC2L levels for some chemicals, twice NC2L levels in some cases. It is
understood that some chemicals and metals naturally occur in the soil. However, there
are no comparative NCDEQ approved test results for the adjacent private property, the
river, or the river bed. NCDEQ advises that the water and river sludge adjacent to
SWMU 54 has never been tested for leakage from SWMU 54. They explain there is no
requirement to test there, but that is only because NCDEQ did not require that testing in
the approved permit. That is likely a contradiction to the purpose of the RCRA. It also
seems unusual that a landfill placed in a location most likely intended to leach into the
riverbed was never tested to see if it did leach. Test wells have a purpose, but I do not
think the single test well (among four) between SWMU 54 and the river is statistically
significant.

The adjacent private property has never been tested by NCDEQ and that property
developer’s limited one-time test results (three wells on private property) in 2016 were
not under supervision of NCDEQ or any other environmental agency nor publicly
reported at the time. Having read the report, I do not think NCDEQ standards were met.
Page 23 of 60
The Bluffs annual Property Owner’s Association meeting was scheduled for early
December 2022, just as the information reported in my original reports “The Story
behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site” was becoming controversial.
The Davey Resource Group (hereafter DRG) was employed by the real estate
developer in December 2022 to review NCDEQ information about SWMU 54 which sits
across from about fifteen not yet developed prime building lots, marketed at about
$500,000 each as reported in local real estate listings. Lots 505 and 506 are some
examples.

In their report (page 15) DRG states:

It is DRGs opinion, that the only portion of the Bluffs Residential

Subdivision that may have the potential to be impacted by the Ash Landfill
leachate is the ‘extreme’ northeastern tip/corner of the subject property
along the Cape Fear River. [boldface added]

This is where the above-mentioned lots, the US Army Corps of Engineers approved
boat launch, and the recreation area are located. The leachate from SWMU 54 would
likely seep through the soil and enter these areas and probably enter the Cape Fear
River. Destruction of SWMU 54 by flooding would destroy the area and everything in it.

DRG reiterated NCDEQ SWMU 54 data reports to the developer on December 6, 2022.
The DRG’s interpretation of the NCDEQ data is absent any concerns about flooding.
Actually, it neglects to study flooding or FEMA data at all. Except, the DRG offered an
interpretation of Parsons’ potentiometric maps calculated during the 2014-2022 Annual
Groundwater Monitoring Reports which shows that the groundwater flow direction was
calculated to flow in a northeasterly and later an easterly direction toward SWMU 54
and away from the real estate development property. Based on what is basically the
same map over eight years, and based chiefly on 2014 and lesser supplemental testing
through 2022, DRG considered the real estate lots to be located hydrologically side
gradient to SWMU 54. That was before the real estate developer began excavation after
2014 (albeit absent deliberate intention) significantly affecting the drainage swales from
650 acres toward DuPont, the river, and SWMU 54.

Quoting from DRG’s December 2022 report:

DRG posed this question to “the NCDEQ HWS Project Manager … responsible
for providing oversite for the remedial actions of this former DuPont-Cape Fear
Plant. DRG specifically asked (via email) … that besides minor groundwater
quality issues, are there any other hazards or threats that the SWMU 54 posses
[sic] to the adjacent Bluffs Residential Subdivision? [The NCDEQ project
manager] responded via email “No” on December 2, 2022.

No elaboration. DRG did not provide the NCDEQ HWS or SWS project managers a
copy of the report that the real estate developer used to demonstrate that all is well. I

Page 24 of 60
confirmed this with the HWS project manager. There is nothing untoward here, it is, in
my opinion, just wrong. During this conversation DRG did not ask the HWS project
manager if the changing water flow from The Bluffs may endanger SWMU 54. No, DRG
did not do that. That test has not been repeated since 2014. How about subsurface
water flow from the NCDOT mitigation area? No, didn’t ask about that either. Cape Fear
River flooding? In a response to an anticipated hullabaloo during the annual Bluff’s POA
meeting, DRG explained on page one of its December 6, 2022 report to the local real
estate developer:

During DRG’s historical research and a North Carolina Department of

Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) file review for information on the SWMU 54,
DRG determined that [DuPont] is in full compliance with the NC DEQ
requirements for remediating the entire [DuPont] facility to [RCRA] Risk Based
Standards outlined by the NC DEQ. DRG determined that SWMU 54 is an NC
DEQ permitted landfill, Landfill Permit No.10-06 and that as a requirement of the
permit, semi-annual groundwater sampling events are required by the NC DEQ,
Division of Waste Management (DWM), Solid Waste Section (SWS).
[boldface added]

If all that were true then it would not take another two, probably three, maybe four years
or more for NCDEQ to approve closing the entire DuPont (DAK) facility. But that is not
true. During the 2021-22 testing results more leaking and more chemicals and more NC
2L exceedances. (Footnote 18: Davey Resource Group Report) DRG missed the part about PFAS.

There is very comprehensive reporting by DuPont contractors Corteva and also Pioneer
pertaining to testing for PFAS (very hazardous firefighting slop) on the DuPont site, but
not comprehensive reporting about contaminated coal. That is because they were not
tasked by NCDEQ to report on coal. (Endnote 19: PFAS, DuPont Site, 2022)

There are also several hydrologic and hydrographic studies of the DuPont property.
However, the most recent presented in the study by Corteva (DuPont) is, in my opinion,
missing a comprehensive examination of potential Cape Fear River flooding found
within the study. (Endnote 20-1) (Also see: 20-2 through 20-8)

SWMU 54 is surrounded on three sides by a large FEMA type AE flood zone including a
FEMA Regulatory Floodway along the north AE boundary with the Cape Fear River. NC
DEQ DWM HWS replied to a suggestion of an extreme flood danger by explaining that
an AE flood zone means a flood once every 100 years and hence not a meaningful
threat. That is not accurate.

Page 25 of 60
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, A REPORT OF
FLOOD HAZARDS IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

FEMA studies pertaining to the Cape Fear River’s Regulatory Floodway illustrate an AE
Flood Zone using blue shading marked AE on flood maps. FEMA also illustrates a
"Regulatory AE Floodway" using diagonal red stripes over a blue shading and marked
Floodway to show the likely main path of flooding and usually the main channel of a
river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved
(mitigated) in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than a designated height.

The FEMA manual continues: “Communities must regulate development in these

floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations for
streams and other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs).” When no floodway has been designated, the community must review
floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases in water
surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate
information is available. There is no report that I can find showing that DuPont or
NCDEQ has done that, but it should have been done. When asked if SWMU 54 should
be considered during an examination of the Cape Fear River Floodway directly next to
the SWMU, the FEMA response was: certainly! (Source: ASFPM Certified Floodplain
Manager, Association of State Floodplain Managers – Second Look Flood, May 29,
2023).

Understand that a FEMA defined “once every 100 years” flood danger requires the
application of more mathematics than presented in the Corteva CMS report or the

Page 26 of 60
responses by NCDEQ DWM HWS. The FEMA Flood Manual for Brunswick County
provides the details that are absent from the Corteva CMS report. Summarized: For
example, Flood Zone AE, surrounds SWMU 54 on three sides. FEMA explains:

The risk of having a flood that equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (1-percent
chance of annual exceedance) during the term of a 30- year mortgage is
approximately 26 percent (about 3 in 10); for any 90-year period, the risk
increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10).

That is why flood insurance is required for homes within zone AE if the mortgage is
federally insured (VA, FHA, or FmHA. The same application applies to SWMU 54, if it
were federally mortgaged (which in real world terms it really is) flood insurance or
removal is required. (Endnote: 20-2)

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported on the hydrometeorology and
hydrology of flooding in the Cape Fear River basin during Hurricane Florence in 2018.
The conclusions should be considered with concern by NCDEQ as it determines what to
do about SWMU 54. Short version: SWMU 54 barely escaped a disaster during 2018;
Duke Energy at Sutton Lake one mile down river did not escape. (Endnote: 20-3)

SWMU 54 to the Cape Fear River: Several other watersheds also flow under the
DuPont site. The area extends from Mount Misery Road north and east (Strawberry Hill
Road) to The Bluffs boundaries. The Davey Resource Group (DRG), previously noted
the hydrology but did not comment meaningfully on this impact in their search of
research done by others. DRG explained (on page 7 of their December 6, 2022 report):

The groundwater potentiometric map calculated during the 2018 Annual

Groundwater Monitoring Report shows the groundwater flow direction was
calculated to flow in a northeastern direction in the vicinity of SWMU 54 and away
from the subject property. DRG would consider the subject property to be located
hydrologically side gradient to the SWMU 54.

Good grief. If DRG is going to reference Parsons Commercial Technology Groups’

hydrology work product, at least cite it and do so accurately. DRG is referring to Parsons’
maps in the 2017 DuPont RCRA Permit Application (See Basic Reference 1) (See Endnote 18)

There are three Parsons successive maps showing hydrology on the DuPont site. In
combination they show three water sources impacting the northwest portion of the
DuPont property: the Otter, Mulberry, and Bay branches. Neither Parsons nor DRG
display water sources from the DOT Mitigation Area or The Bluffs property. Parsons
does, however, show the FEMA AE Cape Fear River flood zone and Regulatory
Floodway covering about 25 percent of SWMU 54 on one map, page 38 of 169, of the
DuPont Permit Application (Basic Reference 1). The maps were prepared in 2017 before
Hurricane Florence in 2018. All three maps together show the three water sources
running under the DuPont property going south to north to the Cape Fear River
uniformly above and below ground and around and under SWMU 54. What we also
need to know is where does the DOT and Bluffs water go.

Page 27 of 60
There is no discussion about the impact of the 650-acre North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Mitigation Area, a no trespass swamp, which drains directly
through and under the residential development following swales and underground water
flow routes through the unconfined aquifer to, around, and under all the way to the Cape
Fear River.

Nor did Corteva report about that. You cannot consider SWMU 54 in a selective
vacuum, it must be considered as part of the complete Cape Fear watershed which is
explained very well in Wikipedia. (Endnote 20-10; There is no fee to use Wikipedia.)

Sutton Lake 2018 Disaster “According to Dr. Avner Vengosh Nicholas, Chair of
Environmental Quality (PhD) and his colleagues from Duke University’s Nicholas School
of the Environment and others at Appalachian State University, the amount of
contaminants released by Duke
Power at Sutton Lake was more than
what was found in streams following
major and historic coal ash spills in
Kingston, Tennessee in 2008 and the
Dan River in North Carolina in 2014.”
The Duke Energy plant facility
completely flooded. Duke Energy
does provide a rebuttal in the article.
You read; you decide. (Endnote: 20-4)

Other reports describe the

controversy about the flooding of the
entire Duke Energy Sutton Lake power station and penetration of its coal ash storage
areas about one mile long and half-a-mile wide and towering in height. See: Duke
Energy doesn’t want you to know truth about Sutton Lake.
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/opinion/columns/your-voice/2019/06/13/opinion-duke-
energy-doesnt-want-you-to-know-truth-about-sutton-lake/4921961007/

Another article: “Duke Energy Won $215 Million in settlements with insurers for coal ash
removal costs.” Customers and taxpayers paid the rest of it. Actually, customers paid all
of the cost because we paid for the Duke insurance premiums too. Customers and
taxpayers will pay $3.8 billion over the next 20 years according to the source. And that
is only for coal ash cleanup. This can be prevented at SWMU 54 with a modicum of
common sense. (Endnotes: 20-5: 20-6, 20-7, and 20-8)

See the photos of the Cape Fear River rising day by day from Fayetteville to
Wilmington, Time Magazine. (Endnote: 20-9). See the Wikipedia History of the Cape Fear
River. (Endnote: 20-10)

Back now to DuPont, Cape Fear. The underground hydrogeology was considerably
changed. This was because of extensive vegetation removal, earth excavation, filling
and repositioning soil, constructing streets and buildings, destroying beaver dams, as
well as constructing retention and detention ponds, ravines, and storm water discharge

Page 28 of 60
courses and swales within the adjacent 650-acre residential development. This has
been ongoing since 2005 and likely will continue past 2030 and will predictably have an
impact on the 56-year-old five-acre SWMU 54. Elevation maps show its base at 10 feet
MSL and its top at 48 feet MSL. The reason SWMU 54 is not inside the AE Flood zone
is because its top is 48 feet high, but the bottom only 10 feet MSL. The next FEMA map
update is expected to place the SWMU inside the AE Flood Zone. (See maps at end of
this report.)

It is best to learn from the Sutton Lake 2018 coal ash disaster only one mile away down
river rather than repeat it. Both Duke Energy and NCDEQ received considerable
criticism for not preventing that foreseeable disaster, for not paying attention, and Duke
Energy perhaps deceptive, my opinion of course.

Reports provided by DuPont’s contractors do advise that SWMU 54 and other areas are
safe for humans and the environment. However, “SAFE FOR” clearly stipulates: (1)
Safe for human workers if wearing proper protective clothing and with proper training;
and (2) Safe for the environment if it does not change. There is no residential area
discussed. There is no statement about safe from flooding from below or above. There
is no flooding threat analysis. It is not safe for unprotected humans like trespassers
hiking, riding horses, or driving 4 X 4 vehicles throughout and on top of SWMU 54, or
children doing what children do, called exploring. Not safe for trespassers wandering
about, hunting, shooting, or riding bicycles around a retention pond with alligators.
There is no indication that the North Carolina Land Trust Conservancy, intended for
conservation, is safe for the above uses either -- at this time it is conservation land, not
a park or recreation area. At least not yet, according to the Brunswick County Planning
Office. However, it remains a Brunswick County Parks and Recreation “planned
recreation area.” There was a public meeting about that and hundreds attended from
throughout Brunswick County.

My Second Recommendation: Test the DuPont Railroad Yard and Tracks for
Hazardous Waste – Herbicides Especially

It is recommended that all closed railroad facilities within the DuPont site and four miles
of railbed to the CRX main rail line be inspected and reported for hazardous herbicide
residue likely used for over 56 years. DuPont disagrees, explaining that RCRA does not
pertain to railyards. EPA disagrees with DuPont; RCRA does pertain to railyard and
railbed contamination but not railroad operation. However, railbed contamination
involves both RCRA and similar regulation by the US Department of Transportation’s
(DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). That DuPont disavows the railbeds are a
“rails-to-trails” project does not permit hazardous waste. The references below provide
information for NCDEQ DWM HWS and DuPont on how the DuPont railbed hazardous
contamination should be remediated for public safety as outlined by the USDOT, FRA,
and EPA. The recent posting of “No Trespassing” signs at entrances to the DuPont
railbeds are commended, but only part of the requirement. Anyone questioning the
consequences of the DuPont-Dow “Agent Orange” herbicide, even casual exposure,
should visit a Veterans Administration hospital. The railyard and track beds should be
tested and, if necessary, remediated.
Page 29 of 60
https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/acquisition/environmental-
contaminants/

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/05_railfields.pdf

DuPont had a railroad yard with six spurs, using the

largest hopper and tank cars that are used by
railroads, filling and emptying solid and liquid raw
materials, and lots of coal. Tank car means any car
used to transport liquids, liquefied gases, compressed
gases, or solids that are liquefied prior to unloading. DuPont owned or leased about 270
separate DAKX hopper and tank cars to move millions of tons of materials to and
manufactured product from the plant.

The rail line (now removed) ran from the DuPont

Cape Fear facility to within 50 feet and alongside the
length of a DuPont warehouse and distribution facility
built in 2006. The warehouse is four miles down the
rail line to the CSX main line. The facility sits on 91
acres adjacent to residential housing. The 320,000
square foot warehouse and four smaller buildings are located at 9100 Lackey Road NE
(accessed from Mount Misery Road, which is SR 1426). It is about four miles from the
DuPont Cape Fear plant. The warehouse was closed at the same time as the
manufacturing plant in 2013. The warehouse with fourteen semitrailer loading docks
was sold in April 2022 to Leland Industrial Complex, LLC. DuPont explained to DEQ
that the warehouse was used only for receiving and transporting equipment and that no
hazardous material was ever stored, shipped, or disposed of on behalf of the main
DuPont facility. This facility was not permitted to contain hazardous waste and for that
reason was not inspected by the EPA or NCDEQ-HWS.

Add all the slop from rail cars that comes from leaking
liquids and solids. Also include creosoted rail ties (while
some concrete rail ties were used, most were wood
creosoted in another nearby Superfund Site not owned
by DuPont). See the photo of coal being dumped into
the top of a hopper car as it also spills out the bottom.
All the creosoted ties are reported to be removed.

Herbicides: Now add the use of very hazardous

glyphosate-based herbicides applied to the 60- to 100-
foot wide six-mile right of way vegetation clearing. As
the vegetation becomes increasingly resistant to
herbicides, the strength is increased and three-, four- and five-way herbicide mixes are
used instead of single or two-way mixes that were standard for years. CSX reportedly

Page 30 of 60
used a 3-year spray cycle and pre-emergent herbicides, as well as automatic and
manual flange greasers, and on-site engine refueling.

Agent Orange (Vietnam War) was also widely used in industrial agriculture and was
sprayed along railroads and power lines during the 1940s to the 1980s to control hardy
vegetation undergrowth. Orange is a fifty-fifty mixture of 2,4-D and dioxin-contaminated
2,4,5-T. Traces of dioxin (mainly TCDD, the most toxic of its type) found in the mixture
have caused major health problems for many individuals who were exposed, and their
offspring. DuPont-Dow Chemical Company produced Orange herbicide. There is no
report of testing required to detect 2,4-D and dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T along the
DuPont-CRX rail route which seems to have used very strong herbicides. (See Endnote
23)

Rail-flange greasers apply

lubricant to the side surface of
a train rail to minimize metal-
to-metal contact between the
wheel flange and rail flange.
The grease may be applied
from an onboard lubricator
through nozzles located in
front of the locomotive
wheels, or from wayside lubricators located at rail curves where wheel-rail friction is
greatest. Rail-flange grease needs excellent anti-wear properties, water resistance, and
adherence to lubricated surfaces. Greasers produce large amounts of grease along rail
lines which is hazardous to the environment. No testing reported at the DuPont site or
rail lines for similar hazwaste.

My Third Recommendation: Remove or Protect the Man-Made “Fresh Water”

Retention Pond

There is a man-made fresh water retention pond located adjacent to SWMU 54. The
pond measures about 500 x 700 feet, is 6 to 8 feet deep according to DuPont, and
contains about 375,000 gallons of water. The plant fire hydrants were connected to the
pond water supply, but are now disconnected. Water is pumped from the adjacent Cape
Fear River to keep the pond full. The river water is known to contain dangerous
amounts of PFAS and GenX chemicals. Was the pond tested for PFAS, GenX and other
chemicals? The DuPont property is already cited for excessive PFAS from its former
firefighting training area. Large alligators and turtles inhabit the pond. There is
dangerous infrastructure involving concrete pits, manholes, pipes, and valves.

The pond is an attractive nuisance if trespassed and could result in drowning or injury. I
recommend that the pond be examined, then either removed, or protected from
trespass by security fencing and signage.

There are many (about ten) industrial holding ponds on DuPont property. Aerial photos
show they are filled with liquid. What liquid? They are categorized as NFA.
Page 31 of 60
CONCLUSIONS of the Report:

1. SWMU 54 could be destroyed by flooding. The probability requires study, calculation,

and reporting. It is likely more cost effective to remove an SWMU than remediate one
that is 56 years old, or risk the consequences of a failure. The contents, should they
ever escape the 56-year-old unlined 5-acre containment mound, would be harmful to
human health, recreation, conservation, and the environment. SWMU 54 is
exceptionally vulnerable to flooding, with the FEMA designated flood zone AE
surrounding the mound on three sides, but also in the path designated by FEMA as a
Regulatory Cape Fear River Floodway. It is called regulatory for a reason. If the mound
does slide into the Cape Fear River, likely at its junction with Bulldog Cut, it could affect
the entire downriver. NCDEQ would not want to answer to that. Not after the Sutton
Lake disaster.

2. If you used a FHA, USDA, or VA mortgage to purchase a home on one of three sides
of SWMU 54 you would be required to purchase FEMA Flood Insurance. If you built on
the fourth side, you would reasonably also purchase flood insurance. Not because of
SWMU 54 but because of flood zone AE on three other sides.

3. There are new detention and retention ponds on The Bluffs with overflow runoffs to
the river, repeated elimination of beaver dams, construction of miles of storm sewers,
extensive reduction of hundreds of acres of permeable land, substituted with storm
management all going one way toward the river and down river. Obtain an updated risk
assessment by FEMA. A publicly available assessment of the impact of terrain changes
on The Bluffs property should be part of the RCRA Scope of Work for the DuPont facility
closure.

4. NCDEQ should coordinate with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
Brunswick County Planning Office to assure that there is absolutely no chance of
SWMU 54 being destroyed by flooding. Brunswick County has no authority involving
RCRA but it does have public interests and responsibilities. The United States Army
Corps of Engineers is responsible for Cape Fear River navigation. NCDEQ is
responsible for RCRA. The public expects coordination among these three agencies.
However, none is evident in this matter.

5. Removing SWMU 54 removes an “unacceptable risk to humans and the

environment.” It is the responsibility of the EPA delegated to the NCDEQ to prove
beyond any reasonable doubt that SWMU 54 is absolutely no risk to humans and the
environment. It is not the responsibility of the public or community to prove that SWMU
54 is not safe and is a risk.

6. The evaluation is absolute – either risk or no risk. Any risk by SWMU 54 to humans
or the environment is not acceptable; especially not acceptable with a 56-year-old
unlined, undocumented, SWMU/HWMU built to 1968 standards, if any. The RCRA
seems crystal clear. The public and community request a decision of when and how

Page 32 of 60
SWMU 54 will be safely removed in compliance with RCRA standards and requirements
in an environment that exists today, not 1968.

PUBLIC REQUESTS:

1. Based on the information that follows and which has been included in the NCDEQ
Laserfiche® Public Database, I make a public request that NCDEQ require SWMU 54
and all contents be deactivated, demolished, and removed in its entirety to another
RCRA acceptable location before the DuPont site can be closed.

2. I request that all information included in this recommendation be made available at

any public hearing pertaining to the closure of the DuPont facility and not relegated
solely to the NCDEQ Laserfiche Database which most citizens do not know how to use
and lack the internet bandwidth connection to use it effectively.

3. I request that NCDEQ conduct an RCRA threat evaluation of SWMU 54 considering

the following: (3-A) SWMU 54 was originally placed in its present location because it
would most likely leach into the Cape Fear River. Today that is illegal. (3-B) There have
been significant changes to the impact of the general location of SWMU 54 since 1968,
even since 2007, that now create considerable risk to humans, recreation, conservation,
and the environment. (3-C) There is now an increased risk (rising river levels) that
increases the vulnerability of SWMU 54. (3-D) SWMU 54 has never been assessed
based on the increased risk of flooding now defined by FEMA as both an AE Flood Zone
and a Regulatory Floodway. (3-E) Include in the RCRA threat evaluation a report of the
total flooding of the Duke Energy power plant and its coal retention mounds (similar to
SWMU 54 but Duke’s significantly larger), only one mile downstream, during Hurricane
Florence in 2018. It was a disaster that both Duke Energy and NCDEQ said could never
happen despite warnings by hydrological experts at North Carolina universities who said
it would likely happen. (3-F) The flood level of the Cape Fear River during Hurricane
Florence was within 18 inches of the base of SWMU 54. This was without a King Tide.
(3-G) Include in the RCRA threat evaluation Wikipedia’s explanation of “Cape Fear
River Potential Flooding Upriver One-mile The Bluffs,” Sept 2018. (Endnotes 20-1 thru 20-
10)

4. Pertinent research shows that some Corteva (DuPont) flood data and analysis for the
RCRA permit is outdated and does not adequately explain the full extent of flooding,
coal ash mixed with a chemicals threat, or the changing hydrology contained within that
report throughout. Kindly update that report. (Endnote: 21) (Corteva Briefing, August
2019, Pre-Design Results and CMS Path Forward Briefing, 2018-19. The PDI Results
are very outdated.)

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SWMU 54 CONTENTS and FLOODING:

1. It is recommended that the NCDEQ Secretary direct a reevaluation of SWMU 54 to

determine if it is in compliance with the RCRA and state legislation pertaining to coal
ash. Is it in the highest level of safety to retain SWMU 54 where it has been located for
the past 56 years, or is the best risk mitigation to demolish it and remove the contents
Page 33 of 60
and rubble to a RCRA approved location? It is recommended that this be done before
SWMU 54 floods, sinks into the Cape Fear River, or leaches into adjoining private and
state-owned property.

2. It is recommended that NCDEQ determine the life span of the unlined 56-year-old
SWMU 54 which is missing all construction and waste content records.

3. It is recommended that NCDEQ, rather than using old data, request a new
engineering professional assessment that calculates the risk factors as degrees of
probability of an SWMU 54 failure, not only since 1968, but particularly the risk factors
created during the last several years. The hydrology adjacent to, under, and around
SWMU 54 has been considerably changed by increased stormwater mitigation areas
and the reduction of adjacent permeable land.

4. It is recommended that determination of the survival probability of SWMU 54 during

historical or projected flooding should be completed by the NCDEQ Division of Water
Resources (DWR) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and not only by
DuPont (Corteva) through NCDEQ. Most investigation pertaining to potential flooding of
SWMU 54 focuses only on the hydrological impact of the 2,250 acres owned by
DuPont. However, because SWMU 54 is located on the very northwest edge of that
property and on the bank of the Cape Fear River, the greater impact is probably from
the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s 650-acre mitigation area swamp that
runs under and through The Bluffs residential development of another 650 acres, a total
1,300 acres, and the impact of The Bluffs development itself. The impact of the 33
inches of rain caused by Hurricane Florence was never recorded, reported, or
considered in the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). Rainwater flooded The
Bluffs property along Fallen Pear Lane and elsewhere, and filled storm sewers, ravines,
and swales. The beaver dams held tight; but then they were intentionally destroyed
afterwards. The greatest impact is likely from the Cape Fear River Regulatory Floodway.
There is a lot more to the analysis than Corteva simply referring to the Cape Fear River
as a Class C River. A review of the North Carolina Rivers Map using the most current
version, June 26, 2023 (NCDEQ ARC GIS) shows the impact of the area where the
Black River merges with the Cape Fear River and Bulldog Cut. It is the largest
watershed in North Carolina. Recognize that this is not a trivial matter.

5. Recommendations made in 2022 to drill into SWMU 54 vertically and horizontally to

obtain core samples of its contents were rebuffed with the explanation that four
perimeter test wells did not show a need. True, but the test wells on the perimeter of
SWMU 54 show leakage, but not necessarily the contents within the mound. Either
discount those findings or test correctly.

6. It is recommended that NCDEQ should also require DuPont (Corteva) to commission

an independent contractor to: (6-A) determine the specific contents of SWMU 54 by
horizontally removing core samples randomly from all four sides and vertically from the
top of the mound and among all depths from out-of-the-side perimeter to the core center
and four feet below ground level within the core. (6-B) complete a comprehensive

Page 34 of 60
hydrologic analysis of the entire local area that includes: [1] North Carolina Department
of Transportation’s 650-acre Mitigation Area that flows above and under SWMU 54; [2]
The Bluffs on the Cape Fear residential development which has predictably effected and
affected the water course by redirecting water flow, constructing detention and retention
ponds, and considerably reducing permeable land due to new construction (homes),
streets, facilities, and storm drains; and [3] over and under the DuPont property in the
vicinity of SWMU 54. (6-C) commission independent expert hydrologists from North
Carolina universities familiar with the extensive list of coal ash disasters in North
Carolina to provide a risk analysis of the potential likelihood that SWMU 54 could be
swept away or undercut by flooding of the Cape Fear River and other underground
flowing water sources.

7. It is recommended that NCDEQ determine that if the five-acre SWMU 54 fails, and its
contents flow into the adjacent private property, into the adjacent state conservation and
state game lands and wetlands, into some of the about 1,350 acres of the North
Carolina Conservancy Land Trust, destroys the adjacent Bluffs boat launch and two-
acre recreation area, destroys private residences now planned within 250 feet of SWMU
54, and contaminates the Cape Fear River all the way to the mouth of the river, then
who is held pecuniarily liable? A legal opinion by the North Carolina Attorney General
is requested before NCDEQ makes a final decision during the RCRA CMS for closure of
the DuPont former Superfund site and subsequent construction of perhaps 2,250 acres
of solar panels, which could potentially be a welcomed use of the entire hazardous
waste site.

8. It is recommended that SWMU 54 be evaluated for complete removal from its present
location on the Cape Fear River during the ongoing RCRA Corrective Measures Study.
Alternatively, it is recommended that SWMU 54 be reconstructed to meet CCR
compliance standards now mandated by state law (triple liners and other measures) for
legacy coal ash. Take note that in addition to the furnaces used in manufacturing, there
was a large coal-burning power plant located on the DuPont property to create
electricity for the facility. Due to toxic and likely hazardous contents within coal ash, and
because of other chemicals that likely contaminated the coal ash, SWMU 54 is
demonstrably an unacceptable threat to humans, recreation, conservation, the
environment, and the Cape Fear River.

Thank you for your attention to this public comment by a North Carolina citizen
submitted in accordance with the United States Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).

Don E Gordon
Don E. Gordon
RCRA Public Comment

Page 35 of 60
 Basic Reference Documents

Background: Interviews and other information suggest that SWMU 54 contains about
195,000 tons of coal ash. The term Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) routinely
pertains only to coal ash produced by furnaces used by electric power companies. It
has been suggested by public watchdogs that CCR receives special exemptions due to
political influence. By contrast DuPont’s several facilities likely combined CCR type ash
and about 30 different hazardous chemicals in its seventeen types of processors and
furnaces, especially Dowtherm furnaces, and others designed to burn about 527,000
tons of pollutants, and then released into the atmosphere, before 1973 – hence the
initial designation as a Superfund Site (source EPA Toxic Release Inventory Program).
All of this is discussed in Parts 1 through 5 of: “The Story Behind the Neighboring
DuPont Hazardous Waste Site” by Don Gordon, September through December 2022,
and on file in the NCDEQ Laserfiche Database with public access, or available from this
author. An Excel Spreadsheet delineates every chemical for each SWMU, HWMU, and
AOC and is also filed in the NCDEQ Laserfiche Database and also available upon
request from the author.

Attachments to this report:

1. Maps and Illustrations, pages: 42 to 53

2. OASIS Analysis Model, pages: 54 to 60

Basic References Used in Research

(1) SWMU 54 was recommended for deactivation and demolition in 2016-2017.

NCD047369046_REVISED DuPont/DAK Cape Fear RCRA Permit Renewal
Application_20170908, September 8, 2017, Revised RCRA Permit (Parts A and B)
Renewal Application DAK Americas LLC/E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
DuPont Cape Fear Facility EPA Identification Number: NCD 047 369 046, page 125 of
169, SWMU page number bottom of page is page 61. (Data provided by Parsons.)
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=744099&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=f2db86d7-4d22-41fb-9964-
cdffa42d1785.

(2) Laserfiche Weblink, The gateway to NC GOV Waste Management Laserfiche

document center, NCDEQ Laserfiche Public Document Access
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/Welcome.aspx?cr=1

(3) NCDEQ Laserfiche Public Access (Alternate):

https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/Welcome.aspx?cr=1

(4) Superfund Program: https://www.epa.gov/superfund

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976 (hereafter RCRA).
https://www.epa.gov/rcra

Page 36 of 60
(5) 2019 NCDEQ Fact Sheet – DuPont Facility – for Public Meeting, April 24, 2019:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/DAK%20Fact%20Sheet%202019.pdf

(6) Draft Hazardous Waste Management Permit, undated:

https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/DAK%20HSWA%20Only%20Permit%20Draft.pdf

(7) EPA RCRA ID: NCD047369046 DAK AMERICAS CAPE FEAR PLANT
LELAND, NC 28451 Cleanup Status https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/cimc/f?
p=CIMC:RCRA:::::P14_RCRA_HANDLER_ID:NCD047369046

(8) Corteva Pre-Design Results and CMS Path Forward:

https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=1358365&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=9ffe3767-474b-4bed-b44a-
4a4674fbf0a8

(9) Accessing the National Flood Hazard Layer and FEMA's National Flood Hazard
Layer (NFHL) Full_FIRM_fa00616f-2783-4e9d-8f98-585c2afab030
Map annotated
Viewer:https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?
id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd

(10) The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) is a geospatial database that contains
current effective flood hazard data. FEMA provides the flood hazard data to support the
National Flood Insurance Program. You can use the information to better understand
your level of flood risk and type of flooding.
http://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/
agolprintb_gpserver/je99f6e60297548fdbf10ce44bc039a4f/scratch/
Full_FIRM_fa00616f-2783-4e9d-8f98-585c2afab030.pdf

(11) CAPE FEAR BASIN DESCRIPTION; FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (NOTES)

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REVISED: 12/6/2019 As of April 9, 2023
latest for Brunswick County

Endnotes

Endnote 1: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Public Participation

Manual: (Year 2016, updated 2023, 600 pages)
https://www.epa.gov/hwpermitting/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-
public-participation-manual
Endnote 2: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/Welcome.aspx
Endnote 3: Table 1, SWMU and AOC Classification Tracking Permit Application,
09/08/2017, page 163 of 169 pages, 1988 to 2017. See also: Letter: Oversight of
Solid Waste Landfill SWMUs (SW permit 1006-INDUS-1984, DAK Americas/DuPont –
Cape fear Facility, EPA ID: NCD 047 369 046 January 8, 2019.

Page 37 of 60
Endnote 4-1: NCDEQ Fact Sheet DuPont Permit Request; Facility Name and
Location: DAK Americas/DuPont-Cape Fear Plant, State Road 1426, Leland, NC
28451 https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/DAK%20public_notice.pdf or
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/DAK%20Fact%20Sheet%202019.pdf
Endnote 4-2: Article 9, Solid Waste Management, Part 1. Definitions.
https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_130A/
Article_9.html )
Endnote 5: Sutton Lake. Senator Calls for Warning Signs at Sutton Lake:
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2019/06/10/senator-calls-for-warning-
signs-at-sutton-lake/
Duke University Study: https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news/high-selenium-
levels-found-fish-nc-lakes-receiving-coal-ash-waste
Study by Wake Forest University: https://cees.wfu.edu/2013/12/05/selenium-
implicated-fish-kill-sutton-lake/
Endnote 6: Permit Application 09/08/2017, Table 1, SWMU and AOC Classification
Tracking, UNIT SWMU 54, page 125 of 169 pages and page 163 of 169 pages; Landfill
#2; Ash Landfill; RCRA Assessment 1988: Unknown; Phase I RFI 1993, RFI II 2001,
RFI III, 2004 Evaluated as part of landfill requirements and AOC-GW (evaluation
missing); RCRA PERMIT 2007 NFA; Phase IV RFI 2008 Not Included; Stage I CMS
2012, 2013, Not Included; DAK Closure Report 2016 Not Included; Evaluated as part of
AOC GW 1968-2013, 29 contaminants. 29 contaminants in AOC GW or SWMU 54, or
both? No explanation. NCD047369046_REVISED DuPont/DAK Cape Fear RCRA
Permit Renewal Application, date: 09 08 2017
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=744099&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=f2db86d7-4d22-41fb-9964-
cdffa42d1785/&cr=1
Endnote 7: (A) Facts Bearing on the Problem, SWMU 54 and Retention Pond
Description and Operational History, 3 pages, File SWMU 54 History.
SWMU 54 and Retention Pond Fact Sheet by Don Gordon, July 6, 2023
(B) NCD047369046_REVISED DuPont/DAK Cape Fear RCRA Permit Renewal
Application_20170908
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=744099&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=f2db86d7-4d22-41fb-9964-
cdffa42d1785/
Endnote 8: New Studies Show Unprecedented Sea-Level Rise North Carolina
Coast; April 27, 2023, 3 pages, see citation.
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/local/2023/04/25/studies-show-sea-
level-rise-is-accelerating-off-north-carolina/70101145007/
Endnote 9-1: There is no safety margin for El Niño and La Niña variations or
hurricanes, January 18, 2016, see citation, 9 pages.
El Niño and La Niña: Frequently asked questions:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/el-ni%C3%B1o-
and-la-ni%C3%B1a-frequently-asked-questions
Endnote 9-2: Cape Fear Riverkeeper Reports “ongoing failure” at Sutton
https://waterkeeper.org/news/cape-fear-riverkeeper-reports-ongoing-failure-at-
sutton/

Page 38 of 60
Endnote 10-1: The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site
Part 1, By Don Gordon, September 14, 2022
10-2: The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site, Parts 2 and 3 --
Is the DuPont Hazardous Waste Site Safe for Residents of The Bluffs? You Read, You
Decide, By Don Gordon, November 11, 2022
10-3: The Story Behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site, Part 4,
by Don Gordon, January 10, 2023
10-4: The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site; The River is
Not Blue, Part 5, By Don Gordon, April 14, 2023
10-5: Part 3, The Story behind the Neighboring DuPont Hazardous Waste Site, By Don
Gordon, November, 2022
10-6: 2021 North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 130A - Public Health Article 9 -
Solid Waste Management, § 130A-290
Endnote 11-1: SWMU 54, page 61, Description and Operational History,
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=744099&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=f2db86d7-4d22-41fb-9964-
cdffa42d1785/
NCD047369046 REVISED DuPontDAK Cape Fear RCRA Permit Renewal
Application_20170908
Endnote 11-2: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) --
USEPA – Vinyl Chloride
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/vinyl-chloride-national-
emission-standards-hazardous-air
Endnote 12: DuPont RCRA Hazardous Waste Spreadsheet, Excel June 11, 2023, Don
Gordon)
Endnote 13: Coal Ash Basics – EPA; What is coal ash?
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics
Endnote 14: “Coal Ash is Hazardous. Coal Ash is Waste; But According to the EPA,
Coal Ash is Not Hazardous Waste; And The Coal Industry is More than Happy to Keep
Things that Way” https://www.nrdc.org/stories/coal-ash-hazardous-coal-ash-waste-
according-epa-coal-ash-not-hazardous-waste
Endnote 15: Previously cited, Excel spreadsheet, Don Gordon, cited herein
Endnote 16-1: New Jersey Terephthalic Acid (TPA) Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet
https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/2901.pdf
Endnote 16-2: Terephthalic acid Fact Sheet https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?
partNumber=AC180722500&productDescription=TEREPHTHALIC+ACID
%2C+98%25+250GR&vendorId=VN00032119&countryCode=US&language=en
Endnote 16.3: EPA Site -- Terephthalic Acid
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/c06s11.pdf
Endnote 17-1: Portals -- Cape Fear River Wetlands and State Game Lands
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Game-Land-Maps/Coastal/cape-fear-
river-wetlands.pdf
Endnote 17-2:
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/License/Documents/Permit%20Hunts/Game-
Land-Area-Description.pdf
NCD047369046_DAK_CA_AOC_B_PDI_Round5_SamplingResults_20220503

Page 39 of 60
Endnote 18: Davey Resource Group Report, Memorandum, December 6, 2022,
Subject: DAK SWMU 54 Ash Landfill, Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Reports,
DAK Americas/DuPont-Cape Fear, Daniels Road NE Leland, North Carolina 28451,
Brunswick County, Ref. No. DRGNCW22.624 To: Doug Talbot, BBTB Real Properties
NC, LLC, P.O. Box 4937 Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 from: 3805 Wrightsville Ave.,
Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403, daveyresourcegroup.com/carolinas. Signed: Randy
Brant, PG, Geological Section Manager.
Endnote 19: PFAS on DuPont Facility
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/DocView.aspx?
id=1675302&dbid=0&repo=WasteManagement&searchid=b90b033b-94a9-4cb6-
9a4e-57b00e472ae4
Endnote 20-1: See Chart 6 in particular, Corteva Agriscience (DuPont) Predesign
Resources and CMS Path Forward; Cape Fear Site, August, 2019
Endnote 20-2: See Para: 5.0 Engineering Methods (page 21 of 144) Flood Insurance
Study Federal Emergency Management Agency, Revised: 12/6/2019 As of April 9, 2023
latest for Brunswick County Federal Emergency Management Agency, State of North
Carolina Flood Insurance Study, Number 37019CV000D, www.fema.gov and
www.ncfloodmaps.com
Endnote 20-3: USGA, Hydrometeorology and hydrology of flooding in Cape Fear River
basin during Hurricane Florence in 2018
https://www.usgs.gov/publications/hydrometeorology-and-hydrology-flooding-
cape-fear-river-basin-during-hurricane
Endnote 20-4: University researcher: Sutton Lake Site of Numerous Coal Ash Spills
professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the
Environment, who led the research. Duke Power rebuts.
https://www.wunc.org/environment/2019-06-03/researcher-sutton-lake-site-of-
numerous-coal-ash-spills
Endnote 20-5: Coal Ash Wednesday: A history of chronic spillage at Sutton Lake
North Carolina, Duke Energy Contest Coal Ash Cost, Removal Scope.
https://www.wunc.org/environment/2019-04-26/north-carolina-duke-energy-
contest-coal-ash-cost-removal-scope
Endnote 20-6: North Carolina Orders Duke Energy to Excavate All Coal Ash.
https://www.wunc.org/environment/2019-04-01/north-carolina-orders-duke-
energy-to-excavate-all-coal-ash
Endnote 20-7: Duke Energy Wins $215M In Settlements with Insurers Over Coal Ash
Costs. Customers pay the bill.
Endnote 20-8: Cape Fear River Potential Flooding Upriver One-mile The Bluffs, Sept
2018.
Endnote 20-9: Time magazine photos Shows the Dramatic Flooding After Hurricane
Florence – and the Water Is Still Rising: https://time.com/5399441/north-carolina-
cape-fear-river-flooding/
Endnote 20-10: Wikipedia: Cape Fear River:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Fear_River
Endnote: 21: (Corteva Briefing, August 2019, Pre-Design Results and CMS Path
Forward Briefing, 2018-19. The PDI Results are very outdated. See addendum that
follows.)

Page 40 of 60
Endnote 22: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) --
USEPA: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/vinyl-chloride-
national-emission-standards-hazardous-air
Endnote 23: Herbicides:
(a) https://www.progressiverailroading.com/csx/article/Railroads-rely-on-a-
combination-of-herbicides-equipment-to-ensure-their-track-is-clear-of-weeds-
and-brush--38369
(b) https://www.epa.gov/caddis-vol2/herbicides
(c) https://cafnr.missouri.edu/2014/10/weeds-and-railroads/
(d) If you want to know just how powerful railway herbicides can be, they are sometimes
intended to kill fully grown trees, read this report: Recommendations for Herbicide Use
in State of Maine Owned Railroad Rights-of-Way.
https://www.maine.gov/dacf/////php/pesticides/documents2/bd_mtgs/apr15/5Reco
mmendations%20for%20Herbicide%20Use%20to%20Manage%20Vegetation%20in
%20State%20of%20Maine%20Owned%20Railroad%20Right%20of%20Ways.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1
MAPS and ILLUSTRATIONS
Public RCRA Comment to Secretary NCDEQ
August 7, 2023
Pages: 42 to 53

ATTACHMENT 2
OASIS ANALYSIS
Public RCRA Comment to Secretary NCDEQ
August 7, 2023
Pages: 54 to 53

Page 41 of 60
Map by Parsons (PE&I): DuPont Cape Fear Facility with SWMU and AOC Callouts
Each SWMU and AOC is labeled in difficult-to-read font. See SWMU 54 upper left corner. 2,250
acres
This map also appears on page 4 of the basic document.

Page 42 of 60
Map 1 above: On the above map, the Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 54 is
located at the furthest northwest (upper left corner of the DuPont property) on the bank
of the Cape Fear River. SWMU 54 is about five acres in size, 48 feet high MSL, 10 feet
higher than the baseflow or mean level of the river. The small map inset in the far upper
left corner labeled “Cape Fear Site” shows that SWMU 54 (very small orange square)
sits inside a North Carolina approved conservation trust area (the North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust) which is outlined in purple. On the main map, SWMU 54 is shown
as solid green square in the upper left corner and labeled.

A 375,000-gallon fresh water retention pond, maintained by pumping water from the
Cape Fear River, is inside the orange border adjacent to SWMU 54. Looking closely in
the area of the SWMU and retention pond, take note of the very light green striped area
best described as a “gerrymander” shape, and also the same striped area surrounding
the SWMU to the north. The green striped area to the north is a FEMA Regulatory Flood
Way. The gerrymander is a FEMA AE Flood Zone surrounding SWMU 54 on three
sides. A FEMA AE Flood Zone refers to “a once-in-a-hundred-years flood.” The equation
has to be completed, as it is in the FEMA Flood Manual for Brunswick County, NC: “The
risk of having a flood that equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (1-percent chance of
annual exceedance) during the term of a 30- year mortgage is approximately 26 percent
(about 3 in 10); for any 90-year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6
in 10).” The complete explanation is found on page 27 of the basic document.

The entire 2,250 acres of the DuPont property is zoned Brunswick County Industrial.
Within that zone, the NC Coastal Land Trust (NCCLT) wrapping around the former
manufacturing facility to the west and north is protected Conservation Land – no
industry, commercial, or residential permitted. The Cape Fear River is to the north of the
DuPont property line -- flowing, generally, from north, northwest, and northeast (three
tributaries) to the southeast. The river is a FEMA Regulatory Floodway which must be
kept free of obstructions.

Those involved in closing the DuPont facility, but SWMU 54 in particular, repeatedly and
confidently report that the four test wells along the perimeter of SWMU 54 which are
seldom tested, only seldomly show, measurements of hazardous or toxic chemicals or
metals from the 6-feet deep monitoring wells. The test wells sit in water comprising the
hydrology ground water flow which sweeps directly around and under SWMU 54 on its
way to the Cape Fear River. The system works exactly as designed by DuPont in 1968,
for 55 years, sweeping any leaking constituents directly into the river which has never
been reported as tested. Never! The River was used as a sewer. Enough already.

BLANK

Page 43 of 60
Map 2, immediately below, illustrates the FEMA Regulatory Floodway (striped area) and
the FEMA Flood Zone AE (blue-green shaded area). (Brunswick County FEMA map).

Discussions with FEMA map makers explained that SWMU 54 is not within the AE
Flood Zone because it is 48 feet high; however, the base of SWMU 54, at a height of
about 10 feet MSL, is within the AE Flood Zone. The Flood Zone is discussed on page
27 of the basic document. FEMA intends to include SWMU 54 in Flood Zone AE on
future maps.

The FEMA map 3 below expands the above illustration and emphasizes the hydrology
impacting SWMU 54 and the adjacent residential and River Park areas.

Page 44 of 60
 Map 3: Hydrology with FEMA Floodway, Flood Zone AE
The above-ground ravines, swales, and below-ground hydrology flow in the general
direction from Mount Misery Road NE to the Cape Fear River create FEMA Flood Zone
AE. The most recent US Geological Survey Hydrology Study was conducted in 2003,
about 20 years ago. Much geography and geology has changed since then.
DuPont hired Parsons PE&I to conduct a comprehensive study in 2014. SWMU 54 and
the retention pond are located within a large hydraulic basin (where underground and
above ground drainage flows and collects on its way to the Cape Fear River) variously
referred to on maps dating back to the 1500’s as Big Bay, Great Basin, and Bay Branch
among others. The drainage on the left (west side) is flowing from The Bluffs 650-acre
residential area, and before that from the 650-acre NCDOT 650-acre mitigation area
along Strawberry Hill Road into the residential area on its way into the Cape Fear River.
Note the ravine, also called a swale, that passes under the bridge on Fallen Pear Lane
toward the swamp on Courtney Pines Loop and continues to the end of Belle Meade
Way. This is all shown on the multicolored “The Bluffs on the Cape Fear Master Plan”
advertising brochure map, dated 2020 and not intended as a legal representation.
However, it is a good representation of the swale which exceeded maximum capacity
during Hurricane Florence in 2018, causing water to flood vacant lots, storm sewers,
and streets.

The photo below shows the northwest corner of SWMU 54. The middle of the tree line
to the left (west) divides SWMU 54 and the DuPont property from “The Bluffs on the
Cape Fear” a residential development dating to circa 2005 mentioned throughout this
report.

There are two branches of the Cape Fear River. (The river is not deep blue as portrayed
in real estate advertising brochures.) The West Branch is shown below alongside
SWMU 54 and the North East Branch, not shown in this photo. The West Branch flows
through Lake Sutton downstream from Bulldog Cut (as illustrated below) and then joins
with the Black River (also not shown) north of Wilmington. The West Branch/Black River
joins with the Northeast Branch of the Cape River (not shown) at Wilmington (Eagle
Island). The three branches drain half of North Carolina; it is the largest watershed in
the state. Bulldog Cut shown below connects with the combined branches of the Cape
Fear River just north of Wilmington. The cut leading to the top of the photo is a loop
connecting upriver, also adjacent to The Bluffs property. It is possible to access the
Black River in a small watercraft using that cut.

There are no official photos of SWMU 54 included in the 2017 and 2019 Applications for
RCRA Permit because the SWMU was reported: closed, demolished, removed, awaiting
photographs (of the removal). DuPont later advised that information was incorrect. The
SWMU was not demolished and removed, only closed, and no further action (known as
“NFA”) was reported during “certified” application for an RCRA closing permit requested
in 2019. Reapplied in 2020.

Below are photos, mostly from aerial platforms, showing a small part of SWMU 54
during 2021 to 2022. The entire SWMU is about 5 acres in size, the bottom is at 10 feet

Page 45 of 60
MSL, the top is at 48 feet MSL. The reader should recall “48 feet high” throughout
because the drone photography creates an illusion that SWMU 54 is a placid pasture at
the same elevation as the adjacent property. It is not, it is a 48-foot high mound.

Illustration 4 Above
SWMU 54 (right center) at northwest edge of DuPont Property, which is also a North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust (about 1,375 acres). Property is owned by DuPont, however SWMU 54 is inside
a designated State Conservation Area by virtue of the terms of the land trust.

BLANK

Page 46 of 60
 Illustration 5 Above
SWMU 54 Showing Proximity to Cape Fear River
The photo presents SWMU 54 as pastoral, at the same elevation as the adjacent
property. It is not, it is 38 feet higher.

Illustration 6 Above
SWMU 54 Top: Reportedly 4X4 vehicle tracks (year 2022) made by trespassers
driving up the sides to the top.

Page 47 of 60
 Illustrations 7 and 8
Left: Condition of Test Well 5. Right: Top of SWMU 54 (Year 2023)

Illustration 9 Above
For perspective, SWMU 54 is almost as high at 48 feet (white pole) as the tallest
trees (upper right corner) on the property.

Page 48 of 60
Illustration 10, Proximity of base of SWMU 54 to Cape Fear River
250 feet from base of SWMU 54 to residential lot line.

Illustration 11 (Above)

Page 49 of 60
 Illustration 12 (Above)
Relationship of DuPont Site to Duke Energy Lake Sutton Site Coal Disaster 2018

BLANK

Page 50 of 60
 Illustration 13
Hydrology Basin

BLANK

Page 51 of 60
 Illustration 14
Residential Property, Conservation Trust, and Manufacturing Area

BLANK

Page 52 of 60
 Illustration 15

Does SWMU 54 belong this close to the Cape Fear River and residential and
recreational property? It is also inside the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
conservation land, donated by DuPont as compensation for its former Superfund
hazardous waste site.

END ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2
OASIS ANALYSIS MODEL
Public RCRA Comment to Secretary NCDEQ
August 7, 2023
Pages 54 to 59


Page 53 of 60
Attachment 2 : OASIS -- An Analysis of Toxic and Hazardous Constituents in Coal
and Coal Ash SWMUs at the DuPont Cape Fear Facility, 1968 to 2023
Public RCRA Comment to Secretary NCDEQ
August 7, 2023

This analysis recommends that the DuPont Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 54,
5-acres in size and 48 feet high, filled with about 195,000 tons of Coal Combustion
Residuals (CCR) and other toxic and hazardous solid waste should be demolished and
removed. Due to its threat to the environment and humans, and particularly its high risk
to flooding by the FEMA designated Cape Fear River Regulatory Floodway and the
FEMA Flood Zone AE, it should be removed from its present location and the land
restored to its previous state.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) published a 2019
DuPont Fact Sheet prepared for a public meeting by the NCDEQ in Leland, NC, where
the DuPont plant is located. The fact sheet explained:
[First, Page 1, para 3:] At one time [from 1968 to 1973], much of the
wastes generated by plant operations were disposed of on-site in a series
of landfills. These landfills are located between the plant buildings and the
Cape Fear River and have been identified as Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMUs) under the RCRA Corrective Action Program. [Second,
Page 1, para 4:] The plant has generated, the following wastes: 1)
process, non-process and sanitary waste waters and storm water runoff;
2) trade wastes facility sludge; 3) laboratory wastes; 4) subsurface
collection system wastes; 5) finish oils; 6) spent triethylene glycol; 7)
waste terephthalic acid; 8) waste Dowtherm®; 9) waste motor oil,
antifreeze, and waste lubricating oils; 10) spent acidic and caustic
solutions; 11) power plant ash; 12) non-hazardous refuse; 13) incinerator
residues; 14) waste from contractor operations (maintenance and
construction); and 15) miscellaneous wastes. Miscellaneous wastes
include contaminated glycol, waste monomer, solvents, waste regenerate
from ion exchange columns, wastes generated during fire training
exercises, [including PFAS], wastes resulting from [contaminated] drum
cleaning activities, waste water stored in an organic stripping column tank,
and wastes generated at an oil de-watering area.
[red font indicates added text for editorial clarification]

[Third, Page 2, para 5:] Several RCRA units have released chemical
constituents to the environment. Constituents with concentrations that
exceed applicable groundwater standards include 1,4-dioxane, benzene,
cis-1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride,
diphenyl ether, triethylene glycol, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, biphenyl,
ethylene glycol, and cobalt. A similar list of constituents has been detected
in soil. Surface water samples collected on the DAK/DuPont property
indicate lead, arsenic, cobalt, vanadium, and copper exceed surface water
standards.

Page 54 of 60
The above description by the NCDEQ describes hazardous waste routinely placed into
Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) rather than into Hazardous Waste
Management Units (HWMU) now required by the RCRA. Landfills are not protected by
“grandfathering.” Landfills must meet current requirements or be removed according to
the RCRA throughout.

In the fact sheet, NCDEQ did not distinguish the above chemicals or metals as
manufacturing materials, and did not list the toxic or hazardous components of coal, or
coal ash residue, which are an established consequence of the entire manufacturing
process to include disposal. The process was so hazardous that DuPont closed the
facility rather than comply with the RCRA because compliance in 1973 was too
expensive.
A lot of toxic and hazardous waste was created by the use of coal during fifty-five years
to generate power and throughout the manufacturing process at the former DuPont
plant. There were 17 primary SWMU and AOC used to process coal, coal ash, and its
contaminated residue.
The challenge continues today to determine whether the waste in the coal ash landfills
is only coal, coal ash, or coal ash infused with other, often toxic or hazardous materials
created by the Dacron® polyester and PET manufacturing processes and sidestepped
in the NCDEQ Fact Sheet.
Coal is classified by the EPA and industry into four main types: (1) anthracite, (2)
bituminous, (3) subbituminous, and (4) lignite. Bituminous coal is the most available and
the lowest price and usually used in electric power generation and chemical products
manufacturing and particularly in the Southeastern United States. It is also the most
contaminated coal. Reportedly, the DuPont plant, during its years of operation used
uncountable tens of thousands of tons of bituminous coal for both power generation and
manufacturing.
Bituminous coal came to DuPont from many geographic areas in the United States and
the world, South Africa an example. Depending on the origin of the coal and how it was
mined and what other material was mined with it determines what other minerals and
chemicals are burned with the coal and infused in the coal ash. Aside from silver and
gold and a few other valuable metals, the rest are not removed during the mining
process – it is too expensive to do so.
The SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT (SWDA) [Public Law 89–272, year 1965 and
Amended by P.L. 117–58, year 2021, and specifically Sections 3001-3004 and 8002,
and throughout], clearly provides the requirement for chemical and physical analysis of
the composition of such wastes as fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, flue
gas emission control waste, and other byproduct materials generated primarily from the
combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. There is no indication that either DuPont or the
predecessor state agencies of the NCDEQ met this requirement. When a new RCRA
permit was issued in 2019 there is no verification that the existing, long term landfills,
containing coal ash were comprehensively tested for content. There are no records.
The RCRA is clear: it is the responsibility of DuPont and the NCDEQ to prove all SWMU
contain only nonhazardous waste. It is not the public’s responsibility to prove they do.

Page 55 of 60
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), five primary
hazardous constituents: 1. arsenic, 2. cadmium, 3. lead, 4.mercury, and 5. nickel
result from burning any pure coal.

When coal is mixed with other materials during the mining process many more
constituents are included, mostly other chemicals, metals, and metalloids. Many are
hazardous.

If only coal ash was placed in SWMU 54, a coal ash landfill, how did seventeen different
chemicals and metals migrate from the main DuPont plant manufacturing area to
SWMU 54, one mile through woods and grasslands and over dirt roads to the Cape
Fear River? Most likely they were brought in dump containers as ash or as residue
from cleaning Dowtherm and other furnaces and chimney filters or from burning
hazardous materials with coal as the fuel, and as part of the manufacturing process.
There is also considerable contaminated sludge in wastewater drainage from AOC GW
and other AOC. The sludge was also dumped in SWMU landfills and elsewhere. There
was no clear “chain of evidence” for any of it. Coal residue was likely placed in every
one of the seventeen SWMU.

Here are two industry and EPA recognized examples that were reliably analyzed at coal ash
dumps elsewhere. Twenty-three (23) chemicals and metals were routinely discovered in coal
ash during a comprehensive New York State investigation using EPA standards involving coal
ash chemicals contamination of local drinking water. The five primary constituents cited
previously are highlighted in yellow with red font below.

Throughout this report understand that any chemical highlighted in yellow with green font was
also found in SWMU 54 which reportedly was used only for coal ash for 55 years and absolutely
no hazardous waste, not ever. In Chart 1 below, any chemical constituent found in SWMU 54 is
marked 54 next to the constituent.
Report: “Remediation Needed at Cayuga New York Power Plant” (Coal Ash Landfill).
(Example of what was found inside a coal ash landfill after thorough testing)( Activity date 1977-
2013.) Cite: https://cleancayugalake.org/coal-ash-landfill/
Published by Clean, November 8, 2022. Seven of these constituents are also in SWMU 54.
CHART 1: Cayuga Of interest, Cayuga arsenic levels were found to be five times higher than
the safe drinking water limit set by the EPA.
1. ammonia 9. cobalt 54 17. nickel
2. arsenic 54 10. copper 18. nitrate
3. barium 11. fluoride 19. selenium
4. beryllium 12. iron 54 20. sodium
5. Boron 13. lead 54 21. strontium
6. cadmium 14. molybdenum 22. sulfate 54
7. chloride 15. manganese 54 23. thallium
8. chromium 54 16. mercury
Testing after a similar December 2008 disaster at the TVA Power Plant, Kingston, TN, coal ash
spill detected these 25 chemicals and metals within the coal ash flood sludge. The always-
there-constituents shown in yellow highlight and red font. There is no sulfate in this example.
Eight of these constituents also in SWMU 54.
CHART 2: TVA Kingston

 1.Aluminum  2. Antimony  3. Arsenic 54

Page 56 of 60
  4. Barium  12. Lead 54  20. Silver
 5. Beryllium  13. Magnesium 54  21. Sodium
 6. Cadmium  14. Manganese 54  22. Strontium
 7. Calcium 54  15. Mercury  23. Tin
 8. Chromium 54  16. Molybdenum  24. Vanadium
 9. Cobalt 54  17. Nickel  25. Zinc
 10. Copper  18. Potassium
 11. Iron 54  19. Selenium

The DuPont Fact Sheet, 2019 (cited previously) was prepared for a public meeting by
the NCDEQ. The fact sheet explained: “Several RCRA units have released chemical
constituents to the environment. Constituents with concentrations that exceed
applicable groundwater standards.” [boldface added] They include arsenic and lead
but three primary constituents (cadmium, mercury, and nickel) are missing and two of
the SWMU 54 constituents iron and magnesium are also missing. Though the NC2L
standards differ among constituents, the gross exceedance disparity among that many
is not likely according to groundwater hydrologists. See SWMU 54 constituents noted
below:

CHART 3: According to the Fact Sheet the Constituents Below are in RCRA Units
1. arsenic 54 6. cobalt 54 11. tetrachloroethene
2. 1,4-dioxane 7. diphenyl ether 12. trichloroethene
3. Benzene 8. ethylene glycol 13. triethylene glycol
4. biphenyl 9. lead 54 14. vinyl chloride 54
5. cis-1,2-dichloroethene 54 10. naphthalene

That is interesting, only two of five primary coal constituents, arsenic and lead, almost
always found in coal ash are present. Where is cadmium, mercury, and nickel? Both
arsenic and lead are often found naturally in the soil also, but seldom above NC2L.
Many of the constituents reported in the Fact Sheet as found in SWMU are considered
at least toxic, and in combination with everything else in SWMU 54, if not hazardous
they probably should be.

It is highly unlikely that among 95,000 tons of coal ash in SWMU 54 that three of the
basic constituents of coal ash: cadmium, mercury, and nickel are absent as are many
of the other commonly found constituents described above. The two constituents that
did appear and only in ground well testing, arsenic and lead, at the low levels reported,
are just as likely natural occurrences. In my assessment SWMU 54 was never tested
correctly or comprehensively. The test records support that conclusion. SWMU 54 was
declared No Further Action (NFA) much too soon, and more as a lazy presumption than
thorough testing. If you cannot prove what is in or not in SWMU 54, you cannot
determine NFA. My analytical opinion of course.

Based on the wording in the Fact Sheet it could be inferred that “the 14 constituents
released to the environment” intends to mean released through furnace chimneys to the
air (Dupont did pollute the air considerably -- according to the EPA, 7,500 tons in 1992
as an example) and not intended as released into the soil, except there is that mention

Page 57 of 60
of “groundwater” contamination in the fact sheet. Another conclusion is that not much
comprehensive testing was conducted before the year 2020. My opinion of course.

Testing of all 80 SWMU, AOC, and groundwater showed an abundance of other

constituents found with coal ash from coal used to produce fire. The 14 constituents
above in Chart 3 seem to be exclusive to manufacturing slop from Dacron® polyester
and PET and do not include all 30 metals and chemicals constituents found separately
with coal ash residue in 22 primary coal ash SWMU and coal ash groundwater at the
DuPont Plant. See again the DuPont RCRA Hazardous Waste Analytic Spreadsheet,
August 1, 2023, discussed in the primary document to this report. That matrix compares
every constituent to every SWMU and AOC. See Endnote 12 in the primary document
addressed to the NCDEQ Secretary, Subject: RCRA Public Comment, August 7, 2023 .

A similar list of constituents has been detected in DuPont soil and surface water
samples collected on the DuPont property and indicate lead, arsenic, cobalt,
vanadium, and copper do sporadically exceed surface water standards. All are
constituents commonly found in coal ash. There are no reports of arsenic when
occurring naturally in the surrounding area exceeding safe levels. When arsenic does
exceed NC2L in a SWMU it may be assumed that it was created by coal ash or another
waste generator.

The 11 chemicals below, Chart 4, are as expected, also found among the DuPont site’s
23 ash handling SWMU and AOC-GW. They were among a total of 30 chemicals (some
of which are derivatives) also found in the DuPont plant coal ash handling facilities –
see the DuPont RCRA Hazardous Waste Analytic Spreadsheet, August 1, 2023,
previously cited in the primary article. (Endnote 12).

However, of the 23 to 25 coal ash chemicals found in a typical unlined coal ash dump in
Cayuga or TVA Kingston (about the same age as the unlined DuPont Cape Fear
landfills) 7 of the same constituents, highlighted in yellow with red font, were randomly
found in SWMU 54. Only four test wells were used rather than comprehensive record
keeping or core sampling, of which there are no records. There are, however, also
manufacturing residues of Dacron polyester® and PET. What is really deep inside
SWMU 54 and why the disparity? Because core testing was recommended but refused,
why we do not know.

CHART 4: SWMU 54 Coal Constituents Randomly Reported Include:

XX found in both Cayuga and Kingston, X found only in Kingston
1. Arsenic XX
2. Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (not typical; usually found in railway yards, particularly CSX Railway
yards such as the one at the DuPont plant).
3. Chromium XX
4. Cobalt XX
5. 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (not typical)(manufacturing)
6. Iron XX
7. Lead XX
8. Manganese XX
9. Sulfate X

Page 58 of 60
10. Vinyl Chloride (not typical with coal)
11. Terephthalic Acid (not typical with coal but in manufacturing Dacron)

By contrast all 80 DuPont SWMU and AOC, according to DuPont testing, are identified
as storing coal or coal ash and had at least one or more, likely most, of these 36
chemicals and metals. It is highly likely that solid waste coal ash landfills, including
SWMU 54, have hazardous chemicals mixed with or created by coal ash. Toxic
materials a certainty.

CHART 5: 36 DuPont constituents

1. Asbestos 13. 1,2-dibromo-3- 25. Nickel
2. Arsenic 14. Diethylene Glycol 26. Phenol
3. Barium 15. Diphenyl Ether 27. Phthalate
4. Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) 16. Ethylbenzene 28. Silver
5.Cadmium 17. Formaldehyde 29. Sulphur
6. Chloroform 18. Halogenated solvents 30. Thallium
7. Carbon Tetrachloride 19. Iron 31. Terephthalic Acid
8. Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 20. Lead 32. Titanium Dioxide
9. chloropropane 21. Manganese 33. Trichloroethene Glycol
10. Chromium 22. Mercury 34. Trichloroethene (TCE)
11. Cobalt 23. 2-Methyinaphthalene 35. Vanadium
12. 1,4-Dioxane 24. Naphthalene 36. Vinyl Chloride

Footnotes:
Some Toxicological Profiles about Questionable constituents:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Fact Sheet
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=463&toxid=82

Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (not typical with coal ash)

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/waycross/csx_rail_transportation_pha_508.pdf
https://search.cdc.gov/search/index.html?query=Cis-1%2C2-Dichloroethene&dpage=1
explains why this chemical is toxic, hazardous, and dangerous.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts87.pdf

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene has been found in at least 146 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites
identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (not typical with coal ash)

https://search.cdc.gov/search/index.html?query=1%202-dibromo-3-chloropropane%20not
%20topical&dpage=1

Vinyl Chloride (not typical with coal ash)

https://search.cdc.gov/search/index.html?query=Vinyl%20Chloride&dpage=1

Terephthalic Acid (not typical with coal ash)

https://search.cdc.gov/search/index.html?query=Terephthalic%20Acid&dpage=1

(1) arsenic, (2) cadmium, (3) chromium, (4) cobalt, (5) copper, (6) lead, (7) lithium, (8)
mercury, (9) molybdenum, (10) selenium, (11) thallium and (12) uranium.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash

Page 59 of 60
Don E. Gordon
Don E. Gordon
Public RCRA Comment
End of Document

Page 60 of 60