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

-------