United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/054
September 1991
PB92-963210
vvEPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
SOUTH CAROLINA
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-740A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
South Carolina
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (P'-i?.n
77 West Jackson Boulevard, ilui Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of South Carolina 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 69
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 85
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline 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. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation 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 envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and.Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
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
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. 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 imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The 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. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. 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, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
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. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating 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 TOGETHER
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.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, 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, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND 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
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
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. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about 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.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate 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 con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents 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
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
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 contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so 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 whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation 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 assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. 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 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
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 pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site Inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the 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 that 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 poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL 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 proposed 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. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
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 capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
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 chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity 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 the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, 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 of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
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 prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered 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,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
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. The
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 commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the 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
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up 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 technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must 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 rem-
edy 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 six months to two 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 site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
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 to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup 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 de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
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 con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
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 the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the 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 (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
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. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities 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 clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary 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 the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can 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 leam more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Nunn:
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed:
Flnafc
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: ^
Environmental Progress
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.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
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 environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
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 often are 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 descrip-
tion.
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 the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or 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 to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing 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,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
South Carolina
The State of South Carolina is located on the Atlantic coast within EPA Region 4, which in-
cludes eight southeastern states. The state covers 31,113 square miles, consisting of the Blue
Ridge Mountains, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain down to the Atlantic Ocean. South
Carolina experienced a 12% increase in population between 1980 and 1990, according to the
1990 Census, and currently has approximately 3,487,000 residents, ranking 25th in U.S. popula-
tions. Principal state industries are tourism, agriculture, and manufacturing, including textiles,
apparel, machinery, fabricated metal products, chemicals, and other allied products.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of South Carolina?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
23
_Q
23
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 6, 7 1 sites
Congressional District 3 3 sites
Congressional District 5,4 4 sites
Congressional District 1,2 5 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of South Carolina?
# of sites
4
4
4
2
2
7
type of sites
Storage/Treatment Facilities
Chemical & Allied Products
Disposal Facilities
Lumber & Wood Treatment
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Other (Electroplating, textile mill, incinerator,
recycler, municipal & industrial landfills,
federal facility)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
20--
16--
.tf
M
12-
4 -
I
m
GW Soil SW Sed
Air Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals (inor-
ganics), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), radiation, and pesticides.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
Appear at 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?*
8
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
3
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
2
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
2
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 15 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
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 Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are 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 differ-
ent 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" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final 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
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final 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 currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
(0
c
03
O
o
CO
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ftft ft
CO
+*
0)
+-
c
<8
ftftftftftftftftft ft ft
ftftftft ft
ftft ftft ftft ftftftftftftft ft ft
I
a\ t-
go go
S O S
S S S
2 S
00 O
o '
^K go oo go ^S
- 5 5 ^ j.,
i s s s i
ro
a
3
c
ro
0)
O
"S
co
I
n
£
D)
o
a-a-a-a-a-a-^-a-a-a-a
.s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s
UUU.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.UL,
.5 .S .S .S
U.(-L.U.U.
Hi!
U
S
.S .S .S .S .S .S .S
U.tt,U-litL.lI.tL,
3 52 S
S,
g
u
to >o r-
^D ^D ^D
April1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 4
21
April 1991
-------
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 the EPA's
Region 4 Office in Atlanta, Georgia or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 4 Superfund Community Relations Office (404) 347-3454
EPA Region 4 Superfund Office (404) 347-5065
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
South Carolina Superfund Office (803) 734-5220
April 1991 22
-------
BEAUNIT CORP.
(CIRCULAR KNIT
AND DYEING PLA
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD000447268
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Greenville County
Fountain Inn
The Beaunit Corporation (Circular Knit and Dyeing Plant) 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 are 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 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: 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
contaminating 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.
23
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An intensive investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the
site is scheduled to begin in mid-1991. This investigation is expected to be completed in
1993, at which time the EPA will select an appropriate remedy for cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: The EPA issued General Notice Letters to the 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. (Circular Knit and Dyeing Plant) site while
further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
April! 991
24
BEAUNIT CORP. (CIRCULAR KNIT
AND DYEING PLANT)
-------
CAROLAWIM, I
SOUTH CAROLI
EPA ID# SCD980558316
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Chester County
Fort Lawn
Site Description
The Carolawn, Inc. 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 never were 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 to be
contaminated. Approximately 100 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site; 2,000 people live
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 USTING 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 contains lead, and the surface water is contaminated with
chloroform. People who accidentally come into direct contact with or ingest
contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the former drum storage areas.
Response Action Status
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 water lines 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 is conducting studies on
the type and extent of its contamination. The potentially responsible parties will prepare the
technical specifications and design for cleaning up the groundwater. The cleanup will begin once
the design phase is completed in 1992.
Former Drum Storage Areas: The EPA conducted preliminary studies of the former
drum storage areas located to the west and north of the Carolawn site in 1990. These
studies indicated the presence of organic chemicals and heavy metals. An intensive
investigation onto the nature and extent of contamination at this area will begin in 1991.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination have signed an
Administrative Order, which specifies how design and construction activities will be completed.
Environmental Progress
The removal of sludge and solid and liquid wastes has reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Carolawn, Inc. site. These actions and the extension of municipal
water lines have reduced risks to the public health and the environment, while investigations, remedy
designs, and further cleanup activities take place.
April 1991 26 CAROLAWN, INC.
-------
ELMORE WAST
DISPOSAL
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980839542
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Spartanburg County
Greer
The Elmore Waste Disposal site is a grassy field covering approximately 1/2 acre in a primarily
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 to the
north of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring wells have detected contamination from heavy metals including
cadmium, lead, zinc, and barium and from various VOCs from former drum storage
activities. The soil also is 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.
27
April 1991
-------
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 approximately 5,500 tons of
contaminated soil and debris and 16,800 pounds of contaminated liquids to a hazardous waste
facility. These actions have controlled the source of contamination and have eliminated immediate
threats to neighboring residents.
Entire Site: In early 1991, the EPA began 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, scheduled for 1992, 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 studies and cleanup activities are
taking place.
April 1991 28 ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
-------
GEIGER
(C & M OIL)
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980711279
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Charleston County
1 mile northeast of Rantowles
Other Names:
Wm L Sires/C & M Oil
United Pollution Control
The Geiger (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 since has 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 Rantowles, located a
mile northeast; the town of Hollywood is 4 miles west.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING 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.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of groundwater and
soil.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: A groundwater investigation was conducted at the site after initial
cleanup decisions were 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 involves removing and treating of the
contaminated groundwater, which then will flow to an off-site stream. Design of technologies to be
used for the cleanup is underway.
Soil: The cleanup process that the EPA will perform includes removing the water from
the soil, solidifying the thermally treated soil to ensure that metals cannot leave the soil,
and backfilling the excavated areas with treated soil, followed by grading and covering.
Soil cleanup criteria for lead and chromium have been established. The engineering design of the
technologies to be used for the cleanup is underway and is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
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 (C&M Oil) site while further design activities and
cleanup actions are continuing.
April 1991
30
GEIGER (C&M OIL)
-------
^TRIP . r-rJ^M EPA REGION 4
O I nir -* CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
SEPTIC TANK
SERVICE
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980799456
Site Description
The Golden Strip Septic Tank Service site consists of five abandoned lagoons covering 3 acres on a
farm. From 1960 to 1975, the company deposited septic tank discharge, 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
not used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
IT
Groundwater contains heavy metals including chromium, cadmium, lead, and zinc, which
have leached from the lagoons. The sediments, soil, and surface water also are
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 come into direct contact with or ingest contaminated soil or groundwater
may suffer health threats.
31 April 1991
-------
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 arc studying the
type and extent of groundwater and other contamination at the site. Once the study is
finalized, scheduled for 1991, the EPA will select the most appropriate remedies for the
cleanup of this site.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties have signed an Administrative Order with the EPA
to conduct a study of 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 studies leading
to final cleanup actions are taking place.
April 1991
32
GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK SERVICE
-------
HELENA CHEMI
COMPANY
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD058753971
Site Description
EPA 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 also were 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, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
ZC
Groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with various pesticides from the
former disposal of pesticide wastes. People who come in direct contact with or
accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or sediments may be at risk.
33
April 1991
-------
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.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, under State 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, another agreement was
signed to cover the landfill and monitor the groundwater for 30 years.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove wastes and to 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.
April 1991 34 HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY LANDFILL
-------
INDEPENDEN
NAIL COMPAN
SOUTH CAROLIN
EPA ID# SCD004773644
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beaufort County
3 miles northwest of Beaufort
Other Names:
D. Blake & Johnson Company, Inc.
Site Description
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.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments and soil were contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals including
chromium, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury from the former disposal activities.
The groundwater contains these same compounds. Coming into direct contact with the
contaminated sediments or soil was the primary means of human exposure.
35
April 1991
-------
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.
Response Action Status
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
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 are required to address low
levels of contamination. Extensive evaluations of the completed remedies and site sampling have
determined that the Independent Nail Company site now is safe to nearby residents and the
environment, and the EPA has begun the process to delete the site from the NPL.
April 1991
36
INDEPENDENT NAIL COMPANY
-------
KALAMA
SPECIALTY
CHEMICALS
SOUTH CAROLIN
EPA ID# SCD094995503
Site Description
EPA 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 of the site. Approximately 16,000 people live
within a 4-mile radius of the property; 2,500 reside within a mile. 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 USTING 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 to
harmful materials by coming in direct contact with contaminated soil, surface water, or
groundwater or accidentally ingesting 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.
37
April 1991
-------
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 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
property. The study is scheduled for completion in late 1991, at which time the EPA will select the
most appropriate remedies for cleanup of this site.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was signed in 1988 for the parties potentially responsible to conduct
site studies. These parties and the EPA currently are conducting discussions on specific issues
related to the 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
leading to final cleanup activities are taking place.
April1991 38 KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
-------
(FLORENCE
PLANT)
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD003353026
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Florence County
1/2 mile east of Florence
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, pentachlorophenol (PCP), 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 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 naphthalene, 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 installed recovery wells to retrieve and slow the
movement of contaminants in the groundwater. The recovered groundwater and process
wastewater now are 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 USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
39
April 1991
-------
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 coming into direct contact with,
inhaling, or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater and soil.
Contamination was detected in some private wells downslope from the plant in
1985. The plant also is located in an area where water may recharge directly to
the Black Creek/Middendorf Aquifer. This aquifer is the only source of potable
water for the city of Florence.
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 developed a plan to install recovery wells and treatment systems.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the owner of the site began a study of the site's
pollution problems in 1988. This study will define the nature and extent of
contamination. The study is scheduled for completion in late 1991. 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. The site currently is being addressed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Environmental Progress
The alternate water supply has eliminated the potential for exposure to hazardous materials from
the Koppers Company, Inc. (Florence Plant) site through the groundwater. Further studies and
cleanup activities are being completed to address contaminated waters and soils.
April 1991
40
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. (FLORENCE PLANT)
-------
LEONARD
CHEMICAL
COMPANY,
SOUTH CAROLI
EPA ID#SCD99 1279324
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
York County
Catawba, 9 miles southeast of Rock Hill
Other Names:
Leonard Chemical
Site Description
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 chemical wastes and stillbottoms 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 USTING 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 if they 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.
41
April 1991
-------
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 undertaking an intensive study, which will explore the nature and extent
of pollution problems at the site. The study is scheduled for completion in 1993, at which
time the 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 investigations and cleanup activities take place at the Leonard Chemical Company
site.
April 1991 42 LEONARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
-------
LEXINGTON COU
LANDFILL AREA
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980558043
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
2 miles south of Cayce
The Lexington County Landfill Area site is a 75-acre sand pit that was licensed as a county
landfill in 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 into 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 USTING 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 potentially contaminated waters.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
43
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are planning to
undertake an intensive study of its problems. This investigation, which is scheduled to
begin in 1992, will explore the nature and extent of groundwater contamination and
will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. Local authorities currently are 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 Area site while studies
and cleanup activities are continuing.
April! 991
44
LEXINGTON COUNTY
LANDFILL AREA
-------
MEDLEY FA
DRUM DU
SOUTH CAROL
EPA ID# SCD980558142
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Cherokee County
6 miles south of Gaffney
Site Description
The 7-acre Medley Farm Drum Dump site was used as a chemical depository from 1973 to 1978.
An anonymous caller informed the State of potential contamination at the site in 1983. When the
State visited the site, approximately 5,300 55-gallon drums and 15-gallon pails 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 a 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.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former
site operations. The surface soil also is contaminated with VOCs as well as pesticides.
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 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.
45
April 1991
-------
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 1983, the EPA removed 2,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and refuse, 5,300 55-gallon drums and 15-gallon pails of waste, and 70,000 gallons of
water and sludges from the 6 lagoons and transported the materials to a federally regulated
hazardous waste facility. The liquids in the lagoons were treated on site and discharged. The
lagoons then were filled with clean soils.
Entire Site: In 1990, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
completed a study on the contamination at the site and in the local groundwater. The study
included recommendations for alternative technologies available for the cleanup. The
EPA is expected to select the cleanup remedy in 1991, which may include pumping groundwater and
treating it using air stripping to remove VOCs and soil vapor extraction to remove VOCs from the
soil.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent, signed in 1988, outlined the conditions under
which the potentially responsible parties were to conduct a study to determine the type and extent of
contamination on and off site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of soil and sludge and the treatment liquid waste have greatly reduced the potential for
people to be exposed to hazardous substances at the Medley Farm Drum Dump site while further
studies leading to cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 46 MEDLEY FARM DRUM DUMP
-------
PALMETTO
RECYCLIN
SOUTH CAROLI
EPA ID# SCD037398120
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Richland County
8 miles north of Columbia
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 applications by 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 unstabilized 260-cubic-foot pile of battery casing scraps. Approximately 4,200
people draw drinking water from an aquifer within 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 USTING 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. Direct contact with the contaminated soil
posed a potential threat to the public. The contaminants may have entered the food chain
through plants and animals that may have bioaccumulated toxic levels of heavy metal
contamination. Nearby streams also may be at risk from the migration of site
contaminants.
47
April 1991
-------
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: Between 1984 and 1985, the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination removed 10,800 gallons of contaminated water from the pit, 365 tons of
contaminated soil, and 100 drums of liquid caustic wastes.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to investigate the site in 1992 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, a 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 non-hazardous
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 has reduced the
potential for people to be exposed to hazardous materials at the Palmetto Recycling, Inc. site while
further studies are taking place. All direct contact threats from contaminated soils have been
removed.
April 1991 48 PALMETTO RECYCLING, INC.
-------
PALMETTO W
PRESERVING
SOUTH CAROLI
EPAID#SCD003362217
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
1/2 miles northwest of Columbia
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-phenol and an acid-copper-chromate process. In 1980, Eastern Forest Products
took over the facility 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 soils are accidentally ingested or through direct
contact
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the soil and the groundwater.
49
April 1991
-------
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. Also in 1990, a fence was
installed around the site.
Soil: Soil cleanup began in 1988. Approximately 12,700 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were excavated, treated, solidified, and stored to eliminate off-site contaminant
migration. The soil cleanup was completed in 1989.
Groundwater: In 1990, the EPA began developing the designs for a full-scale treatment
plant to address the contaminated groundwater at the site. Construction of the treatment
system is expected to begin in 1991. Work currently underway includes connecting the
treatment plant to the sewer line. The treatment system is scheduled to be operational and turned
over to the State in 1992.
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 design activities continue to address
contamination in the groundwater.
April 1991
50
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING
-------
PARA-CHEM
SOUTHERN, IN
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPAID#SCD002601566
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Greenville County
Near Simpsonville
Para-Chem Southern, Inc., has manufactured organic solvents and adhesives on this 100-acre site
near Simpsonville since 1965. From 1975 to 1979, approximately 800 to 1,600 drums of organic
and inorganic wastes were buried in unlined trenches in three parts of the site. Wastewater from the
plant was disposed of in two unlined lagoons until 1984, when the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) issued Para-Chem a permit under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for the discharge of non-contact cooling wash to a
tributary of Big Durban Creek. In 1985, SCDHEC found significant contamination in on-site
groundwater and surface water, issued a Consent Order, and fined Para-Chem. Under the Order, in
1987, Para-Chem excavated soil from the drum burial areas and filled in one of the two lagoons; the
second lagoon is no longer in use. The soil was moved to an approved hazardous waste facility.
During the excavation and fill activities, groundwater contamination was detected. The area is rural
and sparsely populated. An estimated 1,500 people obtain drinking water from private wells within
three miles of the site. The nearest well is within one mile.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Sediments and surface water contain heavy metals such as arsenic, barium, and zinc.
People who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater,
soil, surface water, or sediments may be at risk,
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.
51
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1987, Para-Chem completed excavating approximately 2,900 tons of
drums, plastic containers, wastes, associated soils, and miscellaneous debris from the drum
burial areas and filled in one of the two on-site lagoons. The soil was removed to an
approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: In 1991, Para-Chem is expected to conduct an investigation into the extent
and nature of contamination at the site and identify cleanup alternatives. Once the study is
completed, the EPA will select a cleanup approach.
Site Facts: The SCDHEC placed the company under a joint wastewater/hazardous waste Consent
Order in February 1985, and in January 1986 fined the company for violating its NPDES permit.
The Order also addressed the buried drums and a 1985 spill of 3,500 gallons of ethyl acrylate. Since
1986, the company has been fined twice for failure to meet its NPDES permit.
Environmental Progress
The removal of drums and other contaminated debris from the Para-Chem Southern, Inc. site has
reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants while investigations are being planned leading to the
selection of a final cleanup remedy.
April 1991 52 PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC.
-------
ROCHESTER
PROPERTY
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD980840698
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Greenville County
3 miles from the town of Travelers
Site Description
The Rochester Property site is composed of 2 acres in a rural area. Colonial Heights Packaging, Inc.
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 later were
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 is located
approximately 200 feet upgradient 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
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.
53
ApriM991
-------
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 1990, the potentially responsible parties removed
approximately 1,500 tons of materials from contaminated trenches, excavating to just
above the groundwater. Drums in various stages of decomposition were discovered during
the excavation and were moved to an off-site area. The trenches were backfilled with clean soil.
Entire Site: In 1992, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination will
begin an investigation to determine the best way to clean up soil and sediment
contamination on the site. 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.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of contaminated soil and drums has reduced the potential for people to be
exposed to hazardous materials at the Rochester Property site while investigations into a permanent
cleanup remedy continue.
April 1991 54 ROCHESTER PROPERTY
-------
ROCK HILL C
COMPANY
SOUTH CAROLIN
EPA ID# SCD980844005
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
York County
Rock Hill
Other Names:
Rutledge Property
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 aboveground
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, approximately 2 miles downstream 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
ZE
On-site wells are contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
former disposal practices. Wastes and soil samples were 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 from contaminated on-site wells. Other threats included accidentally coming in
direct contact with or ingesting contaminated wastes or soil.
55
April 1991
-------
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, 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. Disposal of tank sludges and
visibly contaminated soil, as well as the removal of the tanks from the Rutledge portion of the site,
were completed in 1989.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are expected to
begin the investigation of the nature and extent of groundwater contamination to determine
the best method of cleanup in 1991.
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 and disposal of waste have 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. All direct contact threats
from contaminated soils have been eliminated.
April 1991 56 ROCK HILL CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
SANGAMO WESTON, INC./
TWELVE-MILE Cl
HARTWELL PCB
CONTAMINATION
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPAID#SCD003354412
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Pickens County
Pickens
Other Names:
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. PCBs 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: 01/22/87
Final Date: 02/16/90
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 direct contact with or ingest
contaminated fish, soil, or water.
57
April 1991
-------
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 periodically have 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. Revised work plans have been received
and field work for the investigation is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Entire Site: In 1987, Sangamo conducted soil and groundwater investigations on and
around the site properties. Based on these investigations, a remedy was selected for
cleanup of the site in 1990. Soil will be treated using a low temperature thermal separation
method. Groundwater will be extracted and treated. Engineering designs are scheduled to begin in
late 1991.
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 reduced the potential for people to be
exposed to hazardous substances at the Sangamo/Twelve-Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell site while
further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 58 SANGAMO WESTON, INC./TWELVE-MILE CREEK/
LAKE HARTWELL PCB CONTAMINATION
-------
QAX/AMIVI AU RIY/FR^ / * > EPAREGION4
SAVANNAH / ^ ^ CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
SITE
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SC1890008989 ^ /> USDOE Savannah River Plant
Savannah River Plant
Site Description
Since 1951, the Savannah River Site (USDOE) 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
non-radioactive 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 degreasers and 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 these wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING 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 come in direct
contact with 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.
59 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in numerous long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of 29
discrete areas of the site.
Response Action Status
Chemical Basins: In 1989, the DOE began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the Road A Chemical Basin, a miscellaneous chemical basin, and a
metals burning pit. This investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992. At that time
the EPA will select cleanup remedies for these areas, which will be implemented in two separate
cleanup phases.
M-Area: In 1989, the DOE began studies into the nature and extent of contamination at
M-Area. These studies will focus on the shallow and deep groundwater and a settling
basin at the site. Studies are expected to be completed by 1992 for the settling basin and
1993 for the groundwater. Cleanup actions are expected to be separated into three phases.
Tank 16: The DOE began a study of the contamination at the Tank 16 area in 1990. This
study is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Rubble Pits and Burning Areas: An intensive investigation of the D-Area and F-Area
Burning locations and of the rubble pits began in 1990. This investigation is scheduled for
completion in 1993. Cleanup is expected to occur in two separate phases.
Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground: In 1990, the DOE began an investigation of
the area where old radioactive waste had been buried. This investigation will focus on the
nature and extent of contamination at the waste burial ground and is expected to be
completed in 1993.
SRL Seepage Basins: The DOE began an investigation of the nature and extent of
contamination at the SRL seepage basins. This investigation is expected to be completed
in 1994.
Other Areas: Studies are planned to begin in 1991 or 1992 in 20 other site areas where
contaminants have been identified. The focus of these investigations will be described in
future editions.
Site Facts: In 1989, the DOE and the EPA signed a Federal Facilities Agreement, which will
govern the site studies and cleanup activities.
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 (USDOE) while
investigations leading to final cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 60 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (USDOE)
-------
SCRDI BLUFF
SOUTH CAR
EPA ID# SCD00062278
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Richland County
10 miles from Columbia
Site Description
The South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI) Bluff Road site covers 4 acres, 2 of
which were used for waste storage. Approximately 7,500 drums of toxic, flammable, and reactive
wastes were removed in 1982 by a group of hazardous waste generators; numerous smaller
containers also were 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 mile
away, with approximately 3,500 people living within 4 miles of the site. Recreational facilities,
which include a swimming pool, are a 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
The site contamination is limited to on-site soil and groundwater in a shallow aquifer.
Soils contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and low levels of pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals. Groundwater in the surficial
aquifer also is contaminated with VOCs. There have been no signs of contaminant
migration to Myers Creek, located 3,200 feet from the contaminated aquifer. Ingestion
of the contaminated groundwater poses a threat to human health, though contact with the
soil presents no serious health risks.
61
April 1991
-------
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 7,500 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 1984. This study, however, was not completed. A new study was conducted by the
potentially responsible parties, and a method for cleaning up the site was selected by the
EPA in 1990. Treatment of the contaminated ground water includes extracting, air stripping, and
reinjecting the groundwater until cleanup goals are met. Vapor extraction will be used to treat the
contaminated soil. The engineering design of the selected remedy is scheduled to begin in 1991,
with actual cleanup expected to start the following year.
Site Facts: A group of the parties potentially responsible for contamination at the site conducted
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 reduced the potential for people to be exposed to hazardous
substances at the SCRDI Bluff Road site while cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 62 SCRDI BLUFF ROAD
-------
SCRDI DIXIA
SOUTH CARO
EPAID#SCD98071139
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lexington County
Near Cayce
Site Description
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 the 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), polycyclic aromatic
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.
63
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedies selected by the EPA include extracting contaminated
groundwater, treating it to acceptable concentrations levels, and discharging the treated
water to the sewer system of a neighboring city. Construction of the extraction well,
piping system, and treatment system building has been completed. Groundwater treatment will
commence once the receiving sewer line is constructed. Cleanup of the site is expected to be
completed in 1995.
Site Facts: The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control denied a waste
management permit and filed a suit against SCRDI in 1978. A family of five people, whose home is
located above the plume, was temporarily relocated while the extraction was constructed and
installed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater cleanup activities and removal of drums have reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the SCRDI Dixiana site while the groundwater treatment and monitoring
actions are continuing.
April! 991
64
SCRDI DIXIANA
-------
TOWNSEND
CHAIN CO
SOUTH CAROL
EPA ID# SCD980558050
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Richland County
Pontiac
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, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL 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 residences 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 come in direct contact
with 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 two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase directed at
cleanup of the entire site.
65
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: 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 1982. Wells installed by the company in 1985 currently are aiding efforts to
determine the size of the plume.
Entire Site: Studies of the type and extent of groundwater and surface water
contamination are expected to be conducted in late 1991. Upon completion of this study,
the 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 being planned.
April 1991
66
TOWNSEND SAW CHAIN CO.
-------
WAMCHEM, I
SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA ID# SCD037405362
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beaufort County
Burton
Other Names:
Beaufort Chemical and
Research Company
Site Description
The 21-acre Wamchem, Inc. 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, the 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 later
was 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 (SCDHEC) required the company to use a spray-irrigation technique to improve its
wastewater 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 aquifer that 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) such as 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 composed of salt
marshes, tidal streams, and fragile estuary habitats supporting abundant natural resources.
67
April 1991
-------
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) excavating and treating 2,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil to remove contaminants, followed by on-site disposal of the soil and groundwater
monitoring. Engineering designs are under development and are expected to be completed in late
1991. Cleanup activities will begin as soon as the engineering designs are approved.
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.
April 1991 68 WAMCHEM, INC.
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
68
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
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 possibly may create toxic com-
pounds 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 the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
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 responsible
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 the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
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.
Ambient Air: Any unconfmed part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
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
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
71
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing paniculates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: 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
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
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 generally is
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.
Carbon Bisulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
72
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent 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 a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
73
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land fanning, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
74
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
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 ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
75
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
76
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
77
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
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 the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
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.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
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.
78
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
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 creo-
sotes 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 immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund 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. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
79
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
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, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of 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 con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
80
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
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.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
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.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
81
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
82
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal decreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tighdy at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, 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.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated 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.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
83
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in South Carolina
85
-------
-------
I ?
o JS 3
ii8i
II
lllli
£5
03
87
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60644
------- |