EPA/540/4-90/040
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIOMTIES LIST SITES:
South Carolina
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites ..vii
How To:
Using the State Volume .....xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets i
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets ..G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
I s the 1970s came to a
| close, a series of head-
•1 line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly
known as the Superfund —
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
iii
-------
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
groundwater — must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, butfthe
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make— as a
Nation — in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
x he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
-" ^ waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
h Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways, Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify, the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment — such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
'*
••^.
v*»»
v
Ox
11 ^V.%^
*\%
~v
"v-
>i«'
,-x
tgeriknis Itangal*
••v
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
ix
-------
SUPERFUND
cleanup asiwg
money? \>
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
\
xi
-------
SUPERFUND
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for .public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned tip in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
"•-.-..
'..V-
V
* ^ x . v
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it mtist be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
Special construction planning and procedures. Therefore/the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction-work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
,
tailo*MJo- a site/ does
XU1
-------
SUPERFUND
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
Once the design is
complete, how long
does it take to
actually clean up the
site and how much,
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup — called the
remedial action — are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them — an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
Once the cleanup
action is complete, is
the site automatically
"deleted" from the
NPL? ~
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
far the
XV
-------
XVI
-------
s he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
; are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site — or part
of the site — are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Fads: «»
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress, towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xviii
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
xix
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of South Ca
South Carolina is a south Atlantic coastal state, bordered by North Carolina to the north
and Georgia to the southwest. The State covers 31,113 square miles, consisting of the
Blue Ridge Mountains in the northwest, piedmont, and coastal plain down to the
Atlantic Ocean. South Carolina experienced an 11.2 percent increase in population
through the 1980s and currently has approximately 3,470,000 residents, ranking 25th in
U.S. populations. Principal State industries are tourism, agriculture, and manufacturing.
South Carolina manufacturing produces textiles, apparel, machinery, fabricated metal
products, chemicals and other allied products.
How Many South Carolina Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
21
Q
22
Cong. District 06, 07
Cong. District 03, 04
Cong. District 05
Cong. District 01, 02
1 site
3 sites
4 sites
5 sites
How are Sites Contaminated arid What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
20--
16
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* ?
Site
Studies
Remedy {
Selected'
f Remedy
* Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 12 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in South Carolina, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
South Carolina Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(803) 734-5200
(404) 347-2234
4202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow K) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
•*• An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
•*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No,
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
«*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
•>- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of South Carolina
Pago Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
BEAUNITCORP7CIRCULAR KNIT & DYE
CAROLAWN
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
GEIGER SITE (C & M OIL)
GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK SERVICES
HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY LDFL
INDEPENDENT NAIL COMPANY
KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
LEONARD CHEMICAL CO., INC.
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
MEDLEY FARMS
PALMETTO RECYCLING INC.
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING
ROCHESTER PROPERTY
ROCK HILL CHEMICAL C07RUTLEDGE
SANGAMO/TWELVE-MILE/HARTWELL
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
GREENVILLE
CHESTER
SPARTENBURG
CHARLESTON
GREENVILLE
ALLENDALE
BEAUFORT
BEAUFORT
FLORENCE
YORK
LEXINGTON
CHEROKEE
RICHLAND
LEXINGTON
GREENVILLE
YORK
PICKENS
AlKEN
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
02/16/90 *•
09/01/83 *•*•*•*•
03/31/89 •*• •*•
09/01/84 +- +• +
07/07/87 •*-
02/21/90 *• *•
09/01/84 *- *• + *• + +•
09/01/84 *-
09/01/84 •*• •*•
09/01/84 + *•
10/04/89 ^~
03/31/89 "*- «^
07/07/87 «^ ^
09/01/84 + + + + +
10/04/89 ^
02/21/90 •*• *•
06/24/88 + «^-
11/21/89 "^
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
37 SCRDI BLUFF ROAD
39 SCRDI DIXIANA
41 TOWNSEND SAW CHAIN CO.
43 WAMCHEM, INC.
RICHLAND
LEXINGTON
RICHLAND
BEAUFORT
Final 09/01/83
Final 09/01/83
Final 02/16/90
Final 09/01/84
-------
-------
I'",, 1
-------
-------
BEAUNIT CORP./
CIRCULAR KNI
AND DYEING
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD000447268
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Greenville County
Fountain Inn
The Beaunit Corporation site is a 70-foot abandoned unlined lagoon located in a
commercial district of Fountain Inn. From 1958 to 1977, the site was used to treat dye
waste generated from the Circular Knit and Dyeing Plant. Six feet of sludge is located
on the bottom of the lagoon. Because a barrier was not placed along the site's
perimeter, the lagoon discharged into an unnamed stream that flows northwest to join
Howard Branch. Testing in 1985 by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control found a variety of contaminants in the lagoon, the nearby
stream, soil, and sediment at the site. Approximately 1,000 people live'vyithin 3 miles
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals including chromium
and lead are found in on-site sediments and soil. Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) are found in the lagoon and the unnamed stream that
flows northwest to join Howard Branch. Because the soils in the area are
permeable and groundwater is shallow, contaminants could easily migrate
into the groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
i
continued
-------
BEAUNIT CORP./CIRCULAR KNIT AND DYEING
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Initial work on the site investigation is being completed. With
final listing to the NPL recently approved, work to investigate the extent of
the contamination will become more extensive and cleanup activities will be
selected, designed, and implemented.
Site Facts: The EPA issued Notice Letters to parties potentially responsible for site
contamination requesting their participation in site cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Beaunit Corp. site while
further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
-------
CAROLAWN
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980558316
REGION 4
.CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Chester County-
Fort Lawn
Site Description
The Carolawn site is an abandoned 3-acre waste storage and disposal facility that was
owned by various companies until the Carolawn Company bought the site in 1977.
Several hundred drums of chemical wastes, including acids, bases, organic solvents,
and contaminated soil, were stored both outside and inside the fenced site. Some
drums were damaged in a fire, and others were corroded and leaking. Four 2,000-
gallon tanks of solvents were located on site. A lagoon was used for disposal of waste
sludges. Carolawn constructed two incinerators; however, they were never used to
dispose of wastes. State inspections in 1979 revealed improper storage of wastes,and
a lack of progress toward disposal of waste materials. The company was not able to
obtain a permit for incineration and went bankrupt in 1980. During the same year, the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) sampled
three private wells and found them contaminated. Approximately 100 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site; 2,000 peoplelive within 4 miles. Significant amounts
of contaminated runoff from the site have migrated into a tributary of the Catawba
River, which supplies drinking water to the town of Lugaff.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lead, chloroform, and various
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Stream sediments are contaminated
with arsenic, lead, and methylene chloride. The soil is contaminated with
lead and the surface water is contaminated with chloroform. People who
accidentally touch or ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water,
soil or sediments may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: irfimediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
CAROLAWN
Response Action Status
X" Immediate Actions: In 1981 and 1982, the EPA removed contaminated
sludge and solid-waste from the lagoon. The liquid wastes were recycled
and the solid wastes were disposed of in a federally approved facility. In
1985, alternate drinking water was provided by Carolawn to nearby homes. In 1986,
the EPA extended the municipal waterlines to the affected residences, and the EPA
removed approximately 1,000 drums, 220,000 gallons of liquid wastes, 5,000 gallons of
contaminated water, and the tanks stored outside the fence to a federally approved
facility.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA chose a remedy to clean up the site which
included: (1) installing a groundwater extraction system; (2) removing
pollutants by various techniques including filtering the groundwater
through an activated carbon filter, contact with air to evaporate
contaminants, or biological treating; (3) monitoring the groundwater; and (4) further
sampling of soil north of the fenced area. The EPA is sampling the soil and conducting
studies on the type and extent of its contamination. The potentially responsible parties
are preparing the technical specifications and design for cleaning up the groundwater.
The cleanup will begin once the design phase is completed in 1.990.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination have signed
an Administrative Order which specifies how design and constrution .activities will be
completed.
Environmental Progress
The removal of sludge, solid and liquid wastes have reduced the potential for exposure
to contaminated materials at the Carolawn site. These actions and the extension of
municipal waterlines have greatly reduced risks for the public health and the
environment while remedy designs and further cleanup activities take place.
-------
ELMORE WASTE
DISPOSAL
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980839542
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Spartanburg County
Greer
The Elmpre Waste Disposal site is a grassy field covering approximately 1/2 acre in a
residential area. Drums containing unknown liquid wastes were deposited there
between 1975 and 1977. In response to citizens' complaints of odors coming from the
site, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
inspected the site and found numerous 55-gallon drums, some of which were leaking,
and a 6,000-gallon buried tank. In 1977, the owner of the Elmore site signed a Consent
Order with the State of South Carolina and conducted a partial cleanup of the site.
After this action, 25 drums and the bulk tank remained. In 1980, the owner was
instructed to stop cleanup actions until sampling was performed to verify the adequacy
of earlier efforts. Investigations of site conditions by SCDHEC in 1986 and 1987
confirmed that the soil, sediments, and surface waters remain contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and chromium. Wards Creek, a small tributary to
the South Tyger River, flows about 700 feet north of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal/State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring wells detect contamination from heavy metals
including cadmium, lead, zinc, and barium, and from various VOCs from
former drum storage activitie's. The soil is also contaminated with heavy
metals. Possible migration of contaminated groundwater to private wells
may pose a threat to area residents. Monitoring wells at the site have
shown groundwater contamination since 1987.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
Response Action Status
*•** Initial Actions: The owner of Elmore attempted a partial cleanup in 1977
by surrounding some of the leaking drums with wood shavings, removing
some of the deteriorated drums, and excavating and drumming some of
the contaminated surface soil. The State completed this phase of the cleanup in 1986
by removing 5,477 tons of contaminated soil and debris and 16,840 pounds of
contaminated liquids to a hazardous waste facility. These actions have controlled the
source of contamination and eliminated immediate threats to neighboring residents.
Entire Site: The EPA is about to begin field work to investigate the nature
and extent of contamination and to develop and select alternative cleanup
strategies for the remaining site contamination. Upon completion of the
study in 1991, the EPA will select a final remedy for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1977, the owner of Elmore Waste Disposal entered into a Consent
Order with the State to clean up and properly dispose of the waste.
Environmental Progress
The removal of soil and drums has greatly reduced the potential for people to be
exposed to hazardous substances at the Elmore Waste Disposal site while further
studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
-------
GEIGER SITE
(C&MOIL)
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980711279
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Charleston County
1 mile northeast of Rantowle's
Aliases:
Wm L Sires/C & M Oil
United Pollution Control
The Geiger site, previously known as the C & M Oil site, occupies about 5 acres. In
1969, Adams Run Services, Inc. was permitted to incinerate waste oil at the site. In
1971, eight unlined lagoons were constructed to hold the waste oil. In response to
complaints from area residents, the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority ordered
all incineration and waste disposal activities at the site stopped; also, the owner was
required to take action to prevent spillage, leakage, or seepage of oil from the site. In
1974, the Charleston County Health Department ordered the site closed citing evidence
of recent oil dumping and overflowing. In 1982, the site was purchased by the present
owner who, in 1983, filled the lagoons with local soils since his requests to excavate
and dispose of contaminated soil were denied. The site has since been used for the
storage of equipment by his company, Pile Drivers, Inc. Crops, pasture lands and sand
borrow pits are scattered within 1 mile of the site. Approximately 40 people live within
1/4 mile of the site. The closest population center is the town of Rantowies, located 1
mile northeast; the town of Hollywood is 4 miles west.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from former activities at the site. The
sediments are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The
soil and surface water are contaminated with all contaminants listed
above. Workers or residents may be exposed to health hazards if direct
contact is made with contaminated sediments, soils, surface water, or
groundwater from the shallow aquifer wells. Runoff from the site flows
through hardwood swamps and marshes.
MarctYl990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
GEIGER SITE (C & M OIL)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on source
removal, soil, and groundwater.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: A groundwater investigation was conducted at the site after
initial cleanup decision was made. The work involved the inspection of
existing monitoring wells, installation of additional monitoring wells, and the
installation of off-site residential drinking water wells. The cleanup technology selected
is removing and treating of the contaminated groundwater, which will then flow to an
off-site stream. Design of technologies to be used for the cleanup is under way.
Source Removal: The cleanup process that the EPA will perform includes:
(1) removing and treating soil on site with heat to remove organic
contaminants; (2) removing the water from the soil and solidifying the
thermally treated soil to ensure that metals cannot leave the soil; and (3) backfilling the
excavated areas with treated soil, followed by grading and covering. A study began in
1989 to establish soil cleanup criteria for lead and chromium.
Soil: This phase will involve the field investigations, treatability study, and
remedial design for the treatment of contaminated soil. The site
investigation is scheduled to begin in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Geiger site while further
studies and cleanup actions are continuing.
-------
GOLDEN STRIP SE
TANK SERVICE
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980799456
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Greenville County
Greenville
The Golden Strip Septic Tank Service site consists of five abandoned lagoons covering
2 acres on a farm. From, 1960 to 1975, the company deposited plating wastes and
other liquids from nearby industries into the lagoons. The lagoons were unlined and
had no structures to prevent rainfall runoff from leaving them. In 1978, three lagoons
that had dried up were filled with dirt, but two still contain liquids. Tests conducted by
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the EPA
indicated contamination of groundwater and sediments near Rice Spring, which is
about 500 feet from the lagoons, as well as heavy metals contamination in the lagoons.
Approximately 1,600 people live within 3 miles of the site and use private wells for
drinking water. Cows graze on the site. The site is in the drainage basin of Gilder
Creek, which is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals including chromium, cadmium, lead,
zinc, and cyanide which have leached from the lagoons. The stream
sediments, soil, and surface water are also contaminated with heavy
metals. People who use contaminated spring or well water for drinking
water supplies may be at risk. Contaminated fish from Gilder Creek may
pose a health risk to those who eat them. Children who trespass on the
fenced site and accidentally touch or ingest contaminated soil or
groundwater may suffer health threats..
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9 --
continued
-------
GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK SERVICE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
studying the type and extent of groundwater and other contamination at the
site. Once the study is completed in 1991, the EPA will select the most
appropriate remedies for the cleanup of this site.
i
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties have signed an Administrative Order
with the EPA to conduct a study on the type and extent of contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Golden Strip Septic Tank
Service site while further studies and cleanup actions are taking place.
10
-------
HELENA CHEM
COMPANY L
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD058753971
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Allendale County
Fairfax
From 1971 to 1978, the Helena Chemical Company formulated pesticides in Fairfax;
previous operations date from the early 1960s. The company disposed of pesticides
and empty pesticide containers in an unlined landfill. In 1985, the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control detected contaminants in the on-site
shallow monitoring wells. Sediments were also found to be contaminated. The
shallow aquifer Is connected to the lower aquifer, potentially permitting contaminated
water to move into it. The lower aquifer provides water to Fairfax municipal wells
within 3 miles of the site. These wells serve approximately 2,200 people. The nearest
municipal well is about 500 feet away from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
ZTA
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil and sediments are contaminated with various
pesticides from the former disposal of pesticide wastes. People who
accidentally touch or ingest contaminated groundwater or sediments may
be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES*
11
continued
-------
HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, understate supervision, the company removed
some of the waste, transported it to an approved hazardous waste facility,
and covered the site with clay.
Entire Site: Helena Chemical is studying the type and extent of
contamination from pesticide disposal activities on the site. Once the study
is finished in 1991, the EPA will select the most appropriate remedies, and
will begin cleanup activities soon thereafter.
Site Facts: In 1981, the State and Helena Chemical signed a Consent Order requiring
the company to study the contamination and then clean up the site. In 1984, they
signed another agreement to cover the landfill and monitor the groundwater for 30
years.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove wastes and cover the area have reduced risks to the public
health at the Helena Chemical Company Landfill site while further studies and cleanup
activities are taking place.
12
-------
INDEPENDEN
COMPANY
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD004773644
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beaufort County
3 miles northwest of Beaufort
Alias:
D. Blake & Johnson Company, Inc.
The Independent Nail Company currently operates a paneling nail coating process on
this site. The previous owners of the site, the D. Blake and Johnson Co., manufactured
metallic screws and fasteners. As a part of the manufacturing process, the company
discharged approximately 33,000 to 75,000 gallons per day of plating wastewater
containing heavy metals into an unlined infiltration lagoon. The lagoon was in use from
1969 to 1980, when Blake and Johnson ceased operations. That same year, the
Independent Nail Company purchased the plant. As part of the process of selling the
property, Blake and Johnson installed monitoring wells that showed some effect from
the lagoon on the groundwater. Further studies by the State also noted movement of
contaminants to groundwater. The surrounding area is a combination of fields,
woodlands, and wetlands. Approximately 25 people live within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments and soil were contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, zinc, cyanide, arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury from the
former disposal activities. The groundwater contains these same
compounds. Touching the contaminated sediments or soil were the
primary means of human exposure,
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two
long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater assessment and cleanup of the
entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
INDEPENDENT NAIL COMPANY
Response Action Status
ix
Immediate Actions: The EPA fenced the area around the lagoon in 1988 to
restrict access to the wastes on site.
Groundwater: After a thorough field investigation conducted by the EPA, it
was concluded that there was no risk to human health or the environment
from the low level of contaminants in the groundwater. Thus, no action was
required to clean up the contaminants in the groundwater.
Entire Site: The EPA chose the following methods to clean up the site: (1)
excavation of contaminated soils and lagoon sediments; (2) solidification and
stabilization of excavated soils and sediments; (3) placement of treated soils
and sediments back into the lagoon with 6 inches of topsoil, followed by covering and
seeding. The EPA completed these cleanup actions in 1988 and is working with the
State to ensure proper operation and maintenance at the site. With the completion of
these actions, the EPA is planning to delete the site from the NPL.
Environmental Progress
All activities have been completed at the Independent Nail Company site and all surface
contamination has been cleaned up. Additionally, the EPA has determined that
groundwater resources do not pose a threat to the public and that no cleanup actions
were required to address low levels of contamination. Extensive evaluations of the
completed remedies and site sampling has determined that the Independent Nail
Company site is now safe to nearby residents and the environment while the EPA
satisfies all requirements to delete the site from the NPL.
14
-------
KALAMA SPECI/
CHEMICALS
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD094995503
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beaufort County
5 miles northwest of Beaufort
Two specialty chemical companies operated at the Kalama Specialty Chemicals site,
which covers 16 acres. From 1973 to 1977, the first firm, Vega Chemical, produced a
wide range of chemicals in .small, special-order batches for manufacturers and larger
chemical producers. Kalama bought the property in 1977 to manufacture fosamine
ammonium, an herbicide and plant-growth regulator. The facility closed in 1979, after
one of the reactors exploded. This event caused large-scale spillage of various organic
chemicals. Afterwards, the company bought 50 acres adjoining the site, including a
trailer park located just above its northern boundary. The trailers were removed, but
several abandoned, dilapidated houses remain. In 1988, the EPA reported that a
construction company operated on Kalama property at the eastern edge of the site, but
it made plans to relocate that same year. The site still contains a wastewater lagoon
that at one time overflowed into a tile drainage field. This, as well as the explosion,
contaminated shallow groundwater. The site is in the recharge zone of an important
source of groundwater. The site is located in a fast-growing coastal area and is
surrounded primarily by residential neighborhoods. The closest home is less than 100
yards away, and a day care center lies less than 1/4 mile south. Approximately 16,000
people live within a 4-mile radius of the property; 2,500 reside within 1 mile of the site.
Independent Nail Company and Wamchem, Inc. are two other NPL sites located with 4
miles of this site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater, surface water, and soil contain lead and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene. Trespassers
on the site may be exposed by touching contaminated soil, surface water,
or groundwater or accidentally swallowing any of the contaminated
materials. The property is fenced, but the gate was breached. This site
lies in a coastal area, threatening wildlife and aquatic life.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination began preparing for an intensive study of its pollution
problems. This investigation, conducted under EPA monitoring, will
measure the type and extent of soil and water pollution around the
properly. The study is scheduled for completion in late 1990, at which time EPA will
select the most appropriate remedies for cleanup of this site.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was signed in 1989 for the parties potentially responsible
to conduct site studies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Kalama Specialty Chemicals
site while further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
16
-------
KOPPERS
COMPANY, I
SOUTH CAROLIN:
EPA ID# SCD003353026
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Florence County
1/2 mile east of Florence
Site Description
The 145-acre Koppers Company, Inc. site is an active wood-treating and preserving
plant that still generates hazardous wood preserving chemicals. The company currently
uses three preservatives in its operations: creosote, pentachlorophenoKPCP), and
chromated copper arsenate (CCA). State and Federal permits for wastewater
discharges required the owner to upgrade operating practices on several occasions,
starting in 1971. The State required the plant's liquid wastes to be sprayed over a field
and allowed to evaporate. In addition, the company pumped "penta-oil" wastes into
four unlined lagoons where it was released through by evaporation and seepage. In
1974, the operation violated the limits of its Federal discharge permit, and the EPA
ordered the owner to study and control runoff. The study recommended closing the
penta-oil lagoons, the creosote lagoon, and the spray field and replacing them'with
three concrete-lined solar oxidation ponds. Liquid from the final pond would be sprayed
over land. The State approved the new system in 1977, and the EPA focused its
concerns on stormwater discharge only. In 1979, the plant's drinking water supply
became contaminated with napthalene, and by the next year, nearby residents reported
a creosote odor and foul taste in their wells. The State ordered the company to study
the groundwater problem. In response, the company supplied public water to homes
that were affected, and the owners installed recovery wells to retrieve and slow the ,
movement of contaminants in the groundwater. The recovered groundwater and
process wastewater is now sent to the pre-treatment facility on site and then
discharged to the water treatment facility. The site is located adjacent to a growing
area of Florence. Homes and apartments, hospitals, schools, and a day care center are
all located with a 1-mile radius, as are mobile homes, agricultural lands, an airport,
businesses, and light industries. Access to the site is unrestricted. The residential
areas are 1/4 mile away from the site and contain gardens, livestock, and private wells.
At least 1,200 people use the shallow aquifer for drinking water.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
HOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCP, heavy metals including
arsenic and mercury, and oil and grease from wood-treatment activities.
PAHs and other organic chemicals were detected in off-site private wells
in 1985. People may experience adverse health effects through touching,
inhaling, or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater and soil.
Contamination was detected in some private wells downslope from the
plant in 1985. The plant is also located in an area where water may
recharge directly to the Black Creek/Middendorf Aquifer. This aquifer is
the only source of potable water that the city of Florence uses.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action. Status
Immediate Actions: The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination studied the groundwater problem, furnished an alternate
water supply to affected residents, and came up with a plan to install
recovery wells and treatment systems.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the ownerof the site began a study of
the site's pollution problems in 1988. This study will define the nature and
extent of contamination. Once the study is completed, alternatives for site
cleanup will be evaluated, and EPA will select the most appropriate
remedies for cleanup of this site.
Environmental Progress
The alternate water supply has eliminated the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials from the Koppers Company, Inc. site through the groundwater. Further
studies and cleanup activities are being completed to address contaminated waters and
soils.
18
-------
LEONARD CHE
COMPANY, IN
SOUTH CAROLINA I
EPA ID# SCD991279324
AL
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
York County
Catawba, 9 miles southeast of Rock Hill
Alias:
Leonard Chemical
The 7-acre Leonard Chemical Company site began operating in the late 1960s as a
hazardous waste treatment facility. Its primary treatment method was distillation.
Recovery residues were placed in various locations on the site. Plant operations
ceased in 1982 under orders of the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. Approximately 3,400 drums and 11,500 gallons of various
chemicals were left on the site. Materials included solvents, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), printing inks, polyester solids, stillbottoms, and filters for paint,
water, and fiberglass. Numerous spills and leaks occurred, threatening groundwater,
and the State ordered the owner to install three monitoring wells. By 1988, the site
was overgrown with scrub and covered with abandoned equipment and machines.
Numerous sludges lay on the ground, and vegetation was spotty where chemicals
wastes and still bottoms had been used as fill. The gate and fence had been breached
and signs of trespassing were evident. Approximately 5,900 people live within a 4-mile
radius of the site; 240 people live within a mile.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals
including barium, lead, and manganese, as well as various VOCs from the
former disposal activities. Individuals could be harmed if they use
contaminated water for drinking, bathing, cooking, or irrigation or
accidentally ingest contaminated soils.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
LEONARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, a group of generators responsible for the
chemical wastes found on the site formed a committee and retained a
contractor to remove wastes from the site. Workers removed drums and
some of the contaminated soil that same year.
Entire Site: Under State supervision, the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination are preparing a draft work plan for an intensive study
_ which will explore the nature and extent of pollution problems at the site.
The study is scheduled for completion in 1991 at which time EPA will select the most
appropriate remedies for cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: Under a 1983 court order, Leonard Chemical Company cannot resume
operation without prior approval of the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination will
sign an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct a study to determine .
the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated drums and soils has reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances while further investigations and cleanup activities take place at
the Leonard Chemical Company site.
20
-------
LEXINGTON CO
LANDFILL
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980558043
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
2 miles south of Cayce
Site Description
The Lexington County Landfill site is a 75-acre sand pit that was licensed as a county
landfilHn 1971. Before 1980, local industries were allowed to dispose of their wastes,
which included asbestos, at the site. Two other dumps lie next to this site: the Cayce
Dump, operational in the 1960s, and the unlicensed Bray Park Dump, used prior to
1972. In 1987, the EPA found heavy metals and pesticides in on-site monitoring wells.
Approximately 6,200 people get their drinking water from public and private wells
within a 3-mile radius of the site. The contaminated shallow aquifer is hydraulically
connected to deeper aquifers providing a potential pathway for the spread of
contamination. A local resident has abandoned a contaminated well, which tapped a
shallow aquifer. About 250 acres of farmland are irrigated by a well within 3 miles of
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
In 1987, the EPA found heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium,
mercury, selenium, as well as pesticides from former disposal practices in
on-site monitoring wells. Drinking contaminated groundwater is a
possible health threat, as is eating foods that are irrigated by possible
contaminated waters.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
undertaking an intensive study of its problems. This investigation, which
began in 1989, will explore the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. Local
authorities are currently monitoring the groundwater.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Lexington County Landfill
site while further studies and cleanup activities are continuing.
22
-------
MEDLEY P.
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPAID# SCD980558142
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Cherokee County
5 miles south of Gaffney
Site Description
The 7-acre Medley Farms site was used as a chemical depository from 1973 to 1976.
An anonymous caller informed the State of potential contamination at the site in 1983.
When the State visited the site, approximately 2,000 55-gallon drums in various
conditions and six unlined lagoons were found. At the State's request, the EPA
investigated and found that all the drums were rusted and some had leaked or were
leaking. EPA analyses indicated that the drums contained numerous flammable organic
liquids and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The lagoons held 70,000 gallons of
contaminated rainwater and-tons of sludges. Approximately 3,300 people reside within
a 4-mile radius of the site. Approximately 300 people live within 1 mile and 120 people
obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. Thickety Creek, a
tributary of Jones Creek, is about 300 feet downgradient of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from former site operations. Methylene chloride and
phenols were detected in one off-site well located less than 1/4 mile from
the site. Potential risks may exist for individuals who drink, come in
contact with, or inhale vapors from contaminated groundwater. Direct
contact with contaminated surface soil and accidental ingestion of soil
may pose risks to individuals; however, since the majority of
contaminated soil has been removed, the threat of exposure has been
reduced.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
MEDLEY FARMS
Cleanup Approach —
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
x* immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 2,400 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludges plus the drums and their contents (25,000
, gallons of liquids) and transported the materials to a federally regulated
hazardous waste facility. The liquids in the lagoons were treated on site and
discharged. The lagoons were then filled with clean soils.
Entire Site: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination began a study to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site and in the local groundwater. They will also
conduct a study to determine the alternative technologies available for the cleanup.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent signed in 1988 outlines conditions
under which the potentially responsible parties will conduct a study to determine the
type and extent of contamination on and off site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate soil, sludge and liquid waste treatment has greatly reduced the potential
for people to be exposed to hazardous substances at the Medley Farms site while
further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
24
-------
PALMETTO
RECYCLIN
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPAID* SCD037398120
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Richland County
8 miles north of Columbia
Site Description
The 2-acre Palmetto Recycling Inc. site reclaimed lead, primarily from lead acid
batteries, from 1979 to 1982. In 1981, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC) denied the applications of Palmetto Recycling for
permits to operate a hazardous waste facility and to transport hazardous wastes.
SCDHEC determined that wastes remaining at the site included 1,800 gallons of acid
wastes in an unlined 5-foot deep pit, 100 drums of liquid caustic wastes, and an
ivnsfaM/zed260-cubic-foot pile of battery casing scraps. Approximately 4,200 people
draw drinking water from an agu/ferwithin 3 miles of the site. Approximately 200
people live within a 1-mile radius of the site; the closest residence is 100 yards away.
The site is surrounded by numerous lakes, streams, and rivers. The nearest surface
water, the North Branch of Crane Creek, is about 100 yards east of the site and
eventually flows into the Broad River. The creek is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date; 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including lead, cadmium) chromium, and barium have
contaminated the soil surrounding the pit and the disposal areas.
Touching the contaminated soil poses a potential threat to the public. The
contaminants may have entered the food chain through plants and
animals that may have bioaccumulatedtoxic levels of heavy metal
contamination. Nearby streams may also be at risk from the migration of
site contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
PALMETTO RECYCLING INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination removed the hazardous and the non-hazardous wastes
on the site. This phase of the cleanup has eliminated the immediate threat
to area residents and helped to limit further contamination of the site and
surrounding resources.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to investigate the site in 1990 to determine the
impact of the contamination on and off the site and to determine whether
contaminants have migrated from the site. The investigation will
recommend the best remedies to clean up the site.
Site Facts: In 1983, an U.S. bankruptcy judge issued a court order requiring the trustee
of the property to clean up waste and contaminated soil. The judge authorized cleanup
of nonhazardous waste in 1984 and hazardous waste in 1985. Cleanup activities were
completed by 1986.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of wastes has eliminated the surface contamination and greatly
reduced the potential for people to be exposed to hazardous materials at the Palmetto
Recycling site while further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
26
-------
PALMETTO
PRESER
SOUTH CARO
EPA ID# SCD0033622'
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
61/2 miles northwest of Columbia
Site Description
The 5-acre Palmetto Wood Preserving (PWP) site is a decommissioned wood
preserving facility that operated between 1963 and 1985. In 1963, PWP used two
processes for its operation: fluoride-chromate-arsenate-pfteno/and an
ac/tf-copper-chromate process. In 1980, Eastern Forest Products took over and
switched to a chromated copper arsenate (CCA) process. Operations consisted of
treating wood with a CCA solution under high pressure and allowing the wood to
dry under normal conditions. The plant consisted of a pressure vessel, a narrow gauge
rail line, solution storage tanks, a drip shed, and storage and office buildings. All
equipment was moved from the site in 1985. The rural area that surrounds the site has
a population of approximately 2,000. The shallow aquifer, which supplies
drinking water to 2,000 people, is contaminated. The State determined that high levels
of chromium have contaminated nearby private wells.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
' Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including
arsenic. Off-site soil is contaminated with chromium and
pentachlorophenol (PCP) from former process wastes. The State
.detected high levels of chromium in private wells near the site. This
poses a potential health threat if water or soil is accidentally swallowed or
touched.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA provided a temporary alternative
drinking water supply to a residence until a permanent water supply could
be provided to the property. In 1990, a municipal water line to the
residence was installed.
Entire Site: Soil cleanup began in 1989. Approximately 12,685 cubic yards
of contaminated soil were excavated, treated, solidified, and placed to
eliminate off-site contaminant migration. This portion of the cleanup was
completed that same year. Groundwater cleanup is now under way.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply has eliminated the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials from the Palmetto Wood Preserving site through the groundwater.
The cleanup of contaminated soils has been completed and further cleanup activities
continue to c-eal with contamination in the groundwater.
28
-------
ROCHESTER PRQ
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980840698
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Greenville County
3 miles from the town of Travelers
The Rochester Property site comprises 2 acres and is located in a rural area. Polymer
Industries disposed of wastes possibly consisting of wood glue and print binder
residues at this site in 1971 and 1972. Initially, the wastes were trucked to the site in
metal and fiber drums which were later placed in four trenches. Three of the trenches
were unlined; however, a plastic sheath may have been present in at least one. In
1982, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
discovered the site when one of its employees noticed that waste was oozing from the
ground during a routine septic tank investigation on an adjacent property. SCDHEC did
not license the site to receive hazardous waste. The State's investigation report
estimates that the total amount of waste present on site is about 175 cubic yards. The
site is fenced and located approximately 200 feet upslope from a small stream.
Approximately 1,000 people live within 3 miles of the site and about 12,500 people live
within a 4-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 10/04/89
V
Threats and Contaminants
On-site sediments and soil in and around the four trenches are
contaminated by various heavy metals and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from former disposal activities. Site contaminants could leach into
groundwater that is just 10 feet below the site. Residents could be
exposed to the contaminants through direct contact with contaminated
soils or sediments or by drinking groundwater if contamination exists in
the aquifer.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
ROCHESTER PROPERTY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will conduct an investigation to determine the best way to clean up soil and
sediment contamination on the site. The status of the investigation is on
hold due to technical complications. The main issue of conflict concerns
the amount of arsenic in the soil, some of which is thought to be attributed to
fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical substances used by local farmers.
Site Facts: Nearby residents have stated their concerns about .the site in letters
addressed to the Governor of South Carolina and their respective legislative
representatives.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary site investigations and
determined that there were no immediate actions needed at the Rochester Property
site. Further investigations are continuing, and cleanup activities are scheduled to
begin soon.
30
-------
ROCK HILL
CHEMICAL C
RUTLEDGE P
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980844005
Site Description -—
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
York County
Rock Hill
Alias:
Rock Hill Chemical
The Rock Hill Chemical Company operated a solvent distillation facility in the 1960s on
this 4 1/2-acre site located in a light commercial and residential area. The company
distilled paint solvents and may have recovered textile dye products. Some of the
residue from the bottoms of the storage tanks and drums was placed in piles on the
ground and was later covered with dirt and construction debris. The facility was
abandoned after it burned in 1964. In 1985, the EPA discovered above ground tanks,
an underground tank, a sludge pile, and an area of discolored soil. An unnamed
tributary to the Catawba River drains the site. Approximately 1,100 people obtain
drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. The South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control advised a nearby business to stop using its well. Fort
Mills draws drinking water for an estimated 5,500 people from an intake into the
Catawba River that is approximately 2 miles downstream of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
A A
Threats and Contaminants
On-site wells are contaminated with various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from former disposal practices. Wastes and soil samples are
contaminated with lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chromium, and
VOCs. A possible health threat may occur if people drink contaminated
water from the unnamed tributary to the Catawba River or .in
contaminated on-site wells. Other threats include accidentally touching or
ingesting contaminated wastes or soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
ROCK HILL CHEMICAL COMPANY/RUTLEDGE PROP.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
U** Immediate Action: In 1986, First Federal Savings and Loan, one of two
present owners of the site, transported approximately 41 cubic yards of
paint sludges and stillbottoms to a federally regulated hazardous waste
facility.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
have started the investigation of the nature and extent of site
contamination to determine the best method of cleanup for the site.
Site Facts: In 1987, under an EPA Administrative Order, Rutledge Enterprises
discharged approximately 2,000 gallons of wastewater contaminated with solvents, in
limited amounts every day, into the city sewer system for treatment in the municipal
sewage treatment plant.
Environmental Progress.
The immediate removal of waste has reduced the potential for people to be exposed to
hazardous materials at the Rock Hill Chemical Company. These actions help to protect
the public health and the environment while further investigations are taking place.
32
-------
SANGAMO/TWE
CREEK/LAKE
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD003354412
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Pickens County
Plckens
Aliases:
Haygood Reservoir
Cross Roads Church
Sangamo Weston-Pickens Plant
Breazeale Property
Nix Site
This 224-acre site encompasses the Sangamo Weston plant itself, at least six former
dumps used by the company, and the Twelve-Mile Creek watershed, which includes
Lake Hartwell. Sangamo Weston, Inc. manufactured electric capacitors that, from 1955
to 1976, used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for a non-conducting fluid. Solid waste,,
sludges, and liquid wastes were stored or disposed of in piles, landfills, and
impoundments. The EPA is continuing to search for any additional sources of
contamination, and may expand the site if contamination is found to extend further than
site boundaries. RGBs have been found in the runoff leaving the plant, downstream
tributaries of Twelve-Mile Creek, Lake Hartwell, and the distribution system of the
Easley-Central Water plan, which provides drinking water to 14,500 people. A Clemson
University intake in the Twelve-Mile Creek arm of Lake Hartwell serves approximately
16,000 students and employees. Swimming in the Six-Mile and the Twelve-Mile
Creeks has been banned. A fish advisory for Lake Hartwell remains in effect and the
State may extend the advisory to the nearby Tugaloo River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and PCBs from the former site activities. Private
wells are in use within the area of contamination. PCB levels detected in
the fish of Lake Hartwell and the tributary system vary with each sampling
but tend to be well above an acceptable limit. People may be harmed if
they fail to heed warning signs and come in contact with or eat
contaminated fish, soil, or water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
SANGAMO/TWELVE-MILE CREEK/ LAKE HARTWELL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on the Twelve-Mile Creek watershed and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State and the federal government have periodically
sampled the area. Sangamo removed some soil at two disposal sites in
1975 and placed the soil in a landfill on the plant property. Under a 1986
Consent Agreement with the EPA, Sangamo placed a fence around the site and
installed a temporary cap on contaminated portions of the site.
Twelve-Mile Creek Watershed: The EPA will investigate the nature and
extent of contamination in the Twelve Mile Creek watershed, including
, ^ portions of Lake Hartwell, and will take into account the data derived from
fish studies performed by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control. The investigation is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Entire Site: In 1988, Sangamo conducted soil and groundwater sampling
on and around the site properties. They will continue to characterize the
source and extent of contamination.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA negotiated a Consent Order with Sangamo-Weston to
study the contamination at one of the dumps. Under an additional Consent Order
signed in 1987, Sangamo-Weston will study six dumps and the Pickens Plant.
Environmental Progress
The soil removal, capping, and site security measures have greatly reduced the
potential for people to be exposed to hazardous substances at the Sangamo/Twelve-
Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell site while further studies and cleanup activities are taking
place.
34
-------
SAVANNAH RIVER SK
SOUTH CAROLINA,
EPA ID# SC1890008989
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Alken County
Aiken
Aliases:
USDOE Savannah River Plant
Savannah River Plant
Since 1951, the Savannah River Site has produced nuclear materials for national
defense on a 192,000-acre site. First operated by the Atomic Energy Commission, it is
now operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The operations at the site
generate a variety of radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous wastes. Past and
present disposal practices include seepage basins for liquids, pits, and piles for solid
wastes, and landfills for low-level radioactive wastes. In 1987, the DOE reported that
shallow groundwater on various parts of the site had been contaminated. One of these
areas is called the A-Area Burning/Rubble Pit, which received degreasersand solvents
from 1951 through 1973. Another area that received drums of waste solvents has
contaminated the soil. A small quantity of depleted uranium was released in 1984 into
Upper Three Runs Creek. The creek and all other surface water from the plant flow
into the Savannah River. The area around Savannah River is heavily wooded and
ranges from dry hilltops to swampland. The 3,200 residents of Jackson receive
drinking water from wells within 3 miles of hazardous substances at the site. The
17,000 employees at the facility also use the wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
degreasing solvents; heavy metals including lead, chromium, mercury,
and cadmium; and radionuclides including tritium, uranium, fission
products, and plutonium. The soil is contaminated with VOCs including
trichloroethylene (TCE). The swamp is contaminated with chromium,
mercury, radium, thorium, and uranium, which overflowed from an old
seepage basin. The health of people could be threatened if they drink or
touch contaminated well water. The Upper Three Runs Creek and all
other surface water from the site flows into the Savannah River, which is
a major navigable river that forms the southern border between South
Carolina and Georgia. Along this bank of the river is a 10,000-acre
wetland known as Savannah River Swamp, an environmentally sensitive
area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
35
continued'
I
-------
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The DOE is investigating the Savannah River site under its
Comprehensive Environmental Assessment and Response Program.
Under the program, the DOE is developing plans for studying several
contaminated areas. Also, the DOE will close some areas of the site, while
continuing to monitor these areas after closure. Investigations have begun and are
expected to continue through 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA and the DOE performed preliminary
investigations and determined that there are no immediate actions needed at the
Savannah River site while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
36
-------
SGRDI BLUFF.
SOUTH CAROL:
EPA ID# SCD00062278
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Richland County
7 miles from Columbia
Site Description
The South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI) Bluff Road site covers
7 acres, 2 acres of which were used for waste storage. Approximately 7,200 drums of
toxic, flammable, and reactive wastes were removed in 1982 by a group of hazardous
waste generators: numerous smaller containers were also removed. Two small ponds
at the northern end of the site are remnants of lime slurry disposal ponds used by the
acetylene manufacturer that once occupied the property. Surface water and sediment
may run into a tributary of Myers Creek, which discharges into Congaree Swamp
National Monument. The site is in a rural and remote area. The nearest residence is
1/2 mile away, with approximately 3,500 people living within 4 miles. Recreational
facilities, which include a swimming pool, are 1 mile east of the site. Approximately
1,200 people work at the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Facility less than 1/2 mile away.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Toluene was detected in two of three bag samples of the air.
Groundwater is contaminated with other volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Lead and various chlorine derivatives were identified in
sediments on site. The soil contains lead, plastics, chlordane, and
creosotes. Well water which may become contaminated would be
hazardous to drink. A nearby swimming pool is filled with well water,
making direct contact with contaminated water a possible health hazard.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
37
continued
-------
SCRDI BLUFF ROAD
Cleanup Approach — —
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1982, the parties potentially responsible for the .
site contamination removed about 7,200 drums containing a wide variety of
toxic, flammable, and reactive wastes.
Entire Site: The State initiated a study on the extent and nature of
contamination at the site in 1985. This study, however, was not
completed. A new study is being conducted by the potentially responsible
, _ „ .
parties. A method for cleaning up the site will be selected by EPA in 1990.
Site Facts: A group of the parties potentially responsible for contamination at the site
are conducting studies to determine the extent of the contamination at the site under
an Administrative Order entered into with the EPA in 1988.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of drums greatly reduced the potential for people to be
exposed to hazardous substances at the SCRDI Bluff Road site while further studies
and cleanup activities are taking place.
38
-------
SCRDI DIXtANA
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980711394
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
Near Cayce
At one time, the 2-acre South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI) Dixiana site
contained over 1,100 drums of materials such as paints, solvents, acids, waste oils
phenols, and dyes. In 1978, SCRDI leased the site for drum storage of industrial
wastes. Instances of poor handling practices, leaky drums, and exposure to the
weather created a number of discharges to the environment prior to drum removal. In
1978, the State filed a suit against the site owners. The resulting court order specified
that the site no longer receive wastes and that the wastes on site be contained. In
1980, as a result of SCRDI's failure to contain the wastes, a State court found SCRDI in
contempt, which resulted in the company being placed in receivership. Shortly
thereafter, SCRDI removed all drums and visibly contaminated soil. Spilled dye, a
suspected carcinogen, contaminated shallow groundwater. Approximately 1,200
people use water supply wells within 3 miles of the site. The State has advised two
nearby families not to use their well water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and heavy metals from
former site activities. Even though the groundwater is known to be
contaminated, there is no one presently at risk as a result of the current
site contamination. Groundwater contamination is moving off site in
response to hydraulic gradients in various interconnected aquifers.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
groundwater cleanup.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
39
continued
-------
SCRDI DIXIANA
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The EPA began extracting contaminated,groundwater,
treating it to acceptable concentrations levels, and discharging the treated
water to surface water. These activities are expected to be completed in
1992, with operation and monitoring required to last from 3 to 30 years.
Site Facts: The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
denied a waste management permit and filed a suit against SCRDI in 1978.
Envircinniental Progress
The groundwater cleanup activities and removal of drums have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the SCRDI Dixiana site while the
groundwater treatment and monitoring actions are continuing.
40
-------
TOWNSEND S
CHAIN CO.
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980558050
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Richland County
Pontiac
Site Description
The Townsend Saw Chain Co. covers over 2 acres in Pontiac. The previous owner was
Dictaphone Co., which .sold out to Townsend in 1969. From 1969 to 1981, Townsend
disposed of wastes containing heavy metals and solvents at the site. Private wells
within 3 miles of the site serve an estimated 1,400 people. The nearest well is less
than a mile from the site. A private well near the site was closed in 1981 to 1982, and
the residence was connected to the public water system. Two creeks and two ponds
are within 2 miles of the site; one, Woodcreek Lake, is used for recreational activities.
Freshwater wetlands are within 1 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
A 1985 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental .Control
(SCDHEC) study showed high levels of cadmium and chromium in
groundwater at the site. A surface water sample near a spring at the site
contained high levels of chromium and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including dichloroethane and trichloroethylene (TCE). The
residents near the site were hooked up to the city water supply in 1981
and 1982. Potential risks may exist for those individuals who drink or
touch the contaminated surface water and groundwater. Creeks, ponds,
and wetlands within 1 mile of the site may be threatened with runoff from
the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
41
continued
-------
TOWNSEND SAW CHAIN CO.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The company has been pumping contaminated groundwater to
the surface, treating it to remove the chromium, and spraying the treated
, „ water into a wooded area since 1985. The parties potentially responsible
for the contamination began a study in 1990 to determine the type and extent of
surface water and groundwater contamination at the site, as well as any other
contamination. Additionally, a study will be completed to identify the most effective
technologies for the cleanup. Upon completion of this study, EPA will evaluate
recommended alternatives and select the most appropriate remedies for cleanup of the
site.
Site Facts: In 1988, the State issued an Administrative Order requesting Townsend to
install additional recovery and monitoring wells. The wells were installed in 1989.
Environmental Progress
Pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater have significantly reduced the
potential for exposure to contamination and reduced migration of contaminants in the
groundwater while the studies into a final remedy are taking place.
42
-------
WAMCHEM,
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD037405362
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beaufort County
Burton
Alias:
Beaufort Chemical and Research Company
Site Description
The 21-acre Wamchem site is located on a small island in the midst of a salt marsh near
McCalleys Creek, a tidal stream. From 1959 to 1972, the Beaufort Chemical and
Research company owned and operated the site, producing dyes for the textile
industry. In 1972, M. Lowenstein Company purchased the facility and continued
operations until 1981. Liquid wastes generated at the site were discharged to a
drainage ditch leading to two unlined ponds. A ditch was later extended from one of
the ponds, discharging wastes directly into McCalleys Creek. Waste treatment
methods changed, and the ponds and ditches were replaced by an unlined holding
pond and a waste lagoon in 1972; however, these were soon replaced by two spray
fields and a concrete-lined holding pond in 1975. In 1977, the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control {SCDHEQ required the company to
use a spray-irrigation technique to improve its wcstewater process. The wastes
discharged onto the spray fields consisted of neutralized sulfuric acid and process
water. The surface water is contaminated, but it does not constitute a major threat to
water supplies at this time. Approximately 2,000 people within a 3-mile radius depend
on drinking water from the shallow aqfu/ferthat lies below the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The contaminants in the groundwater and soil include volatile organic
compounds"(VOCs) including benzene, toluene, xylenes, and acetone
from former site operations. The site is considered to be a habitat for the
loggerhead turtle, a federally listed threatened species, and a probable
habitat for the short-nosed sturgeon, a federally listed endangered
species. Also, the site is located in an environmentally sensitive area
comprised of salt marshes, tidal streams, and fragile estuary habitats
supporting abundant natural resources.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
43
continued
-------
WAMCHEM, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Based upon a comprehensive site investigation performed by
the parties potentially responsible for site contamination, the EPA has
selected the final cleanup actions to be used at the site. These actions
include: (1) installing a groundwater pump and treatment system using
carbon adsorption and air stripping of VOCs and releasing the decontaminated water
into a nearby stream; and (2) digging up and treating 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil to remove contaminants followed by on-site disposal of the soil and groundwater
monitoring. The EPA is currently reviewing engineering plans for the selected remedy.
Site cleanup is expected to begin in 1990 and continue through 1999.
Site Facts: The EPA and the potentially responsible parties have signed a Consent
Decree, which describes the cleanup actions that they are required to perform.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Wamchem, Inc. site prior to
initiation of the pending soil and groundwater cleanup actions.
44
-------
This glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
, fact sheets for the State of South Carolina. The terms
._ and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-'
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corro-
sive in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with acids, they neutralize each other,
forming salts.
Bioaccumtdate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
ihey breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecticide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This salt is used extensively as a wood pre-
servative in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic and water soluble, making it
a relatively mobile contaminant in the environment.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
G-2
-------
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynudear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
Decommission: To revoke a license to operate and take out of service.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Downgradienb A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh water from rivers and salt water from nearshore
ocean waters are mixed. These areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes,
and lagoons. These water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and wildlife.
Generator: A^ facility that emits pollutants into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a goo'd faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Polynudear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
G-4
-------
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly arid thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionuclides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers mat absorb contaminants.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the ground used for storage of liquids, usually
in the form of leachate, from waste disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit
by moving through the surrounding soil.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the process of recovering spent solvents.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boning point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also yolatile Organic Compounds].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Upslope: Upstream; often used relative to groundwater [see Upgradient].
G-5
-------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater. t
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-6
------- |