United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-87/020
June 1987
Superfund
Record of [Decision
Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, SC
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
. -- ~.- --.---.~~---=-- ~ .- " --.. ...;,~--~:......... ~~.~-j'-~-r.:."".;oj.~~;..;:~:':'-i,~..:...
.
,
RECORD OF DECISION
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE:
Ge iger (C&M Oil)
HollywoOd, O1arleston County, South Carolina
OOCUr-ENTS REVIE\'ED:
- RemaHal Investigation Ieport, Geiger (C&M Oil) Site
- Feasibility Stwy, Geiger (C&ro\ Oil) Site
- Summary of ~edial Ai ternati'le Selection
- Ccxrmunity Responsiveness Sunmary
- Staff aacanmendations and lei iews
DESCRIPTION OF SELECI'ED RE~1EDY:
GROUNI:WATER
- Extraction of contcminated groundw:iter
- Onsite treaarient of extracted grourrlwater
- Discharge of treated groundw:iter to off-site stream
- Exca'lation ot contcminated soil on the site
- Groundw:iter remediation will be performed until all w:iter
contcminated above the cleanup goals specitied in the
attached &Jmmary of Ai ternative Selection are reached
SOIL
- Onsite thermal treabnent of excavated soil to remove organic
contcminants
- Solidification/stabilization of thermally-treated
necessary to reduce mobility ot metals II
- Backfilling of excavated areas with treated soil,
grading and covaril"rJ with gravel
soil, if
followed by
-------
.~.~.":.'~ ":.,".:..:.,.~,_~/.....<..:.~_.... ~~.,_.........._-'._-
. -.' ,". -... - . ""."4', - .'j. -... :..,".. -.' . .... ,.-. -..I
" .
'. '-~.. ._-'. ;s........~:....~
r
I
-" Soli cleanup:;}oals will be developed durinlJ ranedial design;
the vo~ume of soil to be treate:!. will be dependent upon these
goals
- ~i~ rane:!.ial design, solidification/stabilization (5/5) will
be rfN ie....ed to determine if S/s alone will achieve the remedial
action goals. Presently, data and information is not available
to justify utilizi~ S/S at this time. Ho....ever, if such data
and information is available duri~ the pre-design activities,
this data will be used to reeValuate the present alternative
under a second operable unit.
DECIARATIOOS
Consistent with the Canprehensive Env irormental R9sponse, Canpensation,
am Liability Act of " 19Uu (CElCtA), the Superfum hrenanents am Re-
authorization kt of 1986 (SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous
5ubstanc~s Conti"IJency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have det~tmin~ that the
extraction and treabnent of groundwater and the excavation, onsite thermal
destruction, stabilization/solidification, and backfilli~ of contaninated
soils at tOO Geiger (C&M Oil) site is a cost-etfectille reme:!.y which uses
alternative technologies and permanent solutions to the maximun extent
practicable, an:1 prO! iCes adequate protection of hU1\an health am the
el1\1 irorment. The selected action will require no further operation and
maintenance activities, other than monitoring.
Em will fund ninety percent of the cost of imple1\enting this ranedial
action, and too State of South Carolina will fund th~ ranaining ten
percent. Em will fund ninety percent of the costs of the first year of
monitoring following conpletion of ranedial activities. T~ State will
fund the ranaini~ ten percent, and will fund one-hundred percent of the
costs of monitorin;} following this periai.
The State of South Carolina has been consulted on the selection of this
reme:!.y, and concurs wi th the selected renedial action.
I hal/e also determined that the action bei~ taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of trust fund monies for use at other
sites.
-k~
I, /9£1
J!u: ~ "7£, ~
Jack E. RaV an
Re:;}ional Administrator
-------
~. . -. ... : .."."'." _0.-' .."'- :...~..
--..-."':. ..~'.._:'...~~.z.::...--
I
!.
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pl~flI~ "ad '"SI1I.lClio"s 011 Ih~ '~~~n~ MfOT~ CO",,,/~I;n'J
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-87/020
.. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION June, 1, 1987
Geiger (C&M Oil), SC 5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
First Remedial Action ..
_.
7. AUTHORISI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
-'
~. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
.,.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
HI. ABSTRACT
The Geiger (C&M Oil) site comprising a five-acre area, is located in central
Charleston County, South Carolina, approximately ten miles west of the city of
Charleston and within one m~le of tidal wetlands. Approximately 40 people live within
the immediate site area. In March 1969, Adams Run Services, Incorporated was permitted
to incinerate waste oil at the site. Eight unlined lagoons were constructed to hold the
waste oil in late 1971 in response to complaints from area residents, the South Carolina
Pollution Control Authority (SCPCA) ordered all incineration and waste deposition
activities at the site stopped, and the owner to take action to prevent spillage,
1eekage or seepage of oil from the site. In Apr il 1974, the Charleston County Health
Department (CCHD) ordered the site closed, citing evidence of recent oil dumping and
overflowing. In March 1982, the site was purchased by George Geiger, who is the present
owner. In 1983, Mr. Geiger fill ed the lagoons with local soils after not being given
approval for excavating and disposing of contaminated soil. The site has since been
used for storage of equipment by his company, Pile Drivers, Incorporated. The primary
contaminants of concern include: arsenic, toluene, organics, PCB, and heavy metals
(lead, chromium, mecury).
The selected remedial alternative includes: extraction and onsite treatment of
contaminated ground water with discharge to an offsite stream; excavation and onsite
(See Attached Sheet)
17. - KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESC"'PTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDeD TERMS c. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Geiger (C&M Oil), SC
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants: organics, PCB,
heavy metals (lead, mercury,
chromium), toluene, arsenic 1'1 .
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 1~. seCURITY CLASS (Tlli$ R~po") 21. NO. OF PIA.GES
None 155
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tll;$ pag', 22. PRICE
None
I'. 11- 2220-1 (Rn. 4-77)
P"IIVIOUS IIOITION IS 08S01.IITil
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-87/020
Geiger (C&M Oil), SC
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
thermal treatment of soil-to remove organic contaminants;
solidification/stabilization of thermally-treated soil, if necessary, to
reduce mobility of metals; backfilling of excavated areas with treated soil,
followed by grading and covering with gravel. The estimated capital cost
for site remediation is $6,927,000 to $7,694,000, depending on the type of
ground water treatment selected, with present worth O&M costs of $367,200.
-------
7.0
- -.... ......_~_.~:..:'.J":~
TARLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
IN'TROOOC'rIGJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 site Location and Description. . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Site History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
5
2.0
. . . . . . . . .
7
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . .
3.0
CURRENT SITE STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Soil Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Surface Water and Sediment Contamination. . . . . 10
3.4 Groundwater Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Receptors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6 Wallace River wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.0
CLEAN-UP CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Groundwater Remediation. . . .
4.2 Soil Remediation. . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Swamp Remediation. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 17
. . . . . . 17
. . . 20
. . . . . . 21
5.0
ALTEPNATIVES EVALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1 Groundwater Remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Soil Remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.0
RECGu-tENDED ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy . . . . . 33
6.2 Operation and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3 Cost of Recommended Alternatives. . . . . . . . . 34
6.4 Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.5 Future Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.6 Consistency with Other Environmental Laws . . . . 35
COMMUNITY RELATICNS.
. . . . . . . 37
. . . . . . . . . .
8.~ STATE INVOLVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence
State Of South Carolina Correspondence
Calculation of Preliminary Soil Cleanup Goals
. .
. .
-------
FIGURE 1
fIGURE 2
i
l'
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
0.. -- ;....... - .'." .....",-.
. I
. '. . -. - --
LIST OF FIGURES
IJxation Plan.
. . . . . .
.....
2
. . . . . . .
Area Map.
3
.....
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Site Plan
. . . . . . .
4
9
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
Areas of Soil Contamination.
.....
. . .
IJxation of Monitor wells. .
. . . . . .
. . 12
LIST OF TABLES
MaximU1\ Concentrations of O1emicals Detected in
Surface Soil Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 11
Contaminants Detected in M:::>nitor Wells.
. . . 13
. . .
Groundwater Cleanup Goals. . .
......
. . . . 18
Preliminary Soil Cleanup Goals
. . . . . . 21
. . . .
Tachrx>logies Considered for Screeni~ . .
. . . . . 24
Summary of Present Wbrth Costs. . .
State Cost Sharing Obligations.
. . . . . 26
. . . .
. . . .
. . 39
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Geiger (C&M Oil) site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL) in Update Number 1, September 1983, and ranks 588 out of 703
NPL sites. The Geiger site has been the subject of a remedial investigation
(RI) and feasibility study (FS) performed by the Region IV REM II contractor,
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (COM). The RI report, which examines air, sedi-
ment, soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination at the site, was
issued July 1, 1986. The FS, which develops and examines alternatives for
remediation of the site, was issued in draft form to the public on January 9,
1987.
This Record of Decision has been prepared to summarize the remedial alterna-
tive selection process and to present the selected remedial alternative.
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Geiger (C&M Oil) site is located in central Charleston County, South
Carolina, approximately ten miles west o£ the city o£ Charleston, along
Hignway 162 (Figure 1). The site is in a sparsely populated rural area.
About ten residences are located adjacent to the site to the east and
northeast. The population in the immediate site area is estimated at
forty persons. Several snail businesses are located within one-half mile
of the site along Highway 162. The town of Hollywood is approximately
four miles west of the site.
Land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly mixed coniferous and
deciduous forest. Estuarine streams and their associated tidal wetlands
are located approximately one mile to the north and south of the site.
There are no major industries or other sources of employment nearby.
Agricultural lands and borrow pits are scattered within a one-mile radius
of the site.
The site comprises a five-acre area of very little topographic relief.
Elevations on the site raryje from approximately fifteen to thirty feet
above mean sea level. Surface water drainage is into two onsite ponds
and to the west and northwest toward the Wallace River (Figures 2 and 3),
which flows into the Stono River. A marshy area is found west of the
site, and sensitive wetland environments are located in the Wallace River
vicinity. These wetlands are a critical habitat supporting several
federally listed endangered and threatened species.
Several lagoons were constructed on the site between 1969 and 1971 for
use in a waste oil incineration process. These unlined lagoons covered
a total area of approximately 5,000 square feet, and their bottoms were
_i _
-------
n G)'
Xr11
~ r
;0-
rG) 0
fTlI'1 0
~::u ~
0- -i
ZO -
en" 0
o Z
c~
-t
XO "1J
or r
Ja- ~
;0 z
ou)
r-
z-l
JaITl
<.
....
<,
'. " ~
f':'
-, ":.
'~'~/~l
LOCATION
PLAN
N
. I
I
.,.,.- ... . ..... . .
---... . ~ "-.., : ...':-- ~ "",
.. -. ..." - - .....
~. Cho"II'." ~:~.:._-"'. :'.'...." . . <0" . :.
)? GflOER .~~. ...... 0. "-" - .
( (C6,.,O'II)'''' ~~.-.,... ~ "'-
-. .. ..-... . ..
5 I'T f ' .".,:, r-' " C.
.. . , ~ , .. .. \.~'"
r:~~~ - .'~'fI.-
.~~ ..-
l{~:rJ ~~ .:
...
. .. . .
- -'
17 II: -'-
.. . , \ t\ ':----
. . ~ ,_a
-~-~. ,~
..~ ~
,~~. "5~.-.-
.. ; .:~ c O..,.!:,.;.....-r
. .'::'.:'.=:"0'''''''' ---t""'-'
.....a.:"." :e ... .".........-- -
.'.':.. :-.:..,. "a 0 ,~
... - '. a. 0 ,..~-
..40'J -'" E"P"-~ 8.", 11111
.... ~~ GEIGER ~.,
A~' (c a MOIL) ...",,-~
SIT E. '..,
'T\
(;)
C
:u
fTI
Z
o
. "",.. -... ":.-
'e-:' . - - - ....."'" ...
.... .~-"'f/Iia..
.:.' ~. - eo" "":a. . 4,"" .,.,.."'- ..
... . .0 ""."- -.......
,.. .... C. '.,"" ---
... ~- t.," !, . .s:.. - .! ..., .....
.~ '
-------
I
I
I
I'
I
I
AREA MAP
(C6 M OIL)SITE
GEl G E R SO'UTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON, .
- . ..~", .. '.
-------
nG')
;m
:0-
rG')
"'m
en
....:0 en
0- -
_ZO -I
~ g» I'll
c
~~ -u
or
n- ~
~r z
:0-
~(J)
--
z-i
~rrI
(
RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING
x.
)(
~ I
t1''' .",.'" - ...
" ,,- --...........
/ /" -...::.....
I, .......::--.....
..... .....
I' """..........
'e .....~,
)(
N
)(
>C.
{}
""" 6TRAlLER~
-,' - I
""", SHOP I'
'~~, OFFICE ~ /,'
....'" "
I } ""'," ' ,
PONO LOlL STAINED "" I i I,.
_~~~~2 ~~~;~~:~:: ::--==::~-----t~~~~(l;.:~:::-_::::
l~::-----=i:- --- r:~) :~~ ! i.
/UTRAILER ~ AR~:~--..J
.r~'\ ..
A PPAOXIMATE LOCA
INCINER-.TOR nON iOF OLO
:.1
'I
'-:'
~
i C
:.:u
'"
r.
100
I
o !K)
. .-:--..
SCALE IN FEE T
.- I
150
I
~
~:
'-'.-'-'-
-------
I " ~ ... ~... .. ... ".. "
- "" _..:. - ".", -!~ ~.~"....
, \
at or near the groundwater surface. The lagoons were filled with waste
oil, and were later covered with local soils. The slte is presentl¥
being used for equipl\ent storage by a pile driving canpany.
. ~.2 SITE HISTORY
In March 1969 the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority (SCR:A) per-
mitted Mams Run Services, Inc. to incinerate waste oil at what is nCM
the Geiger site. Scx11atime bet~en 1969 aoo 1971, eight unlined laJoons,
each approximately one foot deep and covering a total area 50 feet wide
by 100 feet lo~, were constructed for the purpose of holdirg waste oil
in connection. with the incineration process.
In late 1971 in response to complaints fran area residents, SCR:A ordered
that all incineration and waste deposition activities at the site be
stopped, and the CMner was to take action to prevent spillage, leakage,
or seepaJe of oil from the site.
In April 1974 a nearby property CMner canplained to the O1arleston County
Health Department (CCHD) about oil overflCMing from the laJoons on the
site. CCHD investigated and ordered the site closed, citirg evidence of
recent oil dl.ll1ping and overflCMing oil. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. then
purchased all reclaimable oil on the site and submitted recovery plans to
the South Carolina Department of Health and Envirormental Control (SCDHEC).
There is no reply frol\ SCrtiEC on record.
In December 1979, SCDHEC requested C&M Oil to provide information on their
plans for cleaning up the site. C&M Oil replied that they were unable to
recover the waste oil and that they were not obligated to clean the site.
EPA Region IV began investigating the site in February 1980. Samples from
two monitorirg wells installed downgradient of the site contain~ organic
canpounds and metals which were also detected in the waste pits. Residen-
tial wells uPJradient of the site were sampled, but no organic ccmpounds
were detected. Metals in these residential samples were at background
levels. Waste oil in the lagoons was found to contain chanicals which
are similar to those associated with automotive crankcases, brake fluids,
and degreasing canpouoos. The total quantity of waste on the site was
estimated at 149,600 gallons, the equivalent of 2992 55-gallon drums.
The site was ranke:d usinJ the Hazard Ranking Systan (HRS), and received
a score of 32.37.
'!he site was purchased in March 1982 by George Geiger, who is the present
owner. Mr. Geiger proposed excavation and disposal.of contaminated soil
in the 1aJoons, but no final approval was given by SCDHEC.
In 19cB Mr. Geiger filled the lagoons with local soils, am the site has.
been used since then for the storage of equipment used by his company,
Pile Drivers, Inc.
-5-
-------
.' .. . . ~." '.
. - .. ~ ...~_..
,. '. ......
.
..'.--'.:" _.',,~.... ,,:.:"~,:."''''" .
I:
The G3iger (C&M Oil) site was ~laced on the National Pt"iorities -List on
Septemoer 8, 1983. EPA issued a work assignment in
-------
. - ~. ..~ ,
."'..-"0 ..-. -'""'-....-...
. I
.
,
2.0 ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
The Geiger (C&M Oil) site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL)
in September 1983 ard EPA assumed lead responsibility for the site at
that time. An EPA contractor canpleted a potentially responsible party
search in February 1984. l'btice letters were sent out to potentially
responsible parties in October 1984. Since no viable PRPs wre found,
EPA proceeded to conduct the RI/FS itself. The RI/FS canmenced in July
1985.
-7-
-------
. ~ . ~ .. ~'... :"...., .' "0 \.
- '--.'-' "'-. "
. .- .-.-0.
3.0 CURRENT SITE STATUS
3.1
HYD~illU:X;IC SE'ITING
The ~iger {COM Oil} site lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
province. The uppe~nost aquiter at the site is a surficial~ unconfined
aquifer, approx~ately 40 to 50 feet thick, composed of clean to silty,
tine to mediU11 sarx1 wi th sane mud lenses. D3pth to the water surface
varies seasonally, reaching a minimun of one foot below the ground surface.
Grourx1water flow across the site is generally to the west and northwest,
discharging to surface waters in the wetlands of the Wallace River.
A hydraulic corx1uctivity of 6.7 feet per day was determined using a risin;J
head test. Assuning an average porosity of 41 percent for mediLm to fine
sand aquifers, and a hydraulic gradient of 0.003, a velocity of 0.05 feet
per day was calculated for groundwater flow. At this rate, groundwater at
the site w::>uld have moved approximately 300 feet since waste was deposited
on the site sixteen years ago.
Groundwater in the surficial aquifer has been classifed as Class 1 ground-
water under EPA GrouOOwater Prot.;ction Strategy {GlP3} because it is highly
vulnerable to conta-nination and it discharges into wetlands inhabited by
endangered species. The Soutn Carolina D3partment of Marire Resources and
the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have identified Bald eagles in the area,
and reported a likelihood of Wbod storks and American alligators in the
wetlands. As Class I ]roundv.ater, a high degree of protection 'IoOuld be
afforded the aquifer, and very stringent clean-up goals must be met.
Gcoundwater in the surficial aquifer is also a source of drinking water
tor residents living near the site. Approximately ten hones linmediately
uwradient of the site have ~lls supplied by this aquiter. Several
residential wells are also located one mile or less downgradient of the
site. The aquifer classification and clean-up goals are discussed in
more detai! in Section 4.0.
This surficial aquifer is underlain by the Cboper Marl, which acts as a
confining layer in the area, separating the surficial aquiter from lowver
formations. The Cooper Marl is estimated to be 15 to 60 feet thick and
over lies several Tertiary formations. These formations are predaninantly
pure to very impure limestone in the upper part of the section, and sand,
silt, and clay in the lower part. Below the Cooper Marl are additional
sand, silt, and clay formations down to the basanent rock, which is well-
irx1urated sedimentary and igneous rock or pre-cretaceous age.
3.2 SOIL CONTAMlNATlOO
Soils at the site are predaninanUy sandy throughout their profile, and
L)Qssess rapid permeability. TIl~ area ot highest soil contanination is in
the oil stained area shown in Figure 4, where the former lagoons were located.
-8-
-------
< .
O(j)
::ef1l
}>
~(j)
rYtf1l
~::u
o
z-
w (')
g~
-i
::eO
nc
}>
~(J)
r -
--i
ZIT1
~
...
~
»
::0
IT1
»
(J)
o
"TI
(J)
o
r
(")
o
z
~
3:
z
»
-t
-
o
z
x
')(
')(
')(
)(
~-';-:'. 7TREAM
.....-:..?\
..... -:"'...
-., ~.. .
"", a.- #It
. . ".a ,..
:-'-7-;' .,.."':''';-~.. ~
.-: ..-.... . .
... ...... 8.
~,:.-.. -. .,... .-........
: A :. ~...:-:. "
'-._'''...' .
.-..-. ..~.~ '.
.~-.., 'A-'~--
. .....--
POND
"
G)
c
:u
rYt
Z
P
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF
SOIL CONTAMINATION
100
I
~O 0
. .
SCALE
: I
.~. :1
N
;. I
~~'
',; I
: I
'.
i.
I
)(
'.
i.
100
.
50
.
IN FEET
1:S0
I
.;:
r
~ ~ I
[\,
I';'j
".
-------
. . -'
, ... -' .",
.-. -.,
. ~ '. ......- "." .,.
. . >0," . .',. ..:" ~':~,
t ,
Soil contamination was found to a lesser degree in other areas shown- in
this figure. Contaminants include various organic canpouoos, PCB-l254,'
and heavy metals (Lead, M3rcury, Chraniun). The contcrninants and the
maximum concentrations detected in soil on the site are srown in Table 1.
The depth of soil contamination is estUnated to be five feet in the oil-
stained area and one foot in other areas of the site indicated in FLJure 4.
The depth of contanination in the oil-stained area was estimated on the
basis of historical and visual evidence. Sanples could not be obtained
below a depth of tw:> feet because of the high groundwater level. The
contaninated SOils are believed to behave as a source material, contributirg
contanination to the ground-water.
. ;
.",..
. '
3.3
SURfACE WATER AND SEDIMENl' CCNl'AMlNATIOO
Lead was detected at elevated concentrations in t~ surface water samples
tran the swanp located northwest of the site, and elevated levels of Lead
were found in four sediment samples fran this area. This contamination
is probably the result of past spills or of surface water runoff into the
swamp. fot:)st run-off fran the site w:>uld be intercepted by the onsite
ponds which showed no elevated levels of contaninants; hOwever, 1 imi tad
off-site surface migration may be presently occurrirYJ. This swamp is not
associated with the Wallace River wetlands I and is not considered to be a
critical habitat as the wetlands are.
3.4 GROUNDdATER CDNTAMlNATlOO
The approximate extent of groundwater contamination is ShOW1 in Figure 5.
Grourrlwater tran the onsite shallow well, ~J-4S (Figure 5), was found to
be contaaninated wi th several organic canpounds. Benzene was detected at
25 ug/l, wnich is above the proposed MaximUl\ Contcrninant Level (PMCL) of
5 ug/l. Toluene was detected at the proposed MCL (PMCL) of 2000 UoJ/l.
Several other organic compounds were detected above background levels, as
shown in '!able 2. Background conditions are represented by ~i-l, located
hydraulically upgradient ot the site.
Contaninants were detected at levels above background concentrations in
well cluster r+l-5. AlthOllJh not above appropriate standards, these
concentrations indicate migration of contaaninated groundwater off-site.
Arsenic was detected at 66 ug/l, which is above the MCL of 50 ug/l, in
~1-2D. The presence of metals other than Arsenic was not confirmed be-
cause of sediments introduced into sane sarnples. These sediments could
be the source of the metals detected in m-5 ard rfi-6.
Soil in the oil-stained area shoW1 in Figure 4 is in contact with the
grourdwater. This contaninated soil is considered to be a source material,
continually introducing contamination into the groundwater.
-10-
-, '. ,
-------
- ... -~ "..'
'. ..- ...~., ; - ~ - ". ,.-,:' .
. . .
.' _a . -., -. - -.- .
.-..:. . L
'. I
TABLE 1
MAXIMLM CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS
IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLES'lW, SOU'ni CAROLINA
Dt:;n:l:rt;D
I'
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION (U'J/kg)
BACKGROUND RANGE
Benzo(a)Anthracene 560 ND
Benzo(a)Pyrene 240 ND
Benzo(Band/orK) Fluoranthene 2000 ND
Chrysene 1200 ND
R:~ (Areelor 1254) 4000 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 9.6 ND
Toluene 460 ND
I, I, I-trichloroethane 36 ND
Trichloroethylene 230 ND
Ethy1benzene 17 ND
Lead 740 rcg/kg 3.9 - 8.reg/kg
..
Mercury 1. 3 rcg/kg ND
Chrooiun 1100 reg/kg 3.6 - 4.5 mg!kg
ND - Not Detected
-ll-
-------
r-
o.
n(;) 0
z", ~
~- -t
;0(;) -
~", 0
(1);0 Z
-t
0- 0
zO 'TI
~Q) ~
c3:'0
~o Z
or ::t
~- 0
Ou) :u
r-
--t
~fI\
~
fI1
r-
....
en
,.
Q
C
#-. :u
'"
z
p
o [1W-1 "J .
.
--....
--- -, "
------ -- - ""
-- ----- " "
--- -~ "
0.. ,~
L CLUSTER
4" MONITOR WEL
. . LOCATIONS an
. 0 ~ .
100 . . '.
I FEET
SCALE. IN
MW-:-6
.
)(
)(
)(
)C
ESTIMATED EXTENT
GROUNIMATER
~NTAMINATION PLUME
STREAM
'" / MW-5
'<.. .
'.
()
MW-3
.
MW-2
.
N
)(
r
o
)(
~ \
I
150
j
r
I
,
,
-------
TABLE 2
COOTAMINANTS DETECTED IN MONITOR WELLS
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
QiARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
WELL NlMBER (x)NTAMINANr COOCENTRATlOO (ug/l)
MWl5 Arsenic 6
MW 1M Arsenic 8
O1lorofotn\ (1) 5J
MW 1D Di-n-OCtylphtha1ate 3J
Chlorofotn\ (1) 32
MW2S Chlorofotn\ (1) 20
MW2M Bronodichloranethane (l) IJ
MW 2D D~thy1 Phthalate 11
Q11oroform (1) 22
Benzene O.SJ
Arsenic 66
MW 3S Arsenic 42
Di-n-Octylphthalate 3J
Chlorofotn\ (1) 14
MW 3M Chloroform (l) 2J
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (2) 1200
MW 3D 011oroform (1) 8
MW 4S l,2-Dichlorobenzene 2J
Naphthalene. 18
lsophorone lJ
Benzoic acid (2) lSJ
2-Mathylphenol 32
4-Me thylphenol 71
2-Mathyl naphthalene SJ
O1loroethane 250
l,l-Dichloroethane 130J
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 53J
Benzene 25J
Toluene 2UOO
Total Xylenes 25J
-13-
-------
. '.' .
. .
. . . .. ~ . ...
TABLE 2 (continued)
CONTAMlNANI'S DETEcrED IN MONI'roR WELLS
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SI'IE
CHARLES'ION, SOlJl'H CAroLINA
WELL NUMBER
COOTAMINANr
CCN::ENTRATION (u;;J/l)
MW4M Benzoic acid (2) 4J
Chloroform IJ
Benzene 0.5.1
MW 40 Chloroform (1) 7J
Benzene O.4J
MW 55 2,4-DL~thylphenol 20
Be nzane 5.1
Toluene lJ
Lead (3) 53
MW 5M Not ~tected
MW 50 1,1-Dichloroethene 3J
Chloroform (1) 20
MW 6S Toluene (3) (4) 5.3
Lead (3) (2) 250
CadmilJ1\ (3) (4) 13
MW 6M l'bt Detected
MW 60 Not ~tected
(1) - Found in drilling water
(2) - Laboratory contaminant or natural degradation product
( 3) - Sed iment in sample
(4) - Compounds not found in duplicate sample
J - Estimated value
-14-
-------
.,.. '";:ru';...:......t...:. ......,".:
. I
3. 5 RECEPl'ORS
Receptors of contaminants on aoo near the Geiger (C&M Oil) site may be
exposed via four different routes: Air, soil, groundwater, aOO surface
water. Both envirormental and h\Jt\an receptors have been identified.
The primary human receptors are onsite workers and residents who may cane
into contact with contaminants thrOUJh inhalation of dust generated by
wind erosion aOO vehicle traffic, and through direct dermal contact with
contaminated soil. Ingestion of contaninated soil is also possible,
especially if children were to play on the oil-stained area.
POtential hunan receptors identitied under future-use scenarios inclooe
those identified a.bc1.Te, as well as those who may i~est or otherwise cane
into contact with groundwater which could be produced from onsite wells.
Nb produci~ wells are present within the groundwater contamination plume
at this time, but developnent of this site could lead to the placanent of
wells for human use. Users of groundwater tram off-site wells are also
potential receptors, as contaminated groundwater could migrate to residen-
tial wells if no ranedial action is taken.
Environmental receptors inclooe aquatic life camir-q into direct contact
with or i~esti~ surface water in the onsite ponds, the discharge stream,
the oily pit on the site, and the marshy area near the site. Plants and
amphibians may contact sed iments in the marshy area near the site, and
wildlife may ingest or contact contaminated soil in the oily area.
The environnental receptors of greatest concern are enda~ered species in
the wetlands of the Wallace River. Groundwater fran the site discharges
into these wetlarrls, and contaninants may affect wetlaOOs wildlife by this
route. Contaminated groundwater has not yet reached these wetlands, but
may eventually migrate to this area if not ranediated.
3.6 WAllACE RIVER WETIANrS
wetlands of The Wallace River have been identified as a sensitive habitat
which may be atfectec1 'Jj the Geiger (C&M Oil) site. These wetlands, shown
in Figure 1, are located oorth arrl west of the site, within a two-mile
radius of the site.
The follOtiling Federally 1 isted endangered species were determined by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to possibly occur in the area of influence
of the site: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), WOod stork (Mycteria
americana), Red-Cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is a threatened species which may
also occur in this area. These species are all protected under the Endan-
gered Species Act as amended by Public Law 97-304. Additionally, several
plants, anphibians, and birds are "status review" species which are not;.
legally protected at this time, but may be listed as endangered or threa-
tened in the future. These species are identified in correspondence
contained in Appendix A.
-15-
-------
. '. . '.. ~ -
The South Carolina Department ot Marine Resourc~s has identified 8a~d
eagles in the Wallace River wetlands. Adult phmage birds have "been
spotted, and nestil"YJ is expected to be confirmed soon.
These wetlands may be impacted by the site because the surticial aquifer
discharges into the wetlands. It is this surficial aquifer which is
contaminated at the Geiger site. Contcrninated groundwater was determined
to be migratil"YJ off-site in a generally westerly and northwesterly direc-
tion. Although contaminated groundwater has not reached the wetlands,
contcrninated groundwater may migrate to that area if not remediated.
Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, groundwater in this surfi-
cial aquifer at the Geieger site has been classified as Class I groundwater
because it discharges into a sensitive environment, the wallace River
wetlands, within a two-mile radius of the site.
-16-
-------
- _..':' .....&'...... .-;."..". -". .....:.~...
4.0 CLEANUP CRITERIA
The extent of contamination was defined in Section 3.0, CUrrent Site Status.
This section examines the relevance and appropriateness ot water quallty
~riteria under the circuustances of release of contaminants at this site.
Based upon criteria found to be relevant and appropriate, the mininu.m goals
of remedial action at this site have been developed.
4.1 GROlJND>lATER REMEDIATION
In determining the degree ot groundwater cleanup, Section 121(d) of the
Superturxi Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that
the selected remedial actions establish a level or standard of control
which canplies with all "applicable am relevant or appropriate regulations"
(ARARs) .
Groundwater in the surficial aquifer is classified as Class I under draft
guidelines for groundwater classification under the EPA Grourxiwater Pro-
tection Strategy (GWPS). Class I groundwater includes that which is highly
vulnerable to contamination because of the hydrogeological characteristics
of the aquifer, and .that which is ecologically vital in that the ground-
water discharges to an area that supports a unique habitat. Groundwater
in the surficial aquifer discharges into wetlands of the wallace River
within the Classification Review Area, encompassing a two-mile radius of
the site. The South Carolina J::epartment of Marine Resources has docunented
the use of these wetlands as a feeding area for the Bald eagle, which is
on the national enda~ered species list (see Section 3.6). Pdul t plunage
birds have been identified, and it is expected that nesti~ will be
contirmed soon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has noted the likeli-
hood of the Bald eagle, W:xx1 stork, and Red-COCkadect woodpecker in these
wetlands; all are endangered species.
The EPA GdPS advises that the value to society ot Class I groundwater sup-
ports restoration of this contaminated groundwater to levels protective
of human health and the environment. Several contaminants were detected
at elevated levels, as shown in Table 2. Based upon groundwater classiti-
cation, remediation of the groundwater to reduce contaminants to levels
protective of human health and the environment would be necessary.
Grourxiwater cleanup goals given in Table 3 meet these requirements.
The surficial aquifer at the Geiger (C&M On) site is also a current source
of drinki~ water. Nine residential water-supply wells are located upgra-
dient of the site within the two-mile Classification Review Area. Several
residential wells are located downgradient of the site within this area,
approximately three-quarters of a mile west of the site. These wells are
completed in the surficial acuifer am are a present source of drinking
water. RCRA regulations req~ire clean-up of contauinated groundwater to.
background levels or MCLs fo: certain listed contaminants. The presence
of contaminants at elevated levels in groundwater at the Geiger site will
require treatment to reduce contaminants to appropriate levels as specified
in Table 3.
-17-
-------
. .. .,
---.
AMENDED 12 JUNE 1987
TABLE 3
GROONLWATER CLEANUP GOALS
FOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
INDICATOR MAXIMlM DETECTED GNOONIJolPUER CRITERIA
CHEMICAL (tg/l) CLEANUP LEVEL
(ug/l)
Benzo (a) Pyrene ND 0.03 b
8enzo (a) Anthracene NO 0.03 b
8enzo (b and/or k) Flooranthene ND 0.03 b
PCB . (Aroclor 1254) ND 0.079 b
Benzene 25 5 a
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 53 70 a
O1raniLm NO 50 d
Lead 53 50 d
Toluene 2000 175 c
1,1-Dichlorobenzene 2 15.8 c
1, 1-Dichloroethane 130 5 e
CRITERIA
a - Proposed IeCatrnended Maxim\.ll\ Contaminant Level (PRMCL or toCLG)
Federal Register, Vbl. 50, No. l19, November 13, 1985, 46935
b - Equivalent to 10-5 cancer risK
c - Aquatic Life Chronic Tbxicity Value
d - Maximun Contaninant LeI1el (toI:L)
e - Required CLP detection level
-18-
-------
. ..;.-~~ -... ........~ .
N\ENDED 12 JUNE 1987
The conclusion of the above discussion is that a no-action alternative
for groundwater would be out of compliance with Section 121 of SARA,
which requires clean-up of contaminated groundwater to levels which are
protective of human health and the environment. Classification of the
groundwater and the potential future use of the groundwater indi~ates that
present contaminant levels in the groundwater are not acceptable. .
Indicator chemicals were used to establish cleanup qoals for groundwater.
Indicator chemicals were. selected on the basis of which chemicals pose the
greatest potential health risk at the Geiger site. These indicator chemi-
cals include those developed in the Public Health Evaluation. Toluene
and l,l-Dichlorobenzene were included because maxLmum concentrations for
these compounds have been established based on aquatic life chronic toxicity
values.
I
i.
For carcinogenic contaminants, a 10-5 risk level was deemed appropriate.
for groundwater remediation. EPA's draft "Guidance on Remedial Actions
for Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites" (October 1986) specifies
that groundwater remediation should achieve a level of protection in the
10-4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk range, with 10-6 being used as a point of
departure. Groondwater in the contaminated surficial aquifer is not used
by human receptors Unmediately downgradient of the site, and natural
attenuation will lower contaminant concentrations before groundwater
migrates from the site to existing residential wells or sensitive wetlands.
Therefore, a 10-5 risk level is sufficient for protection of human health
and the environment. A higher risk level would not be acceptable because
of the possibility that wells may be placed near the site. The Geiger
site is in a lightly populated area, but residences are located near the
site.
Levels presented as groundwater cleanup goals are based on four criteria:
Proposed recamtended maximum contaminant levels (PRMCLs) ~ 10-5 cancer risk
for carcinogens~ maximllT\ contaminant levels (MCLs) established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act~ and aquatic life chronic toxicity values. Indi-
cator chemicals, maximum concentrations detected in groundwater at the
Geiger site, and the cleanup goals for these chemicals are presented in
Table 3.
Specific quantitative data for all polyaramatic hydrocarbons (PARs) is not
available, so all carcinogenic PARs are considered to have a carcinogenic
potency equivalent to that of Benzo(a)pyrene.
This forms the basis of the cleanup goal for Benzo(a)anthracene and
Benzo( band/or k) fluoranthene. The sum of all carcinogenic PARs should
not exceed a 10-5 risk level.
Based on limited data, the EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
concluded that l,l-Dichloroethane may have the potential for carcinogenic
activity in experimental animals. However, data were inadequate for
quantitative risk assessment. Therefore, the cleanup goal will be to the
lowest level practical, represented by the required CLP detection limi.t .0'
-19-
-------
...<6.- . ,... _..:..
AMENDED 12 JUNE 1987
4.2
SOIL REMEDIATION
.;:
The Public Health Assessment in the RI Report determined that risks to
human health as a result of exposure to onsite contaminants via .inhalation,
irqestion, and dermal contact are at acceptable levels under present-use
conditions at the site. HOwever, under a future-use scenario in which
the site may be developed, an undue risk might be posed from exposure to
contaminants in the soil. Remediation or institutional controls will be
necessary to assure that an increased risk to hunan health is not posed
in the future.
o
Contaminants remainirq in the soil followirq groundwater remediation may,
over time, leach into the groundwater. A roodel was developed to calculate
contaminant concentrations in soil at the Geiqer site that would not result
in future exceedences of groundwater cleanup goals. These soil contaminant
concentrations for indicator chemicals are shown in Table 4 and are consid-
ered to be prel iminary soil cleanup goals.
..
These preliminary goals were developed using limited data, and will be
subject to refinement during remedial design. If information gathered
during design allows more accurate development of cleanup goals, these
levels will be revised accordingly.
The purpose of developing the preliminary goals was to dete~ine the need
for and the extent of soil remediation. As Table 4 indicates, several of
the indicator chemicals are above the soil protective levels. If no soil
remediation was implemented, leaching of contaminants from the soil into
the groundwater 'WOuld occur, and contaminant levels in the qroundwater
could exceed groundwater cleanup goals.
The areas shown in Figure 4 contain contaminants in excess of the protec-
tive levels in Table 4. Soil in these areas must be treated to reduce
contaminants to levels at or below the preliminary cleanup goals.
The development of the prelirnary soil cleanup goals is discussed in rrore
detail in Appendix c.
-20-
-------
- -... .'" ~'" . - . - .\...'. ~...:
4.3 SWAMP RE11EDIATION
Off-site migration of metals has occurred into the swamp area 'Nest of the
site. A1thOl.qh leaj was detected above aquatic life chronic toxicity
values in surface water in the swamp, no adverse envirorunental effects
have been noted to date. The contaninant levels in the swanp are expected
to gradually decline, as migration of contaminants is not likely to be
occurri~ at the present tirre. Most surface run-oft fran the contaninted
soil is captured by the on-site ponds.
The swanp area will not be ranediated because adverse environmental
impacts associated with excavation of these areas would be greater than
bene tits which would be attainoo. Excavation of contaninated sediments
would require cleari~ the vegetative cOver and would disrupt the habitat
and feeding grounds ot a wide variety of wildlife in this swamp. The
benefits to be obtained by swamp ranediation would be exceeded by the
adverse envirorunental impacts which would be realized. Thus, it was
conclu:led that remediation of this area is not necessary.
-21-
-------
£ . . - .
. ~. '.,.. - . . '- ~ .'
. -.. ..-. . - . ". ~ : -...' .. -,
TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY
SOIL CLfANUP GOALS
FOR INDlCATO~ CHE11ICALS
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
INDICATOR MAXIMLM DETECTED CLEANUP GOAL
CHEMICAL (lIJ/kg) (UJ/kg)
8en2D (a) Pyrene 240 1,070
* 8enzo (a) Anthracene 560 140
* Ban2D (b and/or k) Fluoranthene 20UO 170
* R:B (Aroclor 1254) 4000 1,050
Benzene NO 14.4
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene NO 76
* Q1rani un 11uO lTg/kg 3. 7 lTg/kg
* Lead 740 lTg/kg 166.5 lTg/kg
Toluene 460 971
1,l-oichlorobenzene NO 497
* 1,1-Dichloroethane 9.6 2.78
ND - Not ~tected
* - r1axLmun detected concentration is
greater than the prelL~inary cleanup goal
--22-
-------
5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVAWATICN
'!he purpose of remedial action at the Gaiger (C&M Oil) site is to mitigate
and minimize contcrnination in the soils and groun.:1water, and to reduce
potential risks to hU1\an health and the environment. The following clean-
up'objectives were detennined based on regulatory requirements. and levels
of contamination found at the site:
o To protect the public health and the environment fran exposure to
contaninated onsite soils thro~h inhalatioo, direct contact, aoo
erosion of soils into surface waters and 'Wetlands;
o To prevent off-site roovanent of contcminat~ grouOOwater.
o To restore contaninated groundwater to levels protective of hU1\an
health and the environment.
An initial screening of applicable technologies was performed to identify
those which best meet the criteria of Section 300.68 of tre National
Contingency Plan' (NCP). Following the initial screening of technologies,
potential remedial action alternatives 'Were identified and analyzed.
These alternatives were screened and those which best satisfied the
cleanup objectives, while also being cost eftective and. tecnnically
feasible, were developed further.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the screening process. Each of the
ranaining alternatives for soil aoo grourrlwater remediation was evaluated
based upon cost, technical feasibility, institutional requirements, and
degree of protection ot public health aoo the envirormen~. A cost surnnary
is presented in Table 6.
5. 1 GROUP A ALTERNATIVES - GRCXJNI10JATER REMEDIATICN
Groundwater Extraction, Optional Flocculation!
Sedimentation, Air Stripping, and Disposal
'!his alternative w::>uld treat groundwater at the site by removing volatile
organic canpouoos (VOCs). Grourrlwater ....uuld be treated to cleanup goals
established in Section 4.
Alternative A-l:
All roonitoring 'Wells ....uuld be sampled and analyzed during or prior to
remedial design. Flocculation/sedimentation and filtering ....uuld be added
to the treacnent system it Inetals are detected at levels which ....uuld pose
a r.isk to hunan health, or at levels which could be toxic to wildlife.
Groun::lwater ....uuld be punped fran several onsite ~lls at a rate of 60 '
gallons per minute (gpn). If flocculation/sedimentation is used, the
water ....uuld be pu~ into a storage tank. Lime and a polymer ....uuld be
added to water taken fran the tank, resulting in aggregation and settle-
ment of insoluble metal contat\inants in the water.
-23-
-------
TABLE 5
TECHNQLCGIES CONSIDERED FOR SCREENING
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLESTON, SOOTIi CAroLINA
Possible Technologies
Eliminated (E)
or
Retained (R)
If Eliminated
Reason for
D::>ingSo
I.
Groundwater Technologies
A.
Grourdwater Contaimtent
1.
2.
Slurry Wall
Grout Curtains
B. Groundwater Recovery
1. Pumping (Extraction wells)
2. Subsurface ~ains
C. Groundwater TreatJnent
L Floccul at ion!SedDnentat ion
2. Filtration
3. Air Strippirq
4. Spray Irrigation
5. Activated Carbon Adsorbtion
6. Ion Exchange/Sorptive Resins
7. Reverse OS'OOsis
8. Biological Treatment
D. Groundwater Disposal
1. Discharge to Surface water
I 2. Reinjection
3. Pump to Local wastewater
Treatment Plant
-24-
R
E
R
E
R
R
R
R
R
R
E
R
R
E
R
More expensive and less
effective than slurry
walls
Hydraulic conductivity
may be high
Expensive, dilute waste
stream
Complex and. e.xpensive
compared to surface
discharge
-------
'. ~.. :. Ii., ,"......':':: ..:-.:.. .4, ":,,,,,.,,,:,,~,,,~--:,-.J.. ...;..:..
TABLE 5 (continued)
Possible Technologies
El iminated (E)
or
Retained (R)
If El iminated,
Reason for
I:biI'¥JSo
II. Soil Technologies
1. Extraction (Soil Flushil'¥J) E
2. SOlidiiication/Stabilization R
3. Attenuation E
'4. Imnobilization E
5. Incineration R
6. Cappil'¥J R
7. ,vegetative Gover R
"8. Excavation and Off-site Disposal R
9. Partial Excavation with
On-site Disposal R
10. On-site Containment/Encapsulation R
Not appl icable to
waste characteristics
Not applicable to
site charact~ristics
Unknown reliability
and effectiveness
-25-
-------
.. .'~' "..-. . :,".:. ~ -
" " " .
.' '. .....,.. '-_....-... - . -
. - .
'--.".--"-;"
TABLE 6
S LMMARY OF PRESENT ~RTH COSTS
GEIGER (C&M OIL)SITE
CHARLE'STON, SO[JI'H CAROLINA
CAPITAL,COST PRESENT WJR1'H TOrAL PRESENT
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES $1000 O&M COST WJRl'H CCST
$1000 $1000
GROUNtWATER ALTERNATIVES:
A-1 Extraction, Air Stripping 392 1,334 1,726
and Disposal (1) (756) (1,474) (2,230)
A-2 Extraction, Flocculation/ 930 1,573 2,503
Sed~ntation, Filtration,
Carbon Adsorption, and Disposal
A-3 Extraction and Treatment at POIW 833 670 1,504
A-4 Slurry wall and Cap 4,328 626 4,954
SOILS ALTERNATIVES:
8-1 Cap 567 405 972
8-2 V~etative Cover 214 405 619
Gravel Cover 256 397 653
8-3 Partial Excavation and Cap 614 405 1,019
8-4 Partial Excavation and
Vegetative Cover 261 405 666
Gravel Cover 312 397 710
8-5 Excavation, On-site Incineration, 5,191 367 5,558
and Solidification/Stabilization
8-6 Excavation and Off-site Disp)sal 3,910 367 4,277
NO ACTION 0 0 0
NO ACrION WIre MONITORING 0 367 367
(1) Numbers in parentheses inclda cost for flocculation/sedimentation
-26-
-------
.~.-~- . _..-.. J . '--';".-
The water would spread over plastic media in the column as it falls, while
air blown upward through the column removes the volatile contaninants by
mass transfer. The treated groundwater would be discharged to the stream
~st of the site.
The recarrnended alternative is for extraction, treatment, and discharge ot"
groundwater. Extraction and discharge will be as outlined abo\1e, but the
actual treatment system will be chos~n as a result of treatability studies"
to be performed on contaminated groundwater from the site.
The voll.Jt\e of contcminated groundwater is estimated to be approximately
62 million gallons. Punping would continue until the indicator chemical
concentrations are at or below the cleanup goals specified in Table 3.
Alternative A-2:
Groundwater Extraction, Optional Flocculationl
Sedimentation, Carron Adsorption, and Disposal
This alternative includes treatment of extracted groundwater by floccula-
tion and sed~ntation to remove metals if, during pre-design sampling of
monitoring wells, it is dete~ined that metals are present above the
groundwater cleanup goals, or that discharge of water containing untreated
metals WJuld prasent a threat to the envirorment. The carbon adsorption
process would ranoy~ volatile and extractable organics. All organic
contaminants would be removed to levels at or below cleanup goals estab-
lished in Section 4. If used, flocculation! sedimentation would also
r6'l\0v~ metals to levels below claanup goals. Groundwater WJuld be pUItped
fron several on-site IoIells at a rate of 60 GFM to a storage tank. If the
flocculation! sedimentation option is used, lime and a polymer would be
added to water taken fran the storage tank, resulting in aggreJation and
settlement ot insoluble metal contaminants in the water. This water
would then pass through cohmns ot granular activated carbon (~C), which
would adsorb organic conpounds in the water. Treated water would be
discharged to the str~am 'M:!st of the site.
The estimated volt.rne of water to be pl..ll\p~ under this alternative is 62
million gallons.
The recommended alternative is for extraction, traatrnent, and discharge of
groundwater. Extraction and discharge will be as outlined above, but the
actual treatment systan will be chosen as. a result of treatability studies
to be performed on contaninated groundwater from the site.
Alternative A-3 - Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
at Privately-0wned Treatment Works (PQTW):
This alternative would involve treatment of groundwater at an existing
local publicly-owned trt:!a tnent works (P01W). Groundwater w::>uld be
pUtlped tron several on-si"te ....ells at a rate of 60 GFM and would be conveyed
by an iron pipeline to a sew;r line six miles from the site.
-27-
-------
punped fran several on-site wells at a rate of 60 GPH and ....ould be conveyed
by an iron pipeline to a sewer line six miles fran the site.
A risk of spreading contaa\ination ....ould exist, as leaks could occur in
the pipeline or sewer, allowirg untreatoo groun::iwater to escape into the
envirorment. The roIW does not <""\lrrently accept industrial waste and has
indicated a reluctance in acce()tiry waste fran tha Geigel. (C&M Oil) site.
ALso, alternative A-2 (above) provides the same level of remediation, at
relatively little cost increase, without the environmental risks associated
with off-site transport of contaminated groundwater. For these reasons,
this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative A-4 - Slurry Wall and Cap
This alternative w:>uld not treat grourrlwater, but w:>uld reduce the migra-
tion of contamination by ()reventing groundwater movement through the area
enclosed by the slurry wall, and oy ra:1ucing infiltration of surtace water
Contaminated ground\leter ....ould remain on-.site.
A circunferential slurry wall of low permeaoility would be placed around
the perimeter of the groundwater contamination pllJ1\e. The wall ....ould
extend into tha Cooper Marl, a formation of low-permeability which hes
at a depth of about 50 feet. A impermeable cap, consisting of 24 inches
of canpacted clay, a 2a-mil synthetic liner, 12 inches of gravel, a
geotextile fabric layer, and an 18-inch vegetated to()soil layer, w:>uld be
placed over the area oounded by the slurry wall. This cap would greatly
redu:e infiltration of preci()itation, and lateral and vertical migration
of contaminated grourrlwater ....ould be impeded Oy the slurry wall and the
COoper r1arl, respectively.
Soil ranediation ....ould not be required under this alternative, as the areas
of highest soil contamination would be covered oy the ca(), preventing the
spread of conta~inated soils. However, areas of lesser soil contaTIination
w:>uld remain in place and contaminated groundwater outside of the slurry
wall ....ould continue to migrate off-site.
This alternative has been rejected because contaminated grourrlwater and
soils ~uld remain on-site, and not all groundwater ....ould be remediated.
In addition, the expected effective life of the Slurry wall and cap is only
thirty years. Should failure occur, contaminants would be free to "migrate
off-site.
5.2 GROUP 8 ALTERNATIVES - SOIL REHEDIATIOO
Alternative 8-1:
Cap
" "
This alternative ....ould involve construction of a three-layered cap over the
area of highest soil contamination, thus reducing the risk of hunan and
environmental contact with contaTIinated soils. Infiltration of surface
water and the resultant production of leachate would be reduced.
-28-
-------
! .
!
A cap conformirg to RCRA guidelines w::>uld be constructed over a 1.2-acre
area of soil contamination. This w::>uld be the oil-stained area on the .
site. '!he cap w::>uld consist of a t....o-foot thick canpacted clay layer, a
twenty-mil synthetic liner, and a one-foot thick gravel draina:Je layer.
OVerlyirg these w::>uld be geotextile fabric aoo eighteen inches of topsoil.
The topsoil 'l«)uld be graded to a tw::> percent slope and vegetated to pronote
run-off and control erosion. Human and environmental contact with
contaminated soil beneath the cap w::>uld be eliminated. Infiltration of
surface water w::>uld be greatly reduced due to the design ot the cap.
i .
This alternative is eliminated from consideration because areas of soil
contauination outside the oil-stained area w::>uld still subject hlJUan and
envirormental receptors to the risk of contact with contcrni.nants. Also,
groundwater w::>uld continue to be contaminated as it flows laterally across
the site, comirg into contact with the soil beneath the cap. Contaminants
w::>uld remain on-site and continue to act as a source of groundwater
contamination. Also a permanent remedy is practicable and meets the
requirements of SARA, Section 121.
Alternative B-2:
Vegetative or Gravel Cover
Under this alternative,' a vegetative or gravel cover w::>uld be placed over
the highly-contaminated oil-stained area, preventirg human and environmental
contact with the covered soil.
A vegetative cover w::>uld be constructed by placirg an l8-inch layer of
topsoil over the oil-stained area. This topsoil w::>uld be graded to a
2-percent slope and v~etated. A diversion ditch w::>uld be constructed at
the higher end of the cover to reduce run-on of surface water tran other
areas of the site.
An optional cover of gravel rather than v~etated topsoil would allow
current use of the site tor equipment storage to continue.
Both types of cover are el~ninated from consideration because contaminated
soil w::>uld remain on-site and w::>uld act as a source of continuing
- contat\ination of groundwater. Contaninated soil outside the oil-stained
area w::>uld remain in its current condition, posing a potential risk of
exposure to hlJt\an and environmental receptors. Infiltration of precipita-
tion w::>uld continue, with the possibility ot resultant leachate generation.
Groundwater w::>u1d continue to come into contact with contaminated soil
beneath the cover. Also, a permanent ranedy is practicable and meets the
requireuents of SARA, Section 121.
-29-
-------
",-- -- .' - '." :.~... "
. .
Alternative B-3:
Partial Excavation, On-Site Disposal, and Cap
This alternative would involve placement of contaninated soils which are
outside the oil-stained area onto the oil-stained area, and then capping
the area.
Approx~ately 53iOOO cubic feet of contaninated soil would be excavated
am placed over the contaminated soil in the oil-stained area. This area
is about 1.2 acres in size. A cap conforming to OCRA standards, as
described in Alternative B-1, would be constructed over this area.
This cap w:>uld prevent hunan and environmental contact with any contani-
nated soil on the sitoa. fOwever, contaminants would still be present as
a source material, contacting and contaninating the ground\06ter. This is
not a permanent remedy, whereas a permanent remedy which meets the requir~
ments of SARA, Section 121, is practicable at this site. Therefore, this
alternative is eliminated from consideration.
Ai ternative B-4:
Partial Excavation, On-Site Disposal, and Vegetative or
Gravel Cover
Under this alternative, the oil-stained area w:>uld be covered with conta-
minated soils from other areas ot the sitae A vegetative or gravel cover
w:>uld be placed over these soils in the manner described under Alternative
8-2. Human and environmental contact with contaninated soil w:>u1d be
e1~inated.
This alternative is e1~inated from consideration because contaminants
w:>uld remain on the site as a source material, contributing to groun:iwater
contamination. Soils beneath the site w:>uld continue to contact ground-
water, and precipitation would continue to infiltrate the soils, producing
contaminated leachate. Also, a permanent r~lIedy meeting the requirements
of SARA, Section 121, is practicable at this site.
Alternative B-5:
Excavation, On-Site Thermal Destruction, and Stabilization!
Solid if ication
This alternative w:>uld consist of excavation of all contaninated soils on
the site, thermal destruction of these soils in an on-site mobile thermal
destruction unit, treatment of the organic contaminants in soil with
stabilization/solidification reagents, and then backfilling excavated
areas with the treated soi1. Organic contaminants would be destroyed,
and metals would be stablized so they will not migrate.
Approximately 11,300 cubic yards ot contaninated soil would be excavated
on the site from the areas ShOwn in Figure 4. The oil-stained area would
be excavated to a depth ot about S teet, while the additional areas would'
be excavated to a depth ot about 1 foot. Field analyses or a local lab
would be utilized during excavation to deter~ine actual depths so that
all soils contaninated above the clean-up goals would be removed.
-30-
-------
'. . :.~.....
. ~ . . ,. - . - .
. ~ .- . -...---. -
, .
The recamnended alternative for groundwater remediation incllrles .ground-
water extraction througn the use ot on-site wells; thus the soils.. would.
be dewatered prior to excavation.
A. mobile thermal destruction unit would be used to destroy organics in
the excavated soils. Following thermal treatment, the soils would be
treated by a stabilization/solidification (S/S) [X"ocess which would
reduce the mObility and solubility of the metals in the soils. The S/S
process involves the use of chemical reagents which react with the metal
ions to form a chemically and mechanically stable solid.
The treated soil would be placed back into the excavated areas, and the
site covered with gravel to allow present use of the site to continue.
This alternative is a permanent remedy which ....ould destroy or reduce the
ad:>ility of all hazardous materials in the soils on the site. No risk of
human or enviro~ntal contact ....ould exist atter remediation, and the
threat of groundwater being contaminated by the source material ljo,Ould be
greatly reduced or eliminated. This alternative would not require long-
term maintenance. For these reasons, this alternative is the reCQm\ended
ranedy tor soil contamination at the Geiger (C&M Oil) site.
The preliminary soil cleanup goals given in Table 4 will be Subject to
refinement during remedial design as additional data concerning degrada-
tion, attenuation, and migration of contaminants is developed. The final
cleanup goals will be such tnat contaminant levels remaining in the soil
following treabnent will not raise contaninant levels in the groundwater
above the cleanup goals established in Section 4.
Alternative 8-6:
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
With this alternative, all contaminated soil on the site would be excava-
ted and disposed of at an off-site R:AA-approved hazardous waste landfill.
Approximately 11,300 cubic yards of soil ....ould be excavated fran the
areas sho""," in Figure 4. The oil-stained area ljo,Ould be excavated to a
depth of approximately 5 feet, with additional areas being excavated to
about one foot. Actual depths \<,Quld be determined by use of a local or
mobile lab during excavation to assure that all contaminated soil above
cleanup goals is removed. D=watering ljo,Ould be accomplished by use of the
. recommended groundwater alternative, which includes punping from on-site
\!Wells. Excavated soil ljo,Ould be .:arried to an approved hazardous waste
landfill. The nearest approved landfill which has been identified is GSX
located at Pineljo,Ood, South CacoL.na. This location is approximately 90
miles fran the site. ,
This alternative ljo,Ould result in the prevention of hUTIan and environmental
contact with contaminated soil a- the site. However, this is not a
permanent remedy, in that contam .nated soil ljo,Ould be tcansferred trem one ..
location to another. Undec Section 121 of SARA, this will be the least-
preferred remedy when a permanerlt cemedy is feasible. Because a viable
permanent remedy is availaole, this alternative is elLninated frem conside-
ration.
-31-
-------
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the no-action alternatil/e, groundwater and soil would not be re-
mediated. Monitorio:J is an option which mayor may not be impll:3'!1t!nted.
This alternative is presented to provide a base-level action, against
wt:J.ich other alternatives may be co-npared.
This no-action alternative would not be protective of human health and
the environment. Contaminated groundwater could eventually migrate to
residential wells do..mgradient of the site, and could discharge into the
Wallace River wetlands, which are inhabited by endao:Jered species.
The no-action alternative is rejected for these reasons, and because it
\1iOuld not coopl y wi th SARA requirements to reduce the volLme, mobil i ty ,
or toxicity of hazardous substances when treabnent to accomplish this is
feasible.
-32-
-------
0.. . ; "_0"'_- ..::-'_..;.r.4..~-"~
6. 0 RECOMMENDED ALTERL'lATIVES
6.1
DESCRIPl'ION Of RECCMMENDED REMEDY
The recommended alternati~es for remediation of groundwater and soil con-
tanination at tre Geiger (C&M Oil) site include extractioo, treatment, ard
discharge of groundwater; and excavation, on-site thermal treatment,
stabilizatiorVsolidification, and backfilling of contaninated soils on
the site.
Treatability stuHes will be performed to determine the grouoo\tater treat-
ment system or systans which will be uSEd. The system( s) may include air
stripping, carbon adsorption, flocculation/sedimentation or other appro-
priate grouoowater treatment technolo;Jies. All or any combination of
these may be inchrled to assure that the indicator chemicals are redu::ed
to concentrations at or below the clean-up goals specified in Table 3.
The treatment systel\( s) will also be selected and designed to assure that
concentrations of contaninants not incl udad as indicator chanicals are
redu::ed in the same proportion as the indicator chemical concentrations.
Contaninated soil will be treated oy use of an onsite thermal destruction
unit to destroy organic comp::>unds in the soil. All soil containing
indicator organic chemicals at levels above the.cleanupogoals will be
excavated and thermally treated. \mere indicator metals are aboJe the
cleanup goals followiOJ treaunent, the soii will also under go stabilization
/solidification. Following treatment, the soil will be placed back into
the exca'Jation and graded. At selected intervals during excavatioo, soil
sanples will oe taken and will be analyzed by a local or mobile lab to
determine the l:Lnits of excavations. It should be noted that the action
levels in 'lable 4 are preliminary goals ard are suOject to refinement
during remedial design.
8efore thermal treatment is implei'nent.ed, solidification/stabilization
will be evaluated to determine its ettectiveness in achiev ing the renedial
action goals.
These recommended alternati'Jes meet the requirements of the National Oil
anj Hazardous Substances Contingercy Plan U-CP), 40 CrR 300.68 (j), and
the 9Jperfund lmendments and teauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This
rema:1y permanently ard significantly reduces the volune of hazardous
substances in the groundwater, and redu::es the volune and/cr mobility of
contaninants in the soil. No long-term maintenance will be required for
this remedy.
These alternati'Jes are cost-effective when compared with other appliCable
alternatives. Alternative A-3 has a high risk of spreading contanination;
A-4
-------
- ~ v ..'
6.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
This remedy will require approximately 29 months for groundwater treatment
and 19 100nths for soil remediation, following design and contract award.
The total implementation time for these remedies will be approximately 3
years. When the remedy is canpleted, no long term operation and maintenance
(O&M) will be required.
Long term groundwater monitoring will be required to assure the effective-
ness and permanence of the soil and groundwater remedies. Monitoring
wells and residential wells on and off the site will be included in the
monitoring program. Groundwater sampling will be conducted quarterly for
the first two years, and yearly after that. Thirty years of monitoring
was included in cost estimates, but this period may be significantly.
less.
6.3 COOT OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
Capital cost for groundwater remediation is $392,000 to $930,000, and
system operating costs are $1,334,000 to $1,573,000. Long-term operation
& maintenance (0&~1) of this remedy is not required, but groondwater
monitoring will be necessary to assure the permanence of this remedy.
The present worth cost of monitoring was ca.1culated to be $367,200 based
on thirty years of annual monitoring. The actual monitoring period may
be less if no unacceptable contamination levels are detected during the
initial years following site remediation. The total present worth cost
of this alternative is $1,736,000 to $2,503,000.
Capital cost for soil remediation is $5,191,000 including actual system
operation. No long-term operation and maintenance will be required
following site remediation. Long-term groundwater monitoring will be
required to assure that this remedy is permanent. Monitoring costs are
given with the groundwater costs, and will not be duplicated for soil
treatment.
The total present worth cost of this remedy, including both soil and ground-
water remediation and long-term monitoring, is $6,917,000 to $7,693,400.
Cost-sharing responsibilities of the State of South Carolina are discussed
in section 8.0.
6.4
SCHEOOLE
The planned schedule for remedial activities at the Geiger (C&M Oil) site
is as follow:
May 1987
OCtober 1987
July 1988
January 1989
July 1991
Approve Record of Decision
Begin Remedial Design
Complete Remedial Design and Begin Mobilization
Complete ~bbilization, Equipment Installation, and Testing
Complete Remedial Activities
-34-
-------
'.' ," . ..
6.5 FU'lURE ACTIONS
FOllowing completion of r~TIedial activities, no furth~r action will need
to be performed to maintain this ranedy. The reccmnended alternatives are
a permanent remedy and will require no long term operation or maintenance.
IDrq term groundwater monitoring will be required to assure the effective-
ness of this remedy.
6.6 COOSISTENCY WITH ornER ENVIR:NtENTAL rAWS
REmedial actions performed uooer CERCIA rrust canply with all applicable
federal and state regulations. All alternatives considered for the Geiger
(C&M Oil) site 'Nere evaluated on the basis of the degree to which they
canplied with these reJulations. '!he recanmended alternatives were found
to m~t or exceed all applicable envirormental laws, as discussed below.
o
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The recommended remedy for soil contamination includes incineration,
which is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Incineration will be conducted entirely onsite and is therefore
exempt froTI all Federal, State, and local parmitting requiranents, 'as.
specified in SARA, Section 12l(e)(l). However, all substantive regulations
governirq incineration will be canplied with, even tholXJh a formal permit
is not required.
o
Clean Water Act
Contaninants have been detected in a marshy area near the site, but adverse
environmental impacts associated with remediating these areas would be
greater than any benefits which might be obtained. SOil remediation is
aUned at source control, and Unplementation of the recommanded alternative
would result in an end to further contamination of surface water.
o
Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988
This site does not lie within a floodplain and thus is not subject to the
requiranents of E.O. l19~8.
o
~partment of Transportation
Transport of hazardous substances is regulated by the Department of Trans-
portation (DOT). It resldual lnaterial results fran the groundwater trea,t-
ment system, it will be shipped to an off-site disposal facility. If
tests on the material indicate the need for disposal in a hazardous waste
tacility, DOT regulations governing its shipnent will be followed.
-35-
-------
1-
o
Occupational Safety and Health AdITdnistration
A health and safey plan will be developed during remedial design and wil~
be followed during field activities to assure that regulations of the
o::cupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are followed.
o
Safe Drinkil"WJ Water Act
Maximun Contaminant U:!vels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinkil"WJ Water
Act were found to be relevant and appropriate to remedial action at the
Ge iger si te. The cleanup goals for groundwater established in Section 4
use MCLs or proposed OCLs as the goal. when an M:L or PMCL has been set,
unless a more stringent criteria results in the use of a lower concentra-
tion limit.
o
National Pollutant Discharge El imination System
Discharge of treated groundwater is part of the recommended remedial
alternative. This discharge will meet effluent limit requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDFS). Jlquatic life
chronic toxicity values, which are used in the NPDES permittil"WJ system,
were used in determinin;J the groundwater cleanup goals in Section 4,
unless a lnore stringent criteria was used to set a lower concentration.
Bench-scale or pilot tests, incll.1hng bioassays, will be conducted where
appropriate during design of this alternative to set effluent limits, ana
to optimize the groundwater treatment system so that these effluent
limits are met.
o
Endal"WJered Species Act
The reconnended remedial alternative is protective of species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Iequiranents
of the Interagency Section 7 Consultation Process, SOCFR, Part 402, will
be met. 'The ~partment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, will be
consulted during remedial design to assure that endangered or threatened
species are not adversely linpacted by ~lementation of this remedy.
o
Ambient Air Quality Standacds
The incineration and groundwa:er treabnent systems will be designed and
monitored to assure that air .~issions meet all State and federal standards.
o
State Drinking Water Stanc ards
Maximu~ contaminant levels established by State of South Carolina regula-
tions are adopted fran those ot the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and
will be met as discussed aoove. .
-36-
-------
7.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
. .
A public meeti~ was hald on January 29, 1987, at the Ebllywood Town Hall
to discuss the remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study.
EPA did not indicate a preferance for a particular alternative. Comments
from the public did not favor any particular alternatives, and none of the
alternatives were op(;)Ose<1 by anyone. l'b coounents in regard to any ot the
alternatives were received during the three-week public comment period
which ended February 19, 1987.
The public did show a desire for remediation of the site, and seemed to
favor removal or destruction of contamination found in the soil and
groundwater. l'b op(;)Osition from the public is expected if the recc:mnended
remedial alternative is linplemented.
A Responsiveness S~~ry has been prepared to summarize community concerns
and EPA's community relations activities.
-37-
-------
. ..;".. -....._!.:'.~ ..
8.0 STATE INVOLVEMEm'
As required by CERCLA, Section l04(C), the State must assure payment of
ten percent of all costs of remedial action. Remedial action has been
defined in SARA as including all construciton and llnplementation activities
unti.1 site remediation is canpleted. Activities required to maintain the
effectiveness of the remedy following completion of the remedial action
is considered operation and maintenance (O&M). If surface water or
groundwater treatment is part of the remedy, only the first ten years of
such treatment will be considered as remedial action: the remaining period
of treatment will be a part of O&M activities. The State is required to
pay 100 percent of all O&M following ccrnp1etion of the remedial action.
EPA and the State may enter into an agreement whereby EPA \oOu1d fund 90%
of O&M costs, for a period not to exceed one year, until the remedy is
determined to be operational and functional.
A summary of State cost-sharing obligations for the recommended alternative
at the Geiqer (C&M Oil) site is shown in Table 7. The State of South
Carolina's cost-sharing responsibility would be in the range of $809,600
to $876,600.
The State of South Carolina has been consulted on the selection of this
remedy. The State has concurred, but has pointed out that their funds
for cost-sharinq are limited. Although the State presently has funding
to cover their share of this remedial action, they are concerned about
funding problems on future remedial actions at other NPL sites in the state.
The State's letter of concurrence may be found in Appendix B.
-38-
-------
~_. ,- .:._.."" .-':'1.";..': . ::-
TABLE 7
i
1 .
"
STATE COST-SHARING CBLlGATIONS
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
EPA
STATE
TOrAL
DESIGN 1,116,700-1,224,100 0 1,116,700-1,224,100
CAPITAL COSTS 4,019,900-4,406,600 446,700-489,700 4,466,600~4,ij96,300
IMP LmENTATION 869,8UO-1,085,100 96,60U-120,600 966,400-1,205,700
FIRST-YEAR MONITORING 101,000 11,200 112,200
LCN}-TERM t-mITORING 0 255,100 255,100
'forAL 6,107,400-6,816,800 809,600-876,600 6,917,000-7,693,400
-39-
-------
APPENDIX A
U.S. nSH AND WILDLIfE SERIVCE
CO~PONDENCE
. .
-------
: '". -" - ...." ,.-." - -~ - .
~ ...-;-~ 7"
.~:~~.: ,
~~.'
- '.~--'J
.--:~
"" .,;
L!litcd St:ltCS Dl'p:ll:tll1l'1l1 fJr Illl' Illterior
I I" II \ \, I) \ \ II I) I ! I I " I i.:' ~ 1 :
; '.!, \ '.1. j :: I ;} ""I'; I : I . : .
i'lll'l II" 11:1; , ;;1 ,., ...
\'111.\ 11.1.1. '.,()I: III ( \1:11( ,'. \ ~,,'i:
January 21, 1987
IN ~EPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-87-105
Mr. Thomas M. Roth
Remedial Project Manager
Emergency and Remedial Response
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
ERR8/JtAS
Branch
~
Dear Mr. Roth:
."A-1U8UW l'
.~.. tA
Your January 14, 1987, letter regarding Geiger (C & M Oil) hazardous waste
site in Charleston County, South Carolina, was received January 20, 1987.
have reviewed the project as requested with r2gard to endangered and
threatened species.
We
Th~ attached page lists the federally listed end~ngered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing ~s endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the area of influence of this action.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of the
Act are detailed in the enclosed material. Please retain this
information in your files for use in future Section 7 consultations.
If you have question'), please contact us at (704) 259-0321 (FTS 672-0321).
Your concern for endangered species is appreciat~d, dnd we look forward to
working with you on endangered species matters in the future.
CC:
Mr. John E. Cely, Coordinator, Nongame and Endangered Species,
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, SC 29202
Field Supervisor, ES, F~S, Ch~rleston, SC
Sincerely yours,
/-: . /
t/. /:J~t '. .~/ /~_' ~... \. /'... '
/ .
I'
~.' ,;/
V. Gary Henry
Acting Field Supervisor
South Caro 1 i na
A-l
-------
, I
.:.~. .'
..'//-.- .,:' '.
.~~:.~
. -'.~-"/
"~~~"'"
"', ...'
Lllitcd Statcs DCp:lrtlllClll ()r tl1L\ Interior
I l'i II \" It \\ ILl) 1.11 I ... I In t< I
i \ I) \ \ ( ,I !: I I) '1'1 ( II.., I II ; :) .' I '.; :' ,'.
11111 ( , I I.., .' I I: 1.1. I . I: I II I '.1 ..:..: I
.\:-:111.\11.11. '.(1/: III ('.\1«11.1\.\ ":'-"":
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-87-105
LISTED SPECIES
BIROS
Bald eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus (E)
Wood stork - Mycteria americana (E)
Red-cockaded wOOdpp.cker - Picoides borealis (E)
REPTILES
American alligator- Alliqator miSSissippi ens is (T)
STATUS REVIEW SPECIES
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response for
the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be listed
in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Endangered
Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
to avoid impacting the'n.
PL !\NTS
Incised groovebur - Agrimonia incisa
Cypress knee sedge - Carex decomposita
Chaff-seed - Schwalbea american a
AMPHIBIANS
Flatwoods salamander - Ambystoma r.inqulatum
BIROS
American swallow-tailed kite - El2noides forficatus forficatus
--.---
Bachman's sparrow - AimQ.e.~i).] 1'~s.rivaJis
i:R"'B I RA! I ~
A-2
I~.&.~.IOII I'
uu.'U. ;"
-------
APPI::NDIX B
STATE OF SOOTH CAROLINA
CORRESroNDI::NCE
-------
2600 Bull Street
Columbia. S.c. 29201
Commissioner
Michael D. Jarrell
. ,
- - ~ - -~- . .,-
, I
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
.-
.,v>-&$d"'~
.~o "." ~~ 1.:,
r , '.. .~
,I - -- 1 ~
... ~.
~j
Huard
\Iu,<,) H. l'iJr~,.)n..Ir. lh.o
-------
". "- :. ~ _. .,~. .. ',. ~ .
--".'_.-. ~-";;..~."'."~ Co' -. ~._..;_i
. '-' -
\ I
Mr. Tom Roth
February 23, 1987
Page 2
'.
,: ~~
8.
(section 4.1, Page 16, Foorth paragra~)
'I11e Draft RJD states that RCRA regulations require cleanup for
certain listed oontaminants. A list of contaminants in the
GroJn:1water at Geiger that ~d be
-------
, ~ "...
Mr. Tarn Roth
February 23, 1987
Page 3
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call;-
Sincerely,
- .-/ \ : -j-.;"(-:..-'(-
: J -~~, ~~ I.., I
'-- , .. -
Chris D. Stata1
~i "'1 Response Section
9.1reau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management
a:s: elf
cx:: Ken Taylor
Wayne Falmin;r
Ron Kinney
B-3
-------
\~~a 5r..~
. ,]I' ~~
... . ...
fl.. I 'i
:S'"
;: ,
~ ~
~ ~
\.. -,,-
,,( ;:IQ01~"'"
UNITED ST A TES ENVI RONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
REF:
4WD-ER
.MAR 06 1987
C1ris Staton
Sout~ Caroiina Depart~ent
Health and Environmental
260u dUll Street
COlumbia, S.C. 2~20l
ot
Control
Dear Mr. Staton.
This is in r~$ponsa t~ Y0UC Faorudry 23, 1987, comments on the draft
~coru of Uccision (ROD) tor the ~ig~r (C&M Oil) site. As requested, I
am rasponding to itens ~, 10, 11, and 13 of your previous letter.
Reply to Carment 5: Envirorm~ntal receptors do inclwe aquatic lite
i~esting surrace water in the onsita ponds and tne discharge strca.n.
Surtace water in th~se areas contains elevated levels ot same contaninants,
but thoa concentrations ara oot -Jreat eoolgh to warrant remediation. The
purpose ot Section 3.5 ot the ROD is to identify receptors and potential
receptors of site contaminants; no attempt is ,nade in this section to
evaluate hedltn or environmental risks posed to these receptors.
Reply to Carment 10: The need ior soil remediation was evaluated oas
-------
that ccmedies utilLzinJ cceat.;tE:!nc to r-~Juc,; C:1~ v;)lune, ,n~l)i.Lic:!, oc
cox icity ot nazar-(1Ous :3UDstances will be pt'dt<:cr~d O,h~C thoSe 'N'hicrl. (;..)
not util ize SUCh treat;nent. ~ other 3ltarnati./,;s wc soil c=,nedi.ltlan
examined in the Feasioility Study meet the~t;:! cequirements.
. Response to Cocrment 11: Section 4.3 ot tne ROD has been changed to retlect
'the assumption that most surtace run-ott tram the contaninated sOlls is
cdt>tured oy tne on-si te fX)nds and i.s not like ly to Lnpact. the swa..nb).
Response to Ccmnent 13: L:Jng-term rnonitorirq ....auld be required to assure
that this remedy is eftective and pe~nanent. Soil cleanup levels will be
established based upon modeling and testing ~t;:!r::to~ned betora remedial dction.
Monitoriny will confirm that these cleanup goals were adequate and that
contaminants lett in the ::;oil are not degradif'kJ the groundwater. Should
solidification/stabilization be used, monitoring will allow us to judge
the effectiveness and peananence of the Unmobilization of the ~etals.
Also, the ettectiveness ot the groundwater extraction system in removing
contaminated groundwater can be ju::iged by .nonitoring data.
The present ...orth cost of monitorirq was developed in the Feasibility
Study assLmif'kJ thirty years 0 f mon i torif'kJ. This period may be shortened
sUbstantially if the results ot early monitoring indicate acceptable
eftectiveness and peananence ot the ranedy.
We are reviewiny our policy on State cost-sharing responsibilities, and
will discuss this with you in the nt;:!ar future. Please contact me at
(404) 347-2643 if you have any questions on this ceply t.o your comments.
1C r&--
Thanas M. RDtn
Remedial ProJect Mana:;jer
~T\ergency and Remedial Response Branch
, ,
B-5 '
-------
, --
. .."-" 0... '.
~D n.~4'
:ftlj
\=~
"'-.( fIflt(J'Ct-,,:!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
REF:
4WD-ER
a:>n Kinney, ktirg Director
Division of Site Engineering
and Response Activities
South Carolina Deparment of
Heal th & Envirormental Control
. 2600 Bull Street
CoIl.It\Dia, South Carolina 29201
Dear ME.". Kinney:
'!his letter is in .response to your De~tment' s recent request for
clarification of State cost-snarirg responsibilities for remedial design
and remedial action at privately-owned NPL SUperfund sites.
As required by CERCIA, Section 104(C), the State must assure pa;rment of
ten percent of all costs of ranedial action. Remedial action has been
defined in SARA as includirg all construction and Unplementation activities
until site remediation is canpleted. ktivities required to maintain the
effectiveness of the remedy followirg completion of the remedial action
is considered operation and maintenance (O&M). If surface water or
groundwater treatment is part of the remedy, only the first ten years of
soch treatment will be considered as remedial action; the remainirg period
of treatment will be a part of O&M activities. '!he State is required to
pay 100 percent of all aiM followirg canpletion of the remedial action.
EPA and the State may enter into an agreement whereby EPA ~uld fund 90
percent of aiM costs, for a period not to exceed one year, duri~ which
the remedy is determined to be operational am funtional.
A sumnary of State cost-sharing obligations for the recanmended alternative
at the Geiger (C&M Oil) site is enclosed. Also enclosed is the Final
Draft Record of Decision for the Geiger site. We are requesting concurrence
by the State of South Carolina on this R:)D, and ask that you sutmit a
reply to EPA as soon as a decision on concurrence is made.
I have reviewed your letter of September 25, 1986, to Dennis Marganiello
rega.rdi~ the SOIDI-Dixiana site. There appears to be sane confusion
about the cost share. \'bile the lanJ~e in the Dixiana R:)D may be
liberally interpreted it can in no way be viewed as a waiver of site
construction cost. '!he State I'!IJst pay 10 percent of all construction
related activities. In addition the State is responsible for 10 percent
of O&M for the first year and 100 percent thereatter. The discussion .of
100 percent Federal funuirg only refers to remedl~al design cost. '.
B-6
-------
Please contact ~e at (404) 347-2643 if you have any further questions
regardin:J this matter.
ssell Wright, Olief
. Remedial Action Section
Emergency and Remedial Response Branch
Enclosure
B-7
-------
STATe: ::::()S[-S;i.~~I':~"; ,;:3L..[~";.';:[.)'JS
G~[GER (C&M 0(L) S[r~
. .
t::PA
STATt::
TCYl'AL
DESIGN 1,116,7UU-l,ll4,1Uu \J 1,116,700-1,224,100
CAPITAL COSTS 4,U19,~UU-4,4U6,6UU 446,7UO-48~,7UO 4,466,6UO-4,896,300
IMPLI:11ENTATION 869,8UO-1,085,100 96,60U-12U,6UU 966,400-1,205,700
~IRST-YEAR MONITORING 101,000 11 , 2UO 112,200
LONG-TERM MONITORING U 255,1UO 255, 10C
TOTAL 6,107,4UO-6,816,8UO 809,60U-876,6UO 6,917,000-7,693,400
II
B-8
-------
. -. :..~...
. . . .-.... -.~
.' '. . - ~.- '~" . '.-
Commissioner
Mi,hael D. Jarrell
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
"~~\'
«t~~"'~~io'~
/_'.~..
~.
Huard
~6{~) Bull Street
Columbia. S.c. 29201
\1.:.....-.. H (_..II~','n r~. ( ':.I.:-~~i.I::
l'l.:r~t;J \ ".1~ n.hJ. \ .",~'-l ;I.it.;~ I::
()r," I. tir"l.!\..Ir. ~\'\rc:.,,".
H"rt>M.1 I' 'uc"k
.I ""1"'\. "pruril. .I r
\\ lIi,"m H Hc',,,. \1 I>
fUI" \1 C.>I\1". \1 I>
May 6, 1987
Mr. Jack Ravan
Regional Administrator
us EPA Region rv
345 Courtland street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Fir1a1 Draft Record of Decision (roO)
Geiger (C&M Oil) Property
O1arleston County, South Carolim
Dear Mr. Ravan:
RE:
.... .
'!he Department has reviewed the Final Draft roo received on March 9,
1987. '!he EPA recommended alternatives include extraction, treament and
discharge for contaminated groun:iwater, and excavation, on-site
incineration, stabilization/solidification and backfillinq for contaminated
soil. '!he Department, with reservations, concurs with EPA's Final Draft
roo and specifically with the selected ~;;jl alternatives. As require1
by CERC!A section 104 (c), the state hereby assures payment of 10 percent
for remeclia1 construction and implementation of the selected alternatives.
Also, the State will pay 10 percent of the first year of 0 & M and
thereafter pay 100 percent of 0 & M costs for a rnaxinu.tm of 29 years. Since
the Department is concurrirq with an on-site permanent remedy, the
Department retains the right to adjust the groun:iwater sarrrplinq frequency
durinq the thirty year IOOnitorinq period, if early l1'Onitorinq results
irxiicate that the penDanent relteJy was effective.
'!he Department has numerous reseJ:Vations about this concurrence. '!he
state of Scuth Carolina has established a Hazardous waste eonti.rqency Fund
to meet the State's match on NFL sites, ~ other goals. However, Fund
availability on the State level has no effect on the EPA' s selection
alternative. It the State cannot concur with the EPA alternative then no
SUperfun:l remeclia1 action is allowed. F\.1rthe1:m::)re, CERC!A section 121
calls for EPA to prefer on-site methods of treatment that pennanently
reduces the volume, toxicity or IrObility of the hazardous waste. However
off-site treatment of the coz:lt;aminated material should not be totally
disallowed as an acceptable permanent corrective action option. From the
State's perspecti va, the ultimate transport ani disposal of contanU;1ated
materials in a RCRA a~roved facility may be the most cost effective
alternative. '!he'goal of removal of the contaminates from the uncontrolled
site to a controlled, monitored site is met in this manner.
B-9
-------
. . .~ .
, '
, I
Mr. Jack Raven
Page '!Wo
May 6, 1987
'!he state realizes the pressure EPA is 1.U1der to select on-site
pemanent remedies but due to the State's limited f'unis and the-' Current
. ,status of ten (10) final ard five (5) proposed NFL sites-; the state must be
concerned about future concurrence with EPA selected altematives.
Sincerely,
~~~
R. Lewis Shaw
Dep.rt:y Camnissioner
Environmental Quality Control
RIS/lmm
cc:
C'lris staton
Bob Kin;
Ron Kinney
Wayne Fannirq
Ken Taylor
,.
B-IO
-------
APPENDIX C
CAu..uLArION Or' PRELIMINARY
SOIL CLEANUP GOALS
. .
-------
-- ~ ~- -- - - -
~. ~ ~'".' ".. .. ~..
-~ . , ~'. .-- '-. . - --
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE CALCULATION OF SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS
Contaminants remaining in the 5011 following a site cleanup may, over time,
leach into groundwater. A model was developed to calculate eontaminant
. concentrations in soil at the Geiger site that would not result in future
exceedences of target groundwater concentrations.
The model assumes that a certain percentage of th~ rainfall at the site will
infiltrate the site and desorb contaminants from the soil based on an
equilibrium soil-water partitioning. It is further assumed that this
contaminated infiltration will mix completely with the groundwater below the
site, resulting in an equilibrium groundwater concentration. In order to back
calculate soil concentrations, the rate of mixing of infiltration with
groundwater is first estimated. Starting with the target groundwater cleanup
concentrations, the mixing rate is used to back calculate contaminant
concentrations in the infiltr~ti~n. These concentrations can be related to
soil concentrations using the soil-water equilibrium relationship.
The mixing of groundwater and infiltration and the resultant contaminant
concentrations in groundwater are related as follows (Summers et al. 1980):
OpCp
Cgw -
Op + Ogw
where:
Cgw
Qp
. contaminant concentration in the groundwater (ug/l);
. volumetric flow rate of infiltration (soil pore water)
groundwater (ft3/day); .
. volumetric flow rate of groundwater (ft3/day); and
into the
Qgw
Cp
. contaminant concentrations in the infiltration.
The contaminant concentrations in the groundwater, Cgw, are the target
groundwater cleanup levels, provided by EPA and shown in Table 1. The
volumetric flow r.ate of infiltration, OP, is taken as the total rainfall from
-------
'-. -...
'- _.~..~':~~.... ;.',;'.. .::
, .~. .,: . - . :::.,,, ~'.. .,,:. #..' -. -. .
: \
rASL:: 1
INDICATOR C~E~ICAL C~IC::~li~A7:CNS I~j SOIL
PROTECTIVE OF G?C~NC~AT::~
Groundwater Partitton Protective. -
Cleanup Concentration Coefficient, Soil
Level, Cgw in Infiltration, Kd Concentration, Cs
Indicator Chemical (~gl1i ter) Cp (m1/g) (~g/kg)
Benzo[aJpyrene 0.003 0.011 a9,749 107
Benz[a]anthracene 0.003 0.011 a 1 ,Z56 14
Benzo[b andl 0.003 0.011 a 1 ,545 17
or kJfluoranthene
PCB (Aroclor 1254) 0.0079 0.029 b3,626 105
Benzene 1.2 4.44 cO.325 1.44
trans-l.2- 70 259 cO.295 76
Dichloroethylene d20
Chromium 50 185 3,700
Lead 50 185 e900 166,500
Toluene 175 647.5 c1.5 971
1.2-Dichlorobenzene 15.8 58.5 c8.5 497
l,l-Dichloroethane 5 18.5 cO. 15 2.78
aCallahan et al. (1979), Radding et al. (1976), Verschueren (1983).
bWeber et al. (1983).
'EPA (1986>-
dSaes and Sharp (1983). Gerritse (1982).
eBaes et al. (1984).
I.
I
NOTE: Percent organic carbon assumed to be 0.51 for derivation of
coefficients for organic chemicals.
Groundwater cleanup levels provided by EPA
- .
2
-------
t;, e sit e '::- : ~ G :- :. e oj ~ s 4 3 . 1 i n c h e s 1= e: :; e:l r i n ~ ~: .~ I
i;PCi:,' ~: ;:.~ 5 :--=
potential eva~otranspiration of 38 inches per ye~r (Ger~;n~y et ai. :;72: :~
214 ft3/day. The volumetric flow rate of groundwater, Qgw, is .estima~:a as
the average linear groundwater velocity times the area of the acuifer.
perpendicular to the groundwater flow across the contaminate1 area of the site:
where
Qgw . (VH LHD)
V. groundwater velocity. (K)(h)/n
where k. hydraulic conductivity (ft/day);
h . hydraulic gradient (ft/ft); and
n . soil porosity (dimensionless)
L. length of the aquifer perpendicular to flow; and
D. depth of the aquifer
Values for the parameters 11sted above were taken from the RI report, except
for porosity. which was assumed to be 0.35. fo.r sandy .soi1 (Freeze and Cherry
1979). Th1s results in a flow of 567 ft3/day. The ratio of Qgw ~lus Qp to
Qp (3.7) is used to estimate concentrations of the indicator chemicals in the
infiltration (Cp).
-
The soil water partitioning model is expressed as
---
Cs . (KdHCp)
where
Cs - s011 concentration. ~g/kg;
Cp - concentrations in the infiltration, ~g/liter; and
Kd - an equilibrium partition coefficient. ml/g.
. .
3
-------
.. .-. '" . ..r '-'. -
_..: _.. ..'
" I
The calculation of protective soil concentrations is presented in Table 1.
The partition coefficients, Kd, came from various sources. For the organic
compounds (with the exception of PCBs) the partition coefficient is defined as
Kd . (Koc)( f oc)
where
Koc . the organic carbon partition coefficient; and
foc. the fraction of organic carbon in the soil.
Koc's were taken from the literature as noted in the table. No measurements
from the site were available, therefore the fraction of organic carbon in the
soil was assumed to be O.S~--typical for sandy soils. For PCBs the partition
coefficient was taken from an empirical study by Weber et al. (1983) on soils
with approximately O.5~ organic carbon. Partition coefficients for the
inorganics, lead and chromium, were taken from the literature as noted in the
table. These coefficients are average values from laboratory tests. They are
considered less accurate than the coefficients for organic chemicals, since
the partitioning of metals is dependent on numerous factors, including pH,
oxidation-reduction potential and the presence of other metals in the soil.
The model assumes an equilibrium partitioning of the contaminant between the
soil and the soil pore water, which may occur after a long period of time.
The model probably therefore overestimates the concentration in groundwater
associated with an actual soil concentration. It is therefore likely to
result in a lower soil cleanup level since it does not account for attenuation
of the contaminants in the unsaturated zone, biodegradation, or chemical
degradation of the contaminants. These factors cannot be included in the
model without extensive physical and chemical testing of the soil and
time-dependent groundwater monitoring.
The protective soil concentr~tions, as derived above, were then reviewed to
assess the risk from direct ,ontact. This assessment is presented in
Table 2. The exposure scena:'ios examined were the same as those prese"nted in .
the PHE: a current-use scerario involving on-site workers and a future-use
4
-------
-. ... ..'. h"':.__'"~:'''-''''';'''''''''
scenario involving children. The table is divided into C!r~1~cge~s !~:
noncarcinogens. For the carcinogens, the excess lifetime cancer risks ~!~;e
from approximately 6x10-7 to IxIO-11 versus the reference risk levEl of
10-6.
.Noncarcinogens, except for lead. are assessed using a hazard index, which is
defined as the ratio of the chemical intake to the acceptable daily intake. A
hazard index of greater than 1 indicates a potential unacceptable risk. All
of the hazard indices are less than one. For lead. EPA does not consider the
.ca1cu1ation of an acceptable intake to be appropriate because of high
background lead exposure for the entire population. However. the Centers for
Disease Control has found that blood lead levels in children, living near lead
sources appear to increase above background levels only when lead
concentrations in soil exceed 500-1,000 mg/kg--significantly above the
166.5 mg/kg estimated cleanup level (CDC 1985).
5
-------
TA8LE 2
RISKS ASSOCIATED WIT/I DIIIECT CONTACT WITH SOILS AT LEVELS PROTECTIVE OF GROUND WATER
A.
CARC IIWGEN I C
Chemi ca 1 Intake (DIg/kg/day)
Indicator Chemical
Protective
Concentration
in 5011
(DIg/kg)
Current Scenario:
On-Si te \oIorkers
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
future Scenario:
(hi ldren
Cancer Potency
factor
(mg/kg/day)-l
future Scenario:
Chi Idren
Current Scenario:
On-Site Workers
8enzo[a]pyrene 0.107 3. Ox 10-8 4.8xl0-6 11.5 3x 10-7 6)( 10-7
Denz[ a]anthracelle 0.014 4. hl0-9 6.7xl0-9 11.5 5.10-8 8x 10-8
8enzo[b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.oi7 5.2xl0-9 8.5xI0-9 11.56hlO-8 6x10-6 111 10-1
PCB (Aroclor 1254) 0.105 3 .Ox 10-8 4.8xIO-8 4.34 Ix 10-7 2x 10-7
Benzene 0.0014 2 .Ox 10-10 3. 7x 10-10 5.2xlO-2 Ix 10-11 2x10-11
i,
I'
I
B.
NONCARCINOGENIC
Chemical Intake (mg/kg/day)
Indicator Chemical
Protective
Concentration
in Soi 1
(mg/kg)
Current Scenario:
011-5 i te Workers
trans-l,2-Dichloroethy1ene
Chromium
Lead
Toluene
1,2-0ichloiobenzene
1,1-0ichlo}oethane
0.076
3.7
166.5
0.971
0.497
0.00278
7. 8x 10-8
3. 6x 10-6
1 . 6x 10-4
9.6xI0-7
4.8xI0-7
2.7x10-9
Huard Index
Future Scenario:
Chi Idren
Acceptable
Oai ly
Intake
(mg/kg/day)
future Scelli\rio:
Chi IdrclI
Current Scenario:
On-Si te Workers
2.8xI0-7
1.3x 10-5
5. 9x 10-4
3. 5x 10-5,
1 . 8x 10-6,
I. Ox 10-8
8x 10-6
7.10-4
(a)
3x 10-6
5x 10-6
2x 10-8
0.01
5x 10-3
(a)
0.3
0.089
0.12
3x 10:-5
3)('io-3
(o1~
h 10-4
I-
2x 10-;>
8)( IU-!I
(a) Calculation of an acceptable dai ly intake not recolIMnellded.
See tex t.
-------
.' .. ". '.".
- ~.~...~~,-."...-..:.~;~_........
- I
REFERENC~S
BAES, C.F., III, and SHARP, R.D. 1983. A-proposal for estimHion-of soil --
leaching and leaching constants for use in assessment models.
J. Environ. Qual. ~2:17-28
BAES, C.F., III, SHARP, R.D., SJOREEN, A.L., and SHOR, R.W. 1984. A Review
and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally
Released Radionuclides through Agriculture. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy. ORNL-5786
CALLAHAN, M.A., SLIMAK, M.W., GABEL, N.W., MAY, C.P., FOWLER, G.F., FREED,
J.R., JENNINGS, P., DUFREE, R.L., WHITMORE, F.C., MAESTRI, B., MAHEY,
W.R., HOLT, 8.R., and GOULD, C. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate
of 129 Priority Pollutants. 2 volumes. Office of Water Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA
440/4-79-029a,b
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC). 1985. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young
Children USDHHS, Atlanta, Georgia, January 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1986. Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
FREEZE, R.A., and CHERRY, J.A.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
GERAGHTY, J.J., MILLER, D.W., VANDER LEEDEN, F., and TROISE, F.L. 1973.
Water Atlas of the United States. Water Information Center Publication.
Port Washington, N.Y.
1979. Groundwater.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
GERRITSE, R.G., VRIESEMA, R., DALENBERG, J.W., and DEROOS, H.P. 1982. Effect
of sewage sludge on trace element mObility in soils. J. Environ. Qual.
11: 359-364
RADDING, S.8., et al. 1976.
Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
The Environmental Fate of Selected Polynuclear
EPA 560/5-75-009
SUMMERS, K., GHERINE, 5., and CHEN, C. 1980. Methodology to Evaluate the
Potential for Groundwater Contamination from Geothermal Fluid Releases.
EPA 600/7-80-117
VERSCHUEREN, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York
WEBER, W.J., VOICE, T.M., PIRBAZACI, M., HUNT, G.E~, and ULANOFF, D.M. 1983.
Sorption of hydrophobic compounds by sediments, soils and suspended
solids--II. Water Res. 17:10. Pp. 1443-1452
6
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GEIGE~ (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLESTON COONI'Y, SCXJrH CAROLINA
Prepareli by:
U.S. Enviro~nental Protection Ag~ncy
Reg ion IV
.l\tlanta, Georgia
MAR 1 8 1981
-------
.._d.....~ ....- ~-
'fMLI:: 01:" C\JNTr~NTS
lntro.Juction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.0 OVerview
1.1 HecexrunenuuJ Al ternative.
1. 2 Expecteu I?ubl ic K..;action
. . . . . .
. . . .
2
2
2
. . . .
2.0 Can:nunity HDlations anct CoIM\Unity Concurns . . . . . . . . .
2.1 8PA Coinrnunitj l~lations Activities. . . . . . . . . . .
:2.2 1'100 La Invo L V0l18n c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Community Co'H':;'jC!1::;.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Concerns ovec SaLe Drinkin~ wat9r .....
2.3.2 Concern~ ovec Dcun aurial on the Sita
~
.....
3
3
4
4
4
5
3. LJ SUJ'runary at Pub 1 ic G---i1'l1enc.s and EPA Responses. . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Corruncnt3 Zlnd l{~spon~85 r'1dde at Pub 1 ic Meet in-J. . . . . 6
J. L 1 Corunen ts on IU Procedures and Rusul ts . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2 COrrbi\ents on R2,nedial Alt8rnatives .. . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3 COTht\8nts on r'caSibilic.y Study. . . . . . . . . i5
3.1.4 COlruncnt3 on EnvicQl1Inental Concern~ . . . . . . . 16
3.1.5 COIbi18nts on Publ ic Heal U\ Conerns . 17
3.1.6 Coni!1(i!nt.s on IJCUifiS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .l'j
J .1.7 Con!t\ents 0[\ i::ntoCCl.?1nenc. Activities. . . . . . . 20
3.1.tj Misccllan~()Il::> Co.run8nt3 ............... ~1
J. L C011!nel1ts Rece lV\:!U wcing PulJlic CUtrun~nc. PlO!cLO'J ... 22
Ap[)er\\Jix A
Appt.:ndix ~
t\t)pendix C
Appendix D
N0WS AI: t. i.c L~s
LeJal Not\J:;
fact Sh~et.s dnu Pr0ss Releascs
CO(\1nent.::; i-:ec\J iveu wring rulH ic
Corunc:?nt P2CiOd
-------
Responsivenli!ss Summary
Geiger (C&M Oil) Site'
Charleston County, South Carolina
The Geiger (C&M Oil) hazardous waste site has been the focus of a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), conducted under EPA's
Superfund proyram. This RI/FS process began when tne site was placed on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in September, 19U3. Since that time,
EPA has attempted to address community concerns in an ongoing community
relations program.
This responsiveness summary has been prepared to present a surumarl ot
community concerns about the Geiger site which have be~n raised during
RI/FS activities. EPA's ettorts to address these concerns are also
discussed.
This responsiveness summarj includes three sections, as tollows:
Section 1
overview - This section discusse~ ~PA's r~comrnended alternative,
and liKely ~uolic reaction to this r~~edy.
Section 2
Community Relations Activities and CQ~unity Concerns - rnis
section addre~ses community relations activities initiated
oy C:;PA, and sunmarizes the prilnary concerns which local
citizens have about this site.
Section 3
Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses - This section
presents corunents made oy citizens at the puolic meeting held
. to discuss EPA's remedial alternatives, and presents written
carunents rli!ceived during the public com~ent period which
fol1o'M..~ tl1is meeting. EPA's responses to these catments are
also providcd.
-------
.. ~ ~
1.0
C'JIJERVI ~'l
1.1
Recommended Alternative
A public meetinq was held at the ~ollywood TOwn Hall in Hollywood,
South Carolina on January 29, 1987. The remedial alternatives developed
in the feasibility study were presented at this meeting, and ~nts on
the alternatives were !;Olicited. This tTteeting marked the start of a
three week public ccmnent period, durinq which time citizens were requested
to sutmit written ccmnents on the pr01;)OSed alternatives.
At the time of the public J'l'\eetinq, a recannended alternative had not been
selected. The public was informed that all of the alternatives presented
in the feasibility study were under consideration. The r~ial alternative
recomMended for this site soecifies extraction, treatment, and off-site
discharge of contaminated groundwater. Excavation, incineration, optional
stabilization/so1irlification, and replaceMent of contaminated soil is
also rec~ended. This alternative is detailerl in the Summary of pemedial .
Alternative Selection, which is nart of the ~ecord of Decision to be
suhmitted for review and anproval by the EPA, Reqion IV, Regional Administrator.
1.2
Expected Public Reaction
At the nublic meetinq, no oo~ents were ~de by the nublic expressing a
preference for a narticular alternative: however, one citizen said that
it would be easier to offer comments if EPA inrlicated which alternative
would be chosen.
~o opposition hv the nublic to the recommenderl alternative is expecterl.
The recommended alternative is a nernanent remedy, which will eliminate
or reduce the threat of. exnosure to contaminated soil and groundwater
under both nresent and future-use scenarios. This is in aqreement with
the general public opinion that future threats to human health associated
with this site should he alleviated.
An editorial in the Charleston Evenina Post on January 21, 1987, uraed
clean-up of the site, and advocated incineration as a treatment for soil
contamination (Appendix A).
-2-
-------
2.0
CG1MIJNITi RBLAfIONS ACrrVlT 11::5 ANU CG1MUNI'fY C()L\jCERNS
2.1
EPA Community Relations Activities
EPA initiated community relations activities at the Geiger site by
developi~ a Canmunity Relations Plan (CRP) for the site. The CRP,
tinalized May 20, 1~85, describes the history of citizen involvement at
the Geiger site and outlines proposed community relations activities
which were to be followed during the remedial investigation and feasibility
study.
A public information repository was established at the Hollywood Town
Hall for the purpose ot maintaining information on the site in a location
which would be accessible to local r~sidents. The ,CRP, Fact Sheets,
RIfFS documents, and general Superfund literature were placed in the
repository as they wer~ developed.
I2la Dickerson, Mayor ot Hollywooa, was tl\e primary intorrnation contact.
Communi~y relations activities were coordinated Witll !1ayor Dickerson to
assure that information was disseminated throughout the comu.mity.
An intorinal meetin-] was nela with local residents in July l~(j5 to discuss
RIfFS activities at the site. A fact sheet (Appendix C) was prepared to
into~ the public on upcolTIiny activities.
A tact sl1eet summarizing ~ne results ot the remedial investigation was
prepared in SeptemDer l~o6 and was mailed to all elected otticials, local
citizens, and other interested'parties identified in the CRP. The results
ot the investigation were discussed at a public meeting held byEPA on
Scptanber ~, 1~o6, at the Hollywood Town Hall. The fact sheet is contained
in Appendix C, along with the press release announcing this meeting.
Following comple~ion of w~e feasibility study, a tact sheet (Appendix C)
was prepared to summarize the proposed alternatives and to sOlicit
comments on these alternatives. This fact sheet was sent to all interested
parties identitied in the CRP. A leyal notice (Appendix B) summarizing
the alternatives and announcing the public comment period was printed in
the Charleston News and Courier on January 11 and January 28, 1987.
A public meetinng was held at the Hollywood Town Hall on January 29, 1987,
to present a sumnary at the feasibility study and to receive carunents on
the remedial alternatives. Approximately 35 people attended this meeting,
ana media interest was nigh. A press advisory announcing this 'neeting is
contained in Af'pendix C. A transcript of the meeting was pr.:l)arGd and
placed in the intormation repository. A summary of canments made at the
meetiny, alon~ with EPA's responses, is presented in Section 3.0.
-3-
-------
"
In res!;)Onsa to cat1ITents that drums may have been buried on tha', Gei'Jer
site, ~A conducted an investigation on february 12, l~~7, to lbcata '
possible buried drums. This investigation revealed no Crums buried on
the site. A fact sheet (Ap~ndix C) summarizing the results ot this
investigation was prepared and sent to all interested parties identitied
'in the CHP. '
The January 29 public meeting marked the start ot a tnree-week comment
period, which ended February 1~, 19~:n. During this period, the public
was invited to submit oral or written catT!\ents regarding proposed rEmedial
actions to EPA. Only one person subni tted canments during this period.
These ccmnents and EPA's response are sl.ltll11arized in Section 3.2.
i ".
I,
I
At the public meeting, a citizen asked if the carment period could be
extended because EPA was to conduct an investigation for buried druns.
EPA's response was that the carment period could be extended at the
request of the public if druns were found. The investigation ShCh1ed no
drums buried on-site, and no requests tor extension of the comment period
were received.
2.2
Media Involvement
Interest shown by the m~edia has been high at the Geiger site. 80th public
meetings received news coverage by Charleston newspapers and televison
stations. Newspaper reports and eaitorials are contained in Appendix A
ot this responsiveness surunary.
2.3
Community Concerns
The major concerns of citizens reyarding the Geiger sita are outlined
be 1 Chi . These concerns were stated at the pUbl ic meeting held
January 29, 19ij7, and during the threa-weeK public ca~nt ~riod which
tollowed this meeting.
2.3.1
Concerns Over Safe Drinking Water
Several citizens expressea concerns about whether their drinking water
was free fron contamination. £PAl s position, as stated at the public
meeting, is that contamination fram the Geiger site is not migrating into
residential wells near the site, either up-gradient or down-gradient of
the site.
Local officials are attempting to supply public drinking water to residents
in the area of the site, and have asked EPA to state that public water
should be provided because of uncertainties in the remedial investigation
-4-
-------
- ,; ~........ -:....:",:".-.~.~.....-:.. ~
results. Local officials contend that this recanmandation is.necessary
tor approval ot their application for grant money tor the water supply
system. EPA has concluded that the drinking water supplied by residential
wells is not endangered t:ry the site at this time, and public water supplies
. are not warranted on the basis of a public health threat tron the site.
Remedial activities will be performed by EPA betore residential drinking
water supplies are threatened.
2.3.2
Concerns OVer Drum Burial On the Site
Several citizens felt that the site had not oeen adequately characterized
because an investigation tor buried drums had not been pertormed. Local
residents reported that druns containin.;J hazardous materials had been
buried in pits on the site.
EPA conducted an investigation of the site on January 12, 1Y~7, to search
tor buriaJ drums. No buried drums were located. A fact sheet sl..l'!1lt1arizing
this investigation was sent to interested parties identiiied in the CRP.
-.5-
-------
'-. ~ . : ,". ......;... '. ," .
. : '. "
" - .' '. ~ f-- -.. " .t.." "-'
. .
...,.. -"
3.U
SUMZ\RY Of PU8LIC COOMENTS AND EPA RESPONSES
3.1
Comments and Responses Made at Public Meeting
A public meeting was held on February 19, 11:187, in the city of HollyvK>od,
South Carolina to discuss the remedial alternati~es being consiuered for
Unplementation at the Geiger (C&M Oil) site. EPA aid not indicate
a preterence tor any particular alternative, and announced that all
alternatives presented in the feasibility study were still under
consideration.
Catments made by the public at this meeting are summarized below, along
with EPA responses. lhe ccmt2nts have been grouped according to suoject.
Where several sUnilar comments were made, these were summarized into one
statement. Where a clear and complete ccmnent was not made, additional
infoDnation has Deen bracketed to indicate &PA's interpretation.
Responses in bracKets are for claritication, am were not made at the
public meeting.
3.Ll
CCXtTl\ents On Remedial Investigation Procedures and Results
Ca-1MENT: ARE THE MONITORING WELLS USED WRING TIiE RfMBl).1AL INVESTIGATION
STILL IN PIACE.~
EPA RESPONSE:
Yes, these wells are still in place.
HOW DE!::P IS TIiE COOPER MARL?
The Cooper Marl is approximately 45 feet deep, ~arying with land
elevation. [The Cooper Marl is a formation which acts as a confining
layer to linpede vertical groundWater tlow from the surficial aquifer into
the underlying Santee Limestone aquifer.]
WHAT SIGNS OF CONTAMINATION WERE DETECrED IN MONITORING WELL CLUSTEH.
NUMBffi S?
Low levels of Lead ana Chromi~n were found in that well clust~r.
-6-
,
I
-------
.- -
,. ... .
WERE THE LEAD AND CHRa1IUM L£VELS IN MONITORING WELL CLUSTER NUMdER ~
WITIiIN SAFE DRINKING WAfER STAL'JOARDS?
'me lead concentration was around 60 micrograms per li tar (ug/l); the
drinking water standard is 50 ug/l.
[Lead was actually aetected at 53 ug/1 in monitoring well 5-Shallow. The
Maximum Contaminant ~v~1 (MCL) ~staOliShed undar the Sata Drinking Water
Act is 50 ug/l.]
WAS THE cnn'AMINATlOO IN CLUSTER 5 IN THE SHALLCJY, MEDIUM, OR DEEP WELL?
The lead contamination was in the shallow well.
HCW DEEP IS THE S!1ALLCW WELL IN CLUSTER 5?
Shallow wells are generally five to sevan teat deep; right at the wacer
taole, essentially.
YOU'Re SAYING 'THE WATER WAS T~STED, BUT WAS A SPECIFIC TEST DONE FOR
DRINKING WATER? I fEI:;L THAT tOu CAN TESr WATER AND IT CAN CCME BACK
SAfE, BUT I THINI< TESTIl'JG SPECIflCALLt FOR DRINKING WATER IS A DIFfERENT
THING.
The t~sts tl1dt are conducted on 19rounawat~r tranj all these 'Nells, ana on
the soils, surtace wat~r, and sddiments, are tor a rather extensive list
lot chemicals] called the Hazaraous Substances List (HSL). The HSL
contalns 13 metals and 120 organic compouncts which ar~ analyz~ tor.
[Although groundwater is anal/zed tor hazardous substances, aesthetic
properties relatea to use of the water tor drinking (i.a., taste,
appearance) are not analyzea.]
OOES 'lliE HSL INCWDE 'lliE VOLATII£ CCMPOUN~?
Yes, t!1e HSL includes volatile organic ccmpounds (VOCs).
WHO DID THE TESTING (Of GROU:~I:WATER SAMPLES)?
Testing is carried out by a Jroup ot laboratories undar th~ Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP). CLF is a prugram run oy EPA specitically .to
test samples trom hazardous waste sites.
-7-
-------
. .
'.- -0-
. .
Il-J THIS REPuRr lTHE REMEUIAL INVESTlGATIU\I REPORT A.'\ID THI:: E'~n3ILITY
STUDY], WHY ~N'T IT SAIU WdAT SPECIE'IC LABORATO~Y TESTLD WHI~H SAMPLES?
There were many laboratories used. In the contract laboratory program,
we don't know which lab is going to be usee until the actual week ot the
.testi~, so if we sampled for seven or eight weeks, we used seven or
eight labs around the country.
00 YOU KNOd THE NAMES OF THE; LABS WHICH DID lliE TESTING, AND CAN THAT BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO US?
Yes, this information can be made available to the public.
CAN WE GET lliIS INFORMATION BEFORE THE END OF 'mE PU8LIC CCMMENT PERIOD
ON FEBRUARY 191
Yes, if we rec~ive a request for this information betore that time, the
list ot labs will 00 s~nt out immediately. [No requests for this
intormation were rec~i~ed.]
I VK>ULD LIKE TO KNCW H<.kl THE ~oJI::LLS WEt{}:; DRILLED,. HaoJ THEY WERE PUT IN,
WHAT P~ESS WAS INVULVED? DID YOU USE WATER IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING
THQ5E WJ::LLS IN?
TI1e protocol we useO tor putting in t.he wells was developed by EPA
Region IV. We ust:K1 a mud rotary methoc1 tor drilling the wells, whereDy
tne drill bit is advanced. As it's advanced we pump water mixed with
Dentonite clay down the nole to keep the sides tram collapsing. Once the
hole is drilled to tne depth we want, we place a tour-inch stainless
steel well pipe dOwn the hOle. Prior to placing the lstainless steel]
pipe into the hole, it is thoroUJhly decontaminated. The back of tl1e
drilling rig and any piece ot equipnent tnat goes down the hole is
decontaninated prior to movin~ over the [drilling] location. That way we
insure that we are not adding contaminants to the groundwater and that
we're not moving them around the site. The screen used was a five-foot
screen and the well [casing] was screwed together in ten-toot lengths.
WHAT SOURCE OF WATER WAS UTILIZED DURING THE [DRILLING] PROCESS?
The source ot water was a tire 11ydranc located on Highway 162, about
2\J0 or 30U teet fro1\ thl.? entJ.'ance to the site. The water source was
tested, alo~ with thl.? ['Jrour.dwater] samples [trol1 the wells].
-d-
-------
~-- -- -
~-' '. .......' :..... '.., .'- -. .
COULD THE WATER TtiAT wAS UTILIZED [DURI:.JG DRILLWG] H.lWE DILUTi::D THE
CONTAllINANTS THAT WERE IN TIiE WATER THAT YOiJ WII'l-iDREW AS SA.1PLES? -
As we're drilling the wells, we record the amJunt of water that we usc.
Prior to sampling, we do what is called "C1eveloping che well," whereDy we
plJ'l\p the well. The minimum amount. ot water we pump out ot the well is
equal to or greater than what ~ put in. We also taKe temparat.ure and
conductivity readings and we pump until we get a stable reaC1ing of these
lneasuranents. Once these have stabilized, chat generally indicates that
we are pumping actual groundwater and not anything that was used for well
construction. Prior to sampling, we allow the wells to sit tor several
days after they have been developed. Betore sampling, we wit:1C1raw thr~
to tive well volumes, to insure we don't have anything [water used during
construction) remaining.
WHY DID YOU USE MUD BORE INSTEAD OF USING A HOL.l.a'l BORE [FOR DRILLING 1HE
MOOlTORING WELLS] '? I REALIZE 'mAT TYPE OF SOIL OOES COLlAPSE, 001' WITIi A
HOLLCW BORE YOU'RE ABLE TO BRING OUT 'mAT SOIL AND TEST IT, AND THEN
LATER GO IN WITH A MUD BOlli:.
That decision was made based on the soil conditions at the site. As
you say, with the hollow stem method, you run the risk ot collapsing the
hole when you pull the drill stems out, but we were also concerned about
binding ot the auger as we 'M::!nt down. \-e haC1 reports that in similar
soils the augers tenC1ed to bind up, so it was decided that we would use
the muC1 rotary methoa to advanct: the holes. We tel t we could get a good
indication or the level or soil contamination fron our handvaugered i101es
so we did not sanple tht: soils as we went C1own.
THE r~TS YOU DID Ot..J TIiE GROUNa-lATc:R WEHt: MORE t:XTENSIVE THAN YUU WOUW
00 FOR LJrUNKING WATER; ISN'T THAT COKRECT'i'
A typical water treatnent plant normally does not test tor the subscances
thdt are on the HSL; it may test tor some or tnem, but it's USually not
nearly as extensive.
WHY DID YOU GO BEYOND [~-rr1AT A \-JATER TREATMENT PLANT NORHALLY TESTS FOR]?
It is the standard procedure to test ror all of these compounds. [The
HSL was developed based on the wiC1e ranye of hazardous chenicals which
are likely to be detecced at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.]
-9-
-------
1-
I HAVEN'T H£ARD ANYOOE t1ENTIOO THE LRON CONT&'IT IN TliE SURFAC£. WATt;K THAT
'fOU WERE TESTING, 'MilCH IS RBJUTRED. .
Iron is not an HSL chemical. It was t~sted for, and it you request
that information, it can be ~rovided. [No requests for this intormation
were received.] .
YOO SAID THAT YOO TESTED THREE RESIDENTIAL WELLS:
SHOo
-------
THE BORRCW PIT Ai!lJVE THE NORTHERN Pa-JD WAS NOT TESTED, WAS IT?
No, it was not tested.
HCW CLOSE IS THE CWSt::ST OCWNGRADIENT WELL THAT WAS TESTED?
Tile third residential well that. was tested is located in the southwest
corner ot the site where the trailer is. That would probably be the
closest downgradient well; h~ver, we believe that well is screened
DelC7wl the Cooper Marl.
[IN RESPCNSE TO A ~ BY A PARrICIPANT THAT ABOUT 35 FAMILIES LIVE IN
THE AREA 01" 'lliE SITE, ANOTH£R PARTICIPANT Ca.1MENl'ED THAT THE TESTING Of
TliREE WELLS IS lNADE)JUATE TO PROOOCE A CCX'-JCWSIVE INVESTIGATlOO REPORT.]
Ten percent of the wells is a good number to produce adequate results.
Because only ten residential wells are upgradient of the site in the
Un~ediate vicinity, actually thirty ~rcent of the wells under concern
we re tes too .
WAS THE OIL-STAINED AREA INDlCAT1:ill ON THE SITE MAP THE ONLY VISIBLE OIL
YOU fOUN!)? THERE IS BLACK OIL ALL THE WA'f TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
During the remedial investigation, we took soil samples for 500 or 600
teet in that direction.
[SEVERAL CC11MENTS WERE MADE COOCERNING PAST ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE, SUCH
AS ILLEGAL OOMPING, AND DIa;ING 01:' DEEPEH. PITS lHAN HAVE BEEN REPORfEU IN
THE RIo THE:;SE CCMt.1E:-JTS MAt BE l''OOND IN TIiEIH. ENTIRt.l'Y ON PAGES 69-72 Of
'lliE PU8LIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT.}
We teel that we have enoUJI1 data at the present time, with the exception
of possible dru.ns in t.he larea ot] th~ nort.hern pond, to characterize the
site, and to know the ty~ and extent of chenicals on the sit~. As tor
past practices, there is no way t.o document what has really happened.
All we can do is work with what we have now, and t.ry to clean that u\?
That is what we are tryiny to do.
-11-
-------
THIS [CONTAMINATION AT THE GEIGER SITE] HAS ~EEN GOING ON SINCe 1969 AND
1971J. ISN'T TIiAT A fAcro~ THAT IS INVOLVED':
The oth~r thing that is tactored into our ~valuation is dilution.
[uilution r~t~rs to the the d~crease in cont~ninant levels over ti~e.]
II IXWNr'ID-l" OF 'mE WATER YOU ARB TALKING ABOUT; THAr GOES Ta-JAtW A LARGE
WJODED AREA. IS 'mAl' RIGHT?
Yes.
[Groundwater and surface water flow toward a wooded area.]
WHERE VOJLD YOU THINK THE CLOSEST WELL WOULD BE, GOING THROUGH 'mAT ~GE
WX>DED AREA?
It would probably b~ a quarter or half of a mile.
HOW MAi'iY FEET HAS THE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER MOVED?
ApproxUnately 300 feet over the last 16 years.
W)ULD MONITORING WELL CLUSTER NUMBER 6 BE OOWNGRADI!::NT OF' ~JHERE THE OORIED
D~UMS ME?
Yes.
Tt;STS WERE l-1ADE WRING THE DRY S£:;AS()N. WHEN THERE IS AN UNUSUALLY HIGH
TIDE, IS THERE A POSSI~ILITi 'DiAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE DIFfERENTt
'rhe etfect of tides at this location did not appear to be signiticant.
That is not based on any rigorous test, but was basea on the location of
the sit.a relative to tne tidal areas and what is generally kno.m tor this
area in terms ot th~ groundwater. We didn't teel that the tides would
have a significant ettect.
3.1.2 Comments on Remedial Alternatives
WHO WILL 00 THE REt1EDIAL DESIGN':
That\~asn't been deter.TIined yet.
sel~ctiny the contractor tor the
We have a ditferent process for
remedial design.
-12-
-------
'. ~.;.. 4.'" ~....~~-"'--'._-'
WOULD YOU US~ A DIFFERENT GROUP [THAN THE ONES WHO DID TH~ RI/FS]?
That has not been determined yet.
WHAT KIND OF TIME FAAME 00 YOU FO~SEE FOR THIS REMEDIAL ACTION"?
We hope to have the remedy selected by the end ot March. fol1o..1ing
that, there is thre~onth period in which we again try to identify
responsible parties who contriOuted to the contamination, and ...e otter
them the opportunity to pay for the clean-up. If no responsible parties
are tound, then we will proceed with the remedial design. It will take
approximately one to 1-1/2 years until we are on the site cleaning up. A
lot depends on the selected remedy and the availability ot funds at the
time.
IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT REMEDY 00 YOU THINK WILL BE SELECTED"?" WILL YOU Acr
ON BaTH THE SOIL AND THE GROUNCWATER?
We will probably take action on both tne soil and the groundwater. we
have not yet selecteu a remedy, anu must consider the recannendations ot
the State ot South Carolina, cOTllrents frc:m the public, and the ccmrents
received during ~er review ot our alternatives.
Hew ~ULD LAYMEN HERE Kl'.J~ I-'.HA'f YOU'RE GOING TO 00 IF YOU SET NO GUIDELINES
AS TO WHAT YOU I RI::: GOING 1U lXJ! WE SHOULD TURN THE PRIXESS AROUND: WE
SHUULD KNGl WHAT YOU ~ GOING TO 00.
Tilat is why we would liKe to near what actions tl1e publlC thinKs are
necessary, so we can us~ chat in maKin~ our decision. .
WtlAT EfFECT VAXJLD OFF-SITE UISPOSAL HAVE 00 THE GROUNDrlATER? lf YOU
UISPOSED OF EVERYTHING AT THE SIT~, WHAT EFFECf WOULD IT HAVE ON THE
GIUINDWATER?
It we took no action on the gr~ndwater, the contamination would remain
on-site, and would evencually :nigrate ott-ste. It is possible that the
levels of contaminants would c:crease, but at this time we don't ahve
enougn into~nation to do any ~Jdeling to predict what those levels might
be.
-13-
-------
"., ,,- - .
I;
IF YOU USED A SLURRY WALL AND CAP, ~r USE WOULD THAr POSSIBLY BE?
Wh~n selecting a remedial action, we also consider restrictions which
would have to be put on the site. With a slurry wall and cap, no one
could put a well within the siurry wall, and could not dig a trench across
the site.
IS THER!:; A POSSIBILITY YOU MAY 00 BACK TO HAVE SCMETHING TO CCMPARE YOUR
FIND~S WITH ANi) TEST SCMEWELLS TIiAT ARE r:n-.NGRADIENl' INSTE'AD OF THOSE
THAT ARE UPGAADI ENr AND MAKE SGtE CCMPARISOO?
In our remedial design, we can t~st those downgradient wells to see if
there has been an ettect on thaTI [trom contaminants at the site].
IS THEHB A POSSIBILITY YOU WJULD TEST [THE RESIDI::;NTIAL WELLS OOW'JGAAiJIlliT
Of 'THE SITE] If WE REQUESTEU YOU 'lD DO T~r?
Yes, we would.
WHO SUPERVISES 'lliE CLI:AN-UP AND WHO SIGNS THE fINAL "ALL'S CLEAR"?
Atter remedial activiti~s are compl~ted, we will place monitor wells
around the site and monitor the groundwater for thirty years. we will
hav~ an extensiv~ technical r~view, by ooth the Stat~ and EPA, to determine
wh~ther or nut the remedy is permanent. [The answer to the question is
that EPA will supervise the clean-up and delete the site from tne National
Priocities List.]
YOO ARE SAYING IT RroUlRES A SPECIAL GROUP OF peOPLE TO PERfORM THE CLEAN-
UP. I ~'T SEE WHY IT R1:;VlJIR£S SCMEONE ELSE 11'-1 THE r-tIUOLE WHO StfOULD
HAVE SCME MAJOR EXPERTISE IN THAT AREA, IF YOU HAVE IX>NE TtfE STUDY AND
KNCW WHAT IS THERE.
It is not knowing what is there as much as it is Knowi~ how to clean
it up. Personnel expcri~ncea in hazardous waste remediation are not
always readily available.
ARE ANY OF THI:: GROUN[wArE~ ALTEHNATIVES T~r ARE REClA'1ME:mED ABLE 1'0
RE:TURN THE GROJrji~rJ::;R fu TtfJ::; CONDITION IT WAS IN dEFOKl:; IT WAS H1PACrED?
The purnping and treatinJ alr.emativ<:: would return the groundwater to
backgrouno contaninant levels.
-14-
-------
HCW W YOU GET RIO Or' LEAD; BY BURNING IT?
Lead is very difticult to get rid ot. You can either renove it or you
can treat it so that it doesn't go anywhere, which is what the stabilization!
soliditication process aoes.
HCW 00 YOO TREAT THE 8OTIU1 OF THE SOIL?
The soils are excavated, slurried, run through the stabilization process,
aoo placed back into the pit.
YOO ARE SAYING THE SOIL CONTAMINATION IS APPROXIMATELY 'ThQ fo'EET DEEP,
WHILE <.miERS ARE SAYING SIX FE!::! OR DEEPER. YOUR SOIL TEST WENT 'IW) FEET
DEEP, BUT THERE MAY BE CONTAMINATION DEEPER THAN THAT WtUCH YOU HAVEN'T
CHECKEO OOT.
ve had troUble taking sc31nples below t..o teet because the holes tend to
cave in below the water level. It we select ~xcavation as part ot our
remedy, we will strip ort the cop portion of soil, then test the next
lower portion, ana so on until we ~eacn th~ point where there is no
contamination.
WERE TtiIRTY YEARS OF O&M (4)NlTO~NG CALCULATED IN'ID 'flit:: PERtw-JENT
ALTERNP;flVESi
Yes, the present ..orth costs inclua~ 30 years of monitoring.
3.1.3
Comments on Feasibility Study
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY LEFT wr ALL THE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE
TESTING OF THE WELLS. THERE ARE A LOr Of DESCREPANCIES BE'IWEEN [THE RI
AND '!HE Fsl. IN THE FS YOU DID NOT SHCW THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
MONITORI~ WEUS AND lHE PRIVATE WELLS THAT. YOU DID IN THE COP'!: HE RECEIVED
PRIOR 10 THAT.
The latest report you received was the FS, which developed the remedial
alternatives, and only summarized the results ot the RI, which was the
first report. You must look at ooth documents.
-15-
-------
- - . ~ ....~ - ~..
AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED, THE RI AND FS Af{E INCONCLUSIVE. THE REASON
WE SAY THAT IS BECAUSE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT, THEN YOU SAY IT MAY BE UR IT
COULD BE. 'rHKf MAKES US FEEL LIKE 'niE WHOLE REPORT IS INCONCLUSIVE,
- SO WE ARE Nor ABSOLUTELY SATISFIeD WITH THE REPORI'.
We don't always know whether scxnething will or will not happen, but
can only speak ot the possibilities.
j.1.4
Comments on Environmental Concerns
WHO OR WHAT ARI:: YOU COOCERNED ABOUT, [IN SPEAKING ABCXJT 'l1iE ENVIRO~L
EFFECl'S OF GROUNJ:WATeR DISQiAR:;E)? ARE '1.00 TALKING ABOUT 1HE SHELLFISH,
TIfE BIROO, OR THE PEOPLe?
The specific species are the bald eagle, the wood stork, and a species
of woodpecker. [These are endanlJered species which have either been
identified in or are likely to inhabit wetlands of the Wallace River,
i.1to which groundwater tran th!: surt icial aquiter diSCharges.)
I THINK THIS IS PROBA8LY WHAT UPSETS 'niESE PEOPLE THE f't)ST. TRUE, YOU
HAVE ENJ:Y\NGERED SPECIES, BUT ~1:;N YOU PUT ENDANGERED SPECIES, LIKE BALL}-
HEADED EABLES, M!iJVE HlJMAl~ LIVES, THESE CHILDREN AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE
TO DRINK THIS WATER, WHICH THEY HAVt; BEEN TOLD IS Nor SAFE TO DRINK.
THEY HAVE TO HAUL WATER 1500 FEET, AND YOU'RE PUTTING ALL OF THIS AND
THEIR NEJ::;D FOR A BALI>-HEADED EM;LE... I TIiINK SCME;WHERE 'niE HUMAN ELEMENT
IS FAA MORE --YOU'RE TALKING ENDANGERED SPECIES WHeN WE'RE TALKING HUMANS
HERE;.
v.e have to be concerned about botn [endangeroo species and hunan lives].
WE ARJ:; SITTING HER!:: ANU YOU ARE SAYING "PRill'ECrING THE EN~ERE;D
SPECIt:S;" NorHING WAS MENTIONEJJ AOOUT THE HUl1AN ELEMENT.
We were talkirq about drinking wat.er, am ~ were talking abOut humans.
All the while we were talking abOUt the people first.
lU' THE GNOUN~TER HAS Nor MOVED FAR ENOUGH TO AfFEcr THE WALLACk:: RIVER
AT THIS TIME,) THEN WHY. AHE Y.OU CONCERNED ABOUT TtiE EAGLES [IN THE WETLANUS
Ot" TIiE WALLACE RIVER]-!
We are concerened about possible contamination of the Wallace River
wet.lands in a tuture-use scenario. we are concerned also abOut any
private or r~sidential wells yhat may be located along Highway 17 to .t~~
west of the site. However, rl,ght now, under ti1e current situation, there
is not a threat to the wells.
-16-
-------
IF YOU ARE SAYING THE CONTAtlINATION COULD AFFEcr THE BALD EAGU::S, THERE IS A
POSSIBILITY THERE MIGlir BE Sa1E DANGER TO THE PWPLE THAT ARE DRINKING
WATER FI01 'niE WELLS IN THE AREA?
No. It may affect the wildlite, but a human could came into contact
with the same amount and there would ba no ettect [on the hl.lITlan.]
I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND AN'i INFORMATION IN TIiE FEASI8ILITY STUDY CONCERNING
THE TESTING OF FISH, YET YOO SAID '!HAT YOO HAD MADE A DETERMINATIOO ABCXJT
THE ENVI~.
re did not include biaoonitorir),J in the ranedial investigation. OUr
determination is based on the levels [of contaminants] that are there
now, and fron past studies that have been done to determine what levels
would be aar)Jerous to thoa wilalife.
3.1.5 Comments on Public Health Concerns
IF YOU DID NOf TEST [THE RJ::SIDENTIAL ~ffiLLS], HOW LX) YUU KNOd ['lliEY ARE;
NOT COWfAMINATED]?
we know [they are not contaminated] by looking at some of the hydraulic
characteristics of thoa aquifer and doing a rough estimate as to how far
the contanination would have moved in the 16 years that the oil has been
thoare. In aadition, \..e looKed [at contamination ot lOonitorinrj wells
which we placed downgradient of tl1e site]. These thin.Js led us to believe
that at this point there is no [contamination] probl~ tar downgradient.
OOES ATSDR EVALUAfE THE "SArrSl'~ACTORINESS" Of THE SAMPLING THAT WAS LONE,
SUCH ~ THE LOCATION 01:" THE WELLS, E:l'C . ?
(ATSDR RESPONSE)
A'fSDR is not a "yes" agency to EPA. At many sites where .tl1e sampling has
been taken fram inappropriate locations, or the sdffipling was insutficient
to enable same sort of a reasonably sound health opinion to be rendered,
ATSO~ advises f:;PA ot that, dnd says EPA has to go back. ana take same
additional samples in this area.
OOES ATSDR fEEL THE SAMPLWG WAS ADEQUATE IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE?
( A'ISOR R£SPCXIISE)
Yes, at this time.
-17-
-------
. ".. . ~
_"0-.. ".oJ..-.
If A SEPARATE STUDY DETERNINED ~rHING 'niAT WAS IN CONfLICT wiTH THE.
S'illDY TliAT'S 8BEN OONE, VUlLO YOU THEN \'lANT MORE INE'ORl1A'fION AND RE-EVALUATE
. 'mE CIRaJMSTANCE?
(ATSDR RESPOOSE)
If it appeared to be a reasonable discrepancy that has some merit to it,
or it it was backed by some data or information that was basically solid.
WERE ALL OF ATSDR' S CONCLUSIOOS BASEU ON 'IHE INFORMATION ThAT WAS PRESENTED
TO YOO BY CAMP, DRESSER, AND AND MCKEE?
(ATSDR RESPOOSE)
ATSDR's conclusions were based on infonnation developed by COM through
the RI/FS process.
ARE YOU GOING TO SAY A CERTAIN SPOT IS OKAY, BUT ANaI'HER SPOT IS NOT OKAY
fOR THE; Rl::SIUENTS?
(ATSDR RESPONSE)
That is why the [public health] assessnent deals with what appears to
be the threat, if any, today. It the results of th~ investigation had
indicated that tn~ down~radient wells were significantly elevated '[in
contaminant levels], and we had people conswning ~1at water, we would
IOOve in a much quicKer tim~ trame that we are now.
WHAT WE NEED, AND EPA IS NOr GIVING, IS A ClX>1MI1MENT THAT THE DRINKING
WATER IS CONTAMINATED. EPA IS MAKING A STATEi1ENT THAT THERE IS A POSSHULITY
IT COULD 8£ CONTNUNATED, AND IX) NOT DRINK THE WATER.
'rne drinKing water could poSSibly be contaninated in the. tuture, it we
don't clean it up now.
[OOES YOUR REOORD-OF-DECISIONj SAY WHAT DAMAGE 'mE CONTAMINANTS CAN CAUSE
TO TIiE BODY?
'£hat information is included in the remedial investigation report.
WHAr WOULD BE THE EfFECT ON H'JMAN HEALTH OF ALL OF THESE CCNI'AMINANI'S
TCX:;ETHER?
We don't have the answer to aLl of that, But the concentrations pres~nt
are not high enough to warrar t additive C1rginog~nic ~ttects. ..
LA PARTICIPANT CCMMENTELJ THAT THE WATEK WHICH EPA PARTICIPANTS WEHE
DRINKIN.; CAME FRCM A Wt;LL NEAR THE SITE, AND ASKED WHAT THE PWPLI:: WHO
DRANK IT THOUGHT Of IT.]
-l~-
-------
..r '....:.._.. 1:"; _._-'-_":':~~ :'-'.";"-- .
lThe water was said to taste normal.]
'Ha-J ABOUT A BABY DRINKING l'tiE WATER [FROO RESIDEl'JTIAL WeLLS NCAR THE
SITE]?
(ATSDR RESPONSE)
1he drinking water standards that are established take into account, as
much as is possiole, sensiti~e s~ecies like elderly species, since it is
the sensitive po~ulations liKe children and elderly persons who may have
probla1\s ana could be att~cted [by the contaminants].
THERE ARE A LOr OF PEOPL£ THAT LIVE IN '!HE AREA THAT HAVE KlOOEY DISEASE.
(ATSDR RESPGJSE)
In every h~althy population we have sickness. People get sick and they
die, Out it's not always because ot exposure lto chemicals] .
If YOU HAD A WELL NEX'r TO THIS SIT!:;, \-'DUW YOU DRINK THE WATER ON A rYULY
t3ASIS'!
Not immediately downgradient ot it, but all ~res~nt residential wells
are uncontaminated.
3.1.6
Comments on Buried Drums at the Site
[SEv'EAAL COMMENTS WEl{E r-1ADE CONCERNING DRlJr1S BEING BURIED ON THe: SITE,
BENEAfH THE NORTHERN PO\JD. THESt:; DRUHS REPORfEDLi CONTAIN LEAD, PESTICIDES,
AND RADIOACTIVE; MAfERIAL. SEVJ:;RAL CITHE:NS fELT THAT 'flit:; SITE HAD NOT
BEEN ADEQUATELY CHAAACTEtUZED BECAUSE NO INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN CONE 10
DITI::Cr BURIED DRUMS. CITIZENS ALSO FELT THAf EPA SHOULD GO BACK ON-SITE
ro TRY 10 DETEcr BURl ill DRUHS.]
we will initiate action to investigate buri8d drums on the site, and
remove them it necessary.
HOtJ LONG WILL THE DRUM INVESTIGATION TAKE':
C~1ENT ON THE REHt::DY.
WE OOLY HAVE THrtEE WEEKS TO
we can investigate the site within a couQle of days. [Personnel were
not available to investiyate the site on such short notice. The sit~ ,
investigation was actually helo tv.Q weeks later, on February 12, l':H37"
-19-
-------
- ,..~-~',::,:--:-;,~.-;.':..."-
. .':
. Appendix A
News Articles Rela~ed to the
Geiger (C&M Oil) Site
-. ..
~.::-. .~-<"..::--_....:-,...'-~.
-------
State Plans Cleanup;:' <¥/J!fS- - ~ y,8z~ ..,
Waste Site's Pose :Fire, Health
,
I"
I .
I
,
By CHARLES ROWE. i .
Post,Coulle, Reporter' .
Thirteen st~rage tanks at two untended industrial sites
on the Charleston Neck are filled with 400,000 gallons of
engine fuel, oil and creosote - a mixture that state of-
fkials say is potentially explosive. .
Near the ChJrleston Count communit R:lntowl s
re s' IIle wlI I' oil taanted with
'CBs Offirials ~ay oil from those pits has conlaman:'\t~d
groundwater. aliliou h . . nee it has s read
° c' ents u!'e
The state Dep:irtment of Health and Environmental
Control plans to .clean both sites this year. If ne.cessary, .it
will seek money from the federal "Superfund for tOXIC
waste disposal. Wayne Fanning, DHEC district hazardous
\\"aste consultant. said cleanup costs could easily exceed
$I million. .
The tanks are located on adjacent sites on MiUord
Street, just off 1-26 and about a quarter-mile from the
. Ashley River. A sign at the top of a tank. visible from 1-26.
designates the site as "Tank Farm."
. . Six taf!ks"along Milford Street were used by a Maryland
firm, Fed-Serv Inc. Five permanent tanks and two
transport tanks just south of that site were used by Pepper
Inc. of San Diego, Calif.
Brian McHenry, environmental quality manager of
DHEC. said liquid was inadvertently released from one of
the Fed-Serv tanks about six months ago by a company
oUicial. While contained within an open concrete dike, the
liquid is flammable and, if ignited, could cause the tanks
to explode. . .
Five of seven metal tanks along ~hlford Street are
painted bright blue and appear well-maintained. There is,
howe\'er, about a loot 01 oily liquid at the base 01 the tanks.
The exterior of the other Fed-Serv tanks and all of the
Pepper tanks are fouled with rust and dirt.
l'
......
The' waste oil In Rantowles Is'
buried below the ground in seven
large pits, and probably has been
seeping into groundwater for 20
years, Fanning said. Residents get
their water from private wells.
The pits are covered with earth and
tire located about a half-mile from
SC. Highway 162, near Jordan Bap-
tist Church. The sparsely populated, .
unincorporated community is about
'12 miles southwest of Charleston.
They were filled with waste oil
from either industries or service sta- .
tlons. probably in the 1960s. The oil
contains solvents alid a trace of poly- .
(~,Iorinated biphenyls. or PCBs. an
electrical transformer coolant widely
c!d before it was linked to cancer.
. .Probably someone had a vacuum
truck and collected oil from various
industrial sites or service stations,-.
Fanning said. . . .
. Each pit is about 50 feet wide, 200
feet long and 10 feet deep. They ap-
parently were excavated lo remove
sand and gravel for fill operations
elsewhere. One open pit remains on
the site, but there is no evidence that
it was used for waste oil storage, Fan-
ning said.
Heavy motor equipment is parked
on the site, Fanning said. Waste peri-
odically oozes from the covered pits,
he said.
DII EC officials sa id a series of pub-
lic hearings soon will be scheduled in
Rantowles to advise citizens or the
potential hazard and inform them of
plans to remOVe the waste.
George Geiger owns the propert~'
where the borrow pits are located, but
didn't when the oil was pumped into
the pits. The oil has flot caused him
any problems, he said.
Threats
.. ~ ,.'
. -'Geiger declined to a request Irom
the Post-Courier to allow a photogra-
pher on the site. NThe more this thang
gets out, it'll just mean trouble for
me.-
Fanning confirmed that Geiger did
not own the property when the oil was
dumped and said he is not responsible
for its removal. State oHicials are not
sure who dumped the oil. .
NTh is is an uncontrolled waste site,-
Fanning said. NWe are not sure how
far the contamination goes. We don't
know how much is there.-
~ Fanning said there are several
'shallow wells nearby, but tests by
DHEC workers have not shown any
. contamination.
: "The groundwater flow is the other
.way. away from the wells. That
. doesn't mean that the po'lutant
wouldn't eventually spread in the di-
rection of the wells. We need to clean
tbis up this year.-
State officials have known waste
oil was dumped at the site since 1974.
Cleanup eHorts have moved slowly
because there has been no e\'idence
that human health was endangered,
Fanning said. .
Wastes from the pits in Rantowles
either will be drummed, dumped in a
special landfill, or burned under high
temperature, Fanning said. Because
it contains PCBs, disposal or the
waste will require sp~rial care. he
said.
. McHenry said liquid in the tanks
may be sold to burn in incinerators,
or drummed and stored.
-------
. - .. ..
. ..~
.-
The State/Columbia, S.C., Sunday, February 17, 1985
EP Ato clean r~pT.f.;.
Lowco.untry dump '.
. .
V.lted Pm. IBler..Uou'
RANToWLES
The Environmental Protection
Agency has assumed control of the
cleanup of a waste oil dump u. r...n-
. towles, an unincorporated communi.
. ty southwest of Charleston.
'. Federal and state officials esti.
mate the dump could take :Z~ years
to clean. and th~ cost may go as bigh
as $1 million.
The dump consists of seven large
pits filled with waste oil. The EPA bas
a list of 500 sites needing federal
assistance for cleanup, and the Ran.
towles site is one of nine in South
Carolina that is on the list.
The Rantowles dump is about a
mile and a balf from S.C. 182.
9fficiaLs said that., although the oU
has contaminated the groundwater,
there is no evidence well. water bas
. - been contaminated.
Jeff Pierce, director of the Ran.
towles project, said contaminated
groundwater. probably 'will be
pumped out. Oil-tainted sand will be
removed SQ that oil ..ill not filter into
the groundwater, be added.
The seven pits were filled with
waste oU from either industries or
service stations, probably in the
19~Q!. Pif!rt:f! said the oil contains
solvents and a trace of
polychlorinated biphenyls, known as
PCBs.
PCBs have been linked to cancer,
but Pierce said preliminary studies
show the PCB level at the dump is
miniscule and probably safe. .
Pierce said various pre-cleanup
studies of the contamination wm take
a year and a half to complete, and the
actual cleanup could take another
year.
"People say, 'U this is a problem,
why don't you clean it up?'" Pierce
said. "We want to make sure that we
can clean it up the first time so we
don't bave to do It again."
Pierce said Rantowle.s residents
will be notified by EP A when work
begins on the site.
"We will talk to the people there,"
Pierce said. "We want tbem to know
what we are doing."
.2\-2
. ..
-------
Ed~t1oria~$ 8£
8.-A ."ndo. Th. Naw, a COU".,fThO Evonlng POS!. Ch~'IO'lon. s,c.. FeD'ua,y 17. ;985
~--LWIr."'__~YiL~£"-~" -..m.'I: LP.:...._..."...-=-~~-V.""" ""'-...,.,---~.. "''-'L-:r1.~''''':L.I"~ .-...... .."Y'I.u
Who pays the bill?
Three untended hazardous w:lste sites in thc Tridcnt OIre:l .
will cost o\'er $I million to cle:ln up, :lcconJing to a c.onsul-
tant to the state Dcp3rtmcnt of Health and Envirunmental
Control.
A Post-Courier rcportcr who visited the sites - two tank
farms in the Charleston Neck and scven pits filled with
waste oil near Rantowles - and spoke with state envi-
ronmental officials reported th:lt all three sites posed a
dan'ger. The tank farms ar:e potentially explosive and the
w:lste oil pits have contaminated groundwater.
A complaint brouGht the tanks, containinG waste enGine
fuel. oil :lnd creosote, to thc attention of DIIEC. When thc
dep:lrtment be{::ln checkinG out thc tank f:lrms, the owner
of one uf them uieu OInu his cornj'lJny went out of huslness
before a clc:ln-uj'I J!;recment could he r(,:lcheu. 'fhc olher
filed for b:.IIIkruptcy in South COIrolin:l, In the cOlse of the
other site. thc waste oil WOlS pumped into seven pits before
the prcsent owner purch:lsed the property.
DIIEC plJns to cleOln up thc two tJnk fJrms this year anu
the Envlronment:ll Protection AGcncy is movin!; to
erauicate the ha7.:lrd posed by the pits in n.:lntowles. Court
:lctiun hJS lJeen initiated ag:lin~t the compJnies r('ponsilJle
for the t:lnks while :I series of public heJrings arc scheduled
to inform the neiGhboring community :lboutthe state of the
n.Jntowles site. So f:lr, hum:ln heOlllh h:ls not been end:ln-
gCl'ed by the cont ::ImH\:'It inn; bllt it mll~' hI' Tf'fT1oved b~
it spre:lds,
All thrcc sites be!::ln operating beCore 1980 when reg-
uJ:ltlons were estJlJltsheu to govern hJ7.Jrdous WJste sites
Jnd Cacllitn:s. Current regul
-------
!'EPA to head cleanup of Waste' oil' dump'inRanl~wle;.
. . By CHARLES ROWE. , Burton, Columbia and two sites each in Beaufort and .We feel that the 011 is heav, enoop t~at It wmlUck to
Po8I-Courier Reporter Dixiana. . the sand: Pierce said Friday. .We don't feel it is going to
The Environmental Protection Agency has taken Officials with the Department 01 Health and Environ- migrate that fast.-
c~arge of a waste oil dump in Rantowles and will pegin mental Control said there are two untended tank farms on NeverUlelesa, contaminated around water probably will
. ...site inspection by April. .' the Charles~on Neck that are being considered lor lederal ~ pumped out. Oil.ta~nted sand either will be rtmoved or
I~ '.. The dump - seven larle pits Iilled "lth waste oil - cleanup assl.st~nce. . LS?lated S:D that It will not filter Into the groundwilter,
\. . bas. been listed as one 01 ~oo sites nationwide needing DHEC ofhclals Jald ~ey know 01 no other uncontrolled Pierce ~'d. , . . .
,_A I. . t t I J fl P. . dl t I th hazardous waste sites an Charleston, Berkeley and Dor- . The pits were filled with waite 011 from either Industries
'. ""era assls a.nce o.c ean. e lere", fee or 0 e chester counties. . or service stations, probably I" Ute 19601. The oil contains
. . . Ibn,owles proJect, said It could take two and ~ hall years The Rantowles dump is about half a mll~ from S.C. IOlvents and It trace 01 polychlorinated biphenyls, or
't'" &0 clean. .' .. Highway 162, near Jordan Baptist Church. Rantowles Is PCBs, an electrical transformer coolant widely u!ied be-
. Federal and state envlronmen~a~ official. said \ the an unincorporated comm4nity about 12 miles southwest fore it was linked to cancer. . .
cleanup mat cost as much as $1 million. I 01 Charleston. . Pierce said preliminary studJes show th~ PCB level t
. There are nine olher hazardous waste sites in South Oil has contaminated groundwater but officials I8Y be minuscule and probably not a hazard. 011 from each
Carolina on the EPA '5 list of 500, none in the Trident area. there is no evidence it has tainted wellwater. Residents
They include sites In Fort Lawrence, Ftorence, Rock Hill, get> lheir water Irom private wells.
See 011 dump cleanup, Page 2-'"
:P
I
",.,
..r-It"".~".T '" . . 'J'.'''.~'''''''.'O: . - ~..~_.. w.""
\,.:~.~O~I dum'p' ele'an'up. ';-
: Continued From Peg' . 1.A .
stations with a vacuum truck and
pit. however. -III be analyzed by EPA dumped at the site, Fanning said.
to determine Its contents before the Heavy motor equipmeht is parked on
site is cleaned. the site, and oil periodically oozes
I Various studies to determine the from the covered pits, he said.
extent 01 contaminatioll and recom. Rantowles residents will be noli.
mended J:leanup methods probably fied by EPA when work begins on the
will take a year and a half, Pierce site. .We will talk to the people there.
said. Site cleanup probably will take We want them to know what we are
. a year. . doing," Pierce said.
.p Ie . Federal officials are trying to de-
, eop say, .'If this IS a problem, termine who is responsible for the site
wll1 don' you clean It up1' . Pierce in hopes that the cleanup costs can be
said. .We want to make sure that we d Th t
recovere. e curren owner,
can clean it up the flMit time so/we George Geiger, bought the property
don't ha~.to ~o it again." \" . ,. after the oil was dumped there. Fan-
Each pit is abOut 50 fett wide, 200 ning said he is not responsible for iJ.s
feet long and 10 feet deep. Apparently removal. . .' .
sand and gr.avel were removed for lilI State officials have known about
operations. elsewhere. One open pit the dump site since 1974 but cleanup'
remains on the site, but there Is no eHorts have moved slowly because
evidence that it was used lor waste oil there has been no evidence of imme-
storage, aecording to Wayne Fanning, diate danger to human health. Fan.
hazardous waste consultant with the ning said.
local office of the slate Department Wastes from the pits either will be
olllt'alth ~nd Environmental Control. drummed, dumped in a special land.
Th,. oil probably was eollected fill, or burned undt'r high tempera.
Irol pr industrial sites or serviee ,ture, FannlnR said.
I
I
z~
9J ~ f
, f, r
11\ ~
t v'
0~
~ 1
- .
~
.,
-
6""
t
0(:
(J\
i.
. .
"
-------
~.._~~ ~ ~
\ ~ i~ '..", '~ I( t'~:./, ,-/ .i A..A ~
. ,. .. ~ ('-.-:, ' I; ',' .
I . :.. '.~ . \' 'I '" /
~:~ ~j!1? »~Bjl~)19J011
\'r~~ ~I~
01~t.tJ~)1
rr'f:1 -t
~l~)Al1J~~:U'r?~;
:r
U'I
-- -..--------
.~.. _.- --
Ch:lIlt'ston. S C , TUt'~ -ft
'fa .): \~ '" ." . .- -, \.. - ~~. ".... - -c-.'" I' ~ '1 ". ~. ':. .~,
':..='" ,-:~ -:~ C'~~[[ lS ~]'d.Jll[} .,H L9 :\.C::cJ \j as LG C.) [J
8y [0\'/;,110 O. l.wnplIY
r:" (( J'I'" ro.:.~ ':.:,
"'ASIII:\(;TII:--; - f.m """m~r:,ll I'ro!'.'c,
tHIn '\J:i'iICY (!:;:I;;l'~'r~ ~'~II:i.I:,:; I.. ;-.1:1 J:::.t~.l'r'
1nJ: ~'III ;.nd \~..~"r !':,:r,;'!,'~ ~'It'::! :!:{' C''';'''r
~I!(, In 1t.!r~tO\\ ~t"', :::1 :'!',-I~'~I'::"I ',\',~~:t.' 1,:1 la.
nhty (In th(' r.:!t!O:I'!\ !'=I:; .,: :'::H~ C'k;;:':1:P h~t.
The t:P;\'s (,',1::-.;: 1'''''ir..r.1 1:1 t~c~ ra!ral
cOIH!I1ur:lfy :.',(11:1 I:! n.l:t'~ Ip,m f.'f;:11 h'S:I,n 15
f'\r'f'('h'~ tll LII.t' ;'!'H;I t',\'II:~I':Jlt!\, :HTO~(~lnC
t,) ~,;U;(~: UI"~;~;':I', ~II ,\II..::!."k:~.:J ('0\';[(10'
:'11'01:.1 ' ~I'i:h',', ::r.d ~~;If nl~"; \'!th the
",:' ~II ~
: j",
,I : ~,":1 I :' . \ . ' :
, :, ,', :":r rb:~ !P:'
..
:;'. ;,1, I ~,! ~ 1 ~, ,; I,"
: ,I I : \\ '::!' ~ t ,,:
,~hOl': a y~ar I>,'!ore Ihe plan i~ re;ody for pob,
IU"H'\'U.'\\'
Tt,~ (;~:r.rr f,l"IiIY, al", I.no-.\ n ," Ih~ C.~'~,I
nil ~::(', (lI"Iair.('d;.n IhClOrr.,lflr II: I,d 10 tJUrn
"J~:r f'lI, ',lid Chl1~ ~IJh.n. :In rn\lrnnrlH'nl:11
C"P~"'f ,\1111 I"" ,ute D"parl,,"'r.: ul 1I,'.111h
and l:n\'lC\Onnt"nt.ll Contfol
I>IiF-:C ~hut tb:- Hie do" n 10 the:' ('.u h' 19;Os,
h-:- S.:IJ, t..:C.1l1c(, (,( tilt.' InClnl>Llt"r'~ ,,;r (';11IS'
~Ion~ I'IIs on U;c SII(', i:sed 10 ~ll1rc lI~c W,l~te
011 1K"or<~ InCl,h'r.3110n, rl'm:lln".1 oj''?o lor
~,IIr:C tlille aUI'" Ihe ~hul,hm a, ~t.lltln ~Jld,
Thp\' \\(,H' '1:1.11l\" 11111'11 1:\ ~lhol:1 h'o \'l',HS
:tfn.'~'" !':lIIt . .
T: ., !.~nhl\' U-J~ 110 ,It.llllt fin> :1('11" 01 1;1011,
L~~ I~.., 111:' p~!:; 11,'1 u; It J ,I ~:II. II i"lrlltll1 IIf
Ih,' projwrl)' - an ,1rra rou~hly 100 k~llon!:.
~O h'el \\I~e and a /,.,1 or 1\\,' M,'p
Tile ~~lin~d PI" ,'nnta:ned aboul 35,000 j:;.I-
)I'ns 0' a W.15((' oll,wJh r mi\lurC, Jr{"urLlmh
lu ;,n 1-:1'.\ f~porl i~,ul II "h.'n Ihe ,il~ wa~
;;~Jed 10 III~ 1\allOnJI PriOfllo~S Lisl The h~1
I~ J h-~'~h r ('I' the nation's u'ors( h.11..udous
w,'~le :-lh'S Jnd thr localions mdudcd arc.> ('3r.
rn;,/'~,"! fo>r rI~aJop u~,kr Ihe muhi,blilron
doll..r S"I"-'rl.nd P"'Cfa:n
TIo~ IL,nl',... It-, ~lle is numher 169 on 110"
11"1, \\ ~::<:h now C(I:'tIJI:",5 ;::(, h.l:..lnJous w~si('
1..( JIII'IIS
Ullr:',:1 front tt-r :lcta :lr')l.:n,1 (he pll': 'Itl\\'s
I' ~1011~:h 1~,lrll'.4l1rh' ,\\..:1:;1' :,r.,! 0\:11,1,1-" !""
~-..
~'}rt:G
fn
"'fe ,'n:rtying inlo Wall;oc" Ri"er, ac,'ord:n:;
In Ih., EPA Cl'port.
SI.11on ~aid I)IIf.C !ludil'~, "'~:ch Ifil:;:~Il'd
Ihe El'A's 'curr~n: leHin!: r",,:!aOl, lound
,mall ,lmounts 01 ~oi\'l'nls In Ihe ~!"ur.~\\ aler,
and -Il'al. fNI 10"' amounls. 01 PC lis - In
h" j'. 4'" p':.- '-~ t'~I, Itct 1:1:!II:h
tJt'C:H:":(' u, ('. :-~:I' :,' I: II,~": ::, :;, II ~II m I~.I'
!'II:'!,"
-------
-----
----.. ---.
I
I.
I
~~........~~~.:~~,ac..""_i.- ::
. . .
.
t ~'.
... :
"..I: :.
,.
.... "- , L',"'"
...
EPA Testing Progrant Starts At Rantolvles TfTaste Site
TIle Ceilll' farillt)', also kilo,", al \be C6)I 011 !
eon~iDecI aD iDciJIeralor used 10 burn wUte 8iI. Iu
aid, .
DHEC sht tile lite dcnrII in tbe early 1'1'" .. ,
1Irca- 0( emisi- '''DIll the inrinerltDl'. Pha - De ,
.... 18 lten LIIe 'AIle Dil brfore iDciDenU. --
fille.:! lIIItit aballt t- )'t'ln al:ll. StatDllsaid.
TIle faniit,. wu - aboat fi\'e anocs of IaDll.IIiIlIIIe
. See TESTING. Pale I.,A. CaI. J
pIn far Ute lile aDder the federal SuperfUDd prDII'lm.
0IriI Staton. an eD\'ironmental eDlir.eer willlibe state
Depanawalof Hullll aDd En\'il'Olllt\eDtaI CaaIl'OL aid ill
tats ill tile area lllve t1lrDed ap smaU a-sa of IOIvall
II1II a trace of PCB8 - . --.... iii .... ill
tnlllfanners. .
TIle duaap pIu 'DI' tbe IIle aboat II miles f~
OarlestD8 ..W be pramtccllo a paIIlk be.rilll 10 about
a )"I.'ar, In"DI'dia& 10 Nlnry Rt'dcall.', an ErA eam-
tat ..... ... T .w"'-" A8IaIIIIL
8)' EDWARD D. .1l'RPHY
Post.Covlcr Reporler
.. ASHI~CTON - TIle EDvif'OnmeDtal Protection
. AI&C'/ Wp8 ~ t_nartlt-lonC It'Stine procnm »ooday
Dear tile CeiCft' lite, an abandunt'd Wlltl.' oil flc:ilil, in
Rant-lei that isla Uw.tap * of the IL1tioo'llIaunIoua
wa.e sill'S. : - .
EPA win - tile infbimalic1a fram illlftU of fOil.ll'di.
_11..01 surfilC't' and ",ound"'''h'' I" cine lop a.cll.'anap
T'''''C,'TJ"\'"' 5'1' 'RTS 4T n t "---"n-~rLE'"
.. :":'.J .i. ., - . h ~ rl. l ~~ h:.L ~ .i ,} 'h . S
CI)"t!:;!; ~11 Frci:\ P;ge 1.."
mhlure. ac;C'.ording t') 2n Er.'; r~:n::
i3~I.led when the sit~ \','<1S ;:i.j,j~~ L".~ ::-.;!
;'i!li'Jnal rrio:ilj~s Li.t. Th~ iist ~ Ci
rz~!ster of the nation's -;oors: haz.:r j-
o'.!s waste sites an.j the 1oc:1t!I)~S in-
<.':;:d~d are earmarked for clf>:1r.:J;)
""oJ!!::1 multi.bil!ion dollar p:'ogr.:::m.'
.~.:'!'1 n:ant'1':.l ~s ~~t2 is nun1b:!" ic~'
0:1 th~ I:$t. ~!Iich no',\' contair.s 785
!:I_~~rt!o!:' \\,;1St~ bcat:C:13,
Run/,tt from the area around t!M!
pits flows through hardwood swamps
and ma~he3 ~f(lre emptying into
Wallace River, according to the EPA
r~pl)rt.
n~dg:1t~ s;:id EPA did ~ot e'l'p~ct to
f:l'r! PCB, !!'! !Is I~~ts, hut did a't~,:i-
pal~ turni~g up oil and h~a\'\' metals
in Ih~ 5!)iI ,r \,;,;.;t~r. That \'::J:.Ild not
n~'::cssari:y pos~ a risk to tl:~ h~a:th
ot r~J;id~'I::5 n~ar the Sitt!, , :\1s. Red-
::lt~ 3:!id. bllt .we don't want it in the
w.:te!' 'Jnder any cil'r:'1J:.1~t:mc~s.-
. ~Is. H~"g:H~ s"i.j [h~ ErA hopes
:h~ '('.'.'\ \'.-iH r.h,)w -I'')thi:l; t')(1 di53S-
trl)u.," ;u'u:::td the Gei;:cr site, -".)pe-
:ully. \~'i.' w.':t't find PCBs, hu: pcns
.;~" .11: ui!.-
vcxuj)iet! 0::;:: i:I 5111:,.11 purii'j:1 r;: ~iI~
i'f'Operty - a:. arca rnug!!1y 100 C~~t
ione. St' feet ~;id~ :1!1d 2 foot or two
Jeep.
Th~ ~~!~:.~~~ p~~5 ~Cnl;!j;-:~~ ~~t,Ol!t
:15.C~'" ~:-~!. .~-:.~ Ol ~ .::~~t~ t'~!."."~~e;
A-6
-------
. ,,"'.' . -' . ~
.'.; f -. .~. .
.., ...,... .1'
THE EVENIN,G POST
Founded Oct. 1, 1894
BARBARA S, WILLIAMS "
Editor
W, O. CHAMBERLAIN
Assistant EditOr
CHARLESTON, S C" MONOAY, JULY 15, 1985
Editorials"
-'.
'. '
l' . ~ r ., '
, I r'O" ,~,' -:-:-:'.
. J ......, ,l. .'. , -
-,- '. .' . oJ, .\4.. '.
.. J
. .. .
.. ' "
. ',: ." :~4.~'~~
'" . ':':<1:" >':' :;:\!.~~~~ !
" ,"".@;, '-",~.
4 , ..::' '. W:, :' ':~i~,
4 \ ~~L "
'W:,:: ", I
, ..
, ,
~_tJ~~ :~~:!t:. ~.,~~~~.~~ ~ . .~.:..--.
~~~i:~.~,.~:,'iJ~~:'.:.~:~:~t., '
r~. " .~
-
,I
:.4
"
A-7
-------
" ... -" ..,~-
The News & Courier/The Even,ing Post, Charleston, S.C., September 7,1986
I,
Meetin~f to':f,ocus'
on oil waste site.
, ,~
nea'r Rantowles
The U.s.' Environmental Protec.
tion Agency will hold a public meet-
ing Sept. 9 at Hollywood Town Hall
to present results of its..study of a '
waste. disposal site near'Rantowles
being considered for a federal clean-
up., " ' '.
The meeting will be held at 8 p.m.
Discussion will focus on an EP A re-
medial investigation study of a five.
acre site that djfferent owners used
since the early 1970s for disposing
waste oil or recovering oi\. The site
is a mile south of Rantowles. '
Eight lagoons, each about a 'foot
deep, were built at the site in 1969
and 1971. No disposal has taken place
there since 1980, the EP A said.
Within the last several years, Pile
Drivers Inc. has filled in the lagoons
and used the site for storing
equipment.
Results of the EPA study, com.
pleted in July, indicate that soil on
the site is contaminated with le.3d.
chromium, mercury, PCB's and sev-
eral organic compounds. Ground-
water at the site contains arsenic,
lead, cadmium and organic com-
pounds. '," ,"''',''.,'', '
The site is under consideration for
long-term cleanup under the Super.
fund program administered by the
EPA." ,
. According to the 'EPA study, the
contamination isn't expected to
spread. It should remain on the prop-
erty "for a very long period of time"
because of slow groundwater flow,
according to the EPA. Because the
flow is away from residential wells,
drinking water is believed to be free
from contaminants.
In 1980, investigators for the Sur-
veillance and Analysis Division of the
EPA found waste oil residues in the
lagoons.
The residues are similar to those
associated with automobile crank-
cases, brake fluids and degreasing
compounds. '
A-8
-------
2-B —Th» Evening Foil, Charleston, S.C.. Wednesday. September 10. 1986
EPA Says Waste Dump
No Hazard To Health
By CHARLES ROWE
Post-Courier Reporter
Tests on groundwater near an
old waste dump in Rantowles
show the site doesn't pose a health
hazard to nearby residents, offi-
cials with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said Tuesday.
EPA officials met with about 20
residents at Hollywood Town Hall
to discuss potential hazards and
cleanup plans for what the agency
calls the Geiger or C&M Oil site.
Groundwater polluted by waste
oil containing PCBs and metals
flows away from homes in Ran-
towles to an area largely covered
by swamp, EPA officials said.
That could cause problems maybe
10 years from now, but not if the
waste site is cleaned up next year
as planned, they said.
About 150,000 gallons of waste
oil were dumped from 1969 to
1971 into lagoons dug on the
12,000-square-foot site, just off
S.C. Highway 162. EPA began
monitoring the groundwater with
test wells last year.
"Tests show that the water is
flowing ... away from the resi-
dences," EPA.project manager
Thomas Roth said. "The public
doesn't have to worry about any
risk from the site."
Several residents, however,
complained about the quality of
the water, saying it frequently has
an unpleasant odor.
"Right now that water don't
smell so good," Arthur Dunmeyer
said. He said he believes it could
be associated with the Geiger site,
based on the odor of some of the
material that was dumped there.
"You couldn't eat breakfast, it
smelled so bad."
EPA and state Department of
Health and Environmental Con-
trol officials were unable to ex-
pla^n what might^cause an
unpleasant odor in the water, but
suggested it could be intrusion
from other, more recent dumping
in the area, or perhaps a faulty
septic tank. It could, however, oc-
cur naturally, they said. They sug-
gested tests by the county health
department. , '•;'.
"It may be an odor problem, not
a health problem," OHEC official
Chris Staton said.
Jim Susan, who is testing the
site under contract with EPA, said
Dunmeyer's well has been tested
and the water is safe to drink.
DHEC tests found contamina-
tion in a single well two years ago
but subsequent tests have given
that well and others a clean bill of
health, officials said. Roth said
the original sample from the well
may have been contaminated in
the lab.
The project will be cleaned up
with the assistance of the agency's
Superfund. Most of Superfund's
money comes from a special tax
levied on chemical companies.
Opening Of Clam,
Oyster Season
Delayed 2 Weeks
The opening of the state's oyster
and clam harvesting season is being
delayed for two weeks.
It will open a half hour before sun-
rise Oct. 1 and close May 14, S.C. Ma-
rine Resources Division Chief
Conservation Officer Charles M.
Learden said today.
This year's season has been de-
1 iyed as health safety precaution,
Learden said. There has been con-
cern that heavy runoff caused by
r iins in August may have caused
5 )me pollution of shellfish. To be on
i le safe side, the season is being de-
'ayed on the advice of division biolo-
gists and a number of shellfish
dealers, Bearden said. -^
,„
A-9
-------
and (Fourier
Wednesday, September 10,1986 Charleston, S.C.
.
•>"V' '
\-\
\-^J"l
? e*«.
Old Diimp At Rantowles Poses
No Health Hazard, EPA Says
By CHARLES ROWE • . .
Posi-Counar Reporter
Federal officials on Tuesday told
Ranlowles residents who live near
an old waste oil dump that the site
poses no health hazards.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency officials met with about 20
residents at Hollywood Town Hall to
discuss potential hazards and clean-
up plans for what the EPA calls the
Geiger or C&M Oil site.
Groundwater polluted by waste
oil, containing PCBs and metals,
flows away from homes in Ran-
towles to an area largely covered by
swamp, EPA officials said.
That could cause problems maybe
10 years from now, but not if the
waste site is cleaned up next year as
planned, they said.
About 150,000 gallons of waste oil
was dumped from 1969 to 1971 into
lagoons dug out on the 12,000-
square-foot site, just off S.C. High-
way 162.
EPA began monitoring the
groundwater with test wells since
last year.
'The public doesn't have to
worry about any risk from the
site.'
— EPA Project Manager
Thomas Roth
'Tests show that the water is
flowing ... away from the resi-
dences," EPA project manager
Thomas Roth said. "The public
doesn't have to worry about any risk
from the site."
Several residents, however, com-
plained about the quality of the
water, saying it frequently has an
unpleasant odor.
"Right now, that water don't smell
so good," Arthur Dunmeyer said.
He said he believes it could be as-
sociated with the Geiger site, based
on the odor of some of the material
that was dumped there. "You
couldn't eat breakfast, it smelled so
bad."
EPA and DHEC officials were un-
able to explain what might cause an
unpleasant odor in the water, but
suggested it could be intrusion from
other, more recent dumping in the
area, or. perhaps it faulty septic
tank. It could occur naturally, they
said. They suggested tests by the
county health department.
"It may be an odor problem, not a
health problem," DHEC water qual-
ity official Chris Staton said.
Jim Susan, who is testing the site
under contract with EPA, said Dun-
meyer's well has been tested and
that it's safe to drink the water.
DHEC tests found contamination
in a single well two years ago but
subsequent tests have given that
well and others a clean bill of health,
officials said.
Roth suggested that the original
sample from the well may have
been caused by contaminants in
DHEC's laboratory.
The project will be cleaned with
the assistance of the agencyVS>uper-
fund. Most of Superfund's money
comes from a special lax levied on
chemical companies.
-------
--.---..--- _._---~-- -~~,---
, . ,
THE EVENING POST
Founded Oct. 1, 1894
BARBARA S. WILLIAMS
Editor
W, 0, CHAMBERLAIN
Assistant Editor
CHARLESTON. S C., WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 21.1987
.'
Editorials
. CleaUlJp Techniql!-es
When the Environmental Protection Agency holds a public
meeting Jan. 29 to review possible procedures for cleaning up
an abandoned waste oil dump at Rantowles, incineration is
likely to be one of the methods discussed. The irony of the topic
probably won't be lost on long-time residents of the area, but
they'll want to be open-minded about the matter, and listen
carefully to answers to their questions. .
Incineration was what triggered citizen complaints about a
commercial chemical waste disposal operation at the same site
in 1971. Back then neighbors described the fumes as nauseating,
and the state ultimately shut the incinerator down. Subse-
quently thousands of gallons of waste oil was dumped in open
pits at the site, which the EPA a couple of years ago included
on its list of 500 worst hazardous waste dumps in the nation.
Soil and water tests determined that although groundwater in
the vicinity had been contaminated, well water hadn't, and the
pollution did not pose a health threat to people. .
There's no way to know when the situation might worsen,<
however. The sooner it is corrected, the better. The meeting to
review cleanup methods is part of the correction process. On-
site incineration is one option. Incineration as a means of waste
disposal has come a long way since 1971. Pollution controls,
such as scrubbers, ensure safety and minimize odors. On-site
treatment such as incineration is less expensive, too, and that's
a major consideration when cost estimates for the removal of .
waste oil from groundwater run into millions of dollars.
A-ll
-------
t!;bt '!\ t t1'S «n a ~on ri t t"
'.. ,'.'
ions I
~,
Friday, 'JanuarY 30, 19t
EPA, Residents Clash
Over Risks Posed By'-
Rantowles Waste Site
By CHARLES ROWE
Post-CourIer R.paner .
Feder:J1 environment:J1 officl:!ls
said Thursday that a h:Jz:lrdous
w:Jste sile in R:Jntowles poses
m:Jinly long-term environmenta I
hazards, but residents and local gov- .
ernment officials contended that the
area has not been adequately stud-
ied. ' .
The five-acre site off S.C. llighway
162 is listed by EP A :IS one of the 500
worst hazardous waste sites in the
nation. Between :969 and 19;1.
about 150,000 gallons of waste oil
were poured into seven pits thl're.
Residents, speaking to representa-
tives of the Environmental Protec-
tion Aj:;ency at Hollywood To....-n Hall
on Thursday, said---tht'y -told ErA
ahout barrels of chemicals buried on
the site, but that the agency never
investigated their complaints. .
Hollywood Mayor Lela Dickerson
and Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester
Council of Governments representa-
tive Linda Tucker said they were not
satisfil'd with tests on Rroundw:ltcr
drawn hy wells into nearby houses, :I
concern also stated by several resi-
dents. .
MI didn't understand why you
didn't test some of the wells down
gradient (from the waste oil site):
Mrs. Dickerson said. MH you didn't
test, how do you know they arc
s:lfe?-
The community of R:!ntowles has
I:lrgely been incorporated into the
town of Hollywood.
EPA officials said they had un-
e:Jrthed several partially buried bar-
rels at the site, tested them and
found no hazardous materials. They
promised, however, to look :Jt other
sites with the help of residents and to
provide :1dditional tcsts of w('l1
w:lter.
Waste oil has seeped into ground-
water below the site, but well water
has not been contaminated, EPA of-
ficials said. The oil contains lead.
chromium, mercury and s"1all
qU:lntities of polychlorinated "i-
phenyls, or PCB.!, an electrical
transformer coolant linked to can-
cer.
Thomas Roth,. .EPA official- in
charge of the inveslLgation, and
Chuck Petrosewicz, with the fed~'ral
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, assured the group
that the site presents no immediate
public health hazard to nearby resi-
dents.
Roth said EPA wants to clean the
site to prevent any future dangers to
either residents or the environment.
He said that nearby marsh is home
lO severa I enct.1 ngerett1rird species
that could be harmed by seepage of
contaminants from the'site in 10-15
years. Residents complained .that
EPA'is more concerned with ani-
mals than people.
MWe are going to.be living around
here in 10 or 15 years: one woman
said. MWe could be endangered tOo.-
EPA oHicials presented cost e.sti-
ma tes ranging from $2.1 million to
$I 0.5 million for the clean-up. The
clean-up is e.xpected to be paid {rom
a federal emergency clean-up Jund
called Superfund. ~Iost of Super-
fund's money comes from a special
tax levied on chemical companies.
EPA estimates remo\'al of w35te
oil from groundwater ....-ill cost be-' .
tween $1.5 million and $4,95 mIllion.
and' cleaning the surrounding soil'
will cost between $619,000 and $5.6
million.
Three methods of cleaning ground-
water would require pump-Ing it to
the surface and remo\'lng con.
taminants eIther on. site or at a
sewage treatment pla:1! A fourth
See Waste Site Pa;e 2.8
2\-12
... Waste Site
Continued From Page 1-8
method - the most expensive -
would w.,11 in the contalT.inated area
to a depth 01 50 floct and C<.lp the site.
to prevent W:lstcs from moving olf
site.
Soil would be treated, either bv
cJppin,:: the site or remo\'ing at least
part of the contaminated soil. If all
cuntaminated soil were excavated
and taken to a landfill that h:lndles
hazardous waste, it would cost H.28
mill.iun. If the soil were excil\'ilted.
cleaned :lnd replaced, it would cost
$~.6 million, th~ estimates said.
-------
, ..' "--,' ,
I '
.~. g:~_!l'1 fIJ"~'''''''' . ~'E4 ~ "'~.'6-' ~.--~~~~""1It'1~'l :"",,,,,'......,H.
I . ~....' ' , .' '. . '.',r.,.. ,i.. ..; .. ~, "<{.t;-,1'.1I.' .~ :it ..~'
,""- .., ,.J' ,.."" ." ., t'-;;., -~. ,. ~. ',f', .'. "'\\..'.. ,
- . ',.. :-.'.." ,'... "'" . .~. ".'r:";4." 'O.,...iI;"'~",-~'1."'.'.';'.t,,,:,:,-,'r; ,~ "
. " . "i :'t,r::..,-.t, , ". ~ . &~.. ~"~'~~'.~'~'. ~.~' . ......,:,,~ft~, :~" :'..~ ~ .~, '. ',."
'.~n~~' l~i~.':"~""i.;.,~l~I..,~.!\t"~' ...",1- "...,~l ":(;"~~Jf':.."~,.,rt..':'~~"':'4~~~",,,,:";:.'l;,~\~..~ ,::~~,~,' ,E!<
-1." .' ..lh"",,,,,,"~'" .~.,..,."~1!t..-II'; I .. ..,...~~~ '''I'''~'~''':''I:':.:\~~I~''';''~!''''''''' ", - '
, . '." .., ~"?:'. . :." , " ,', ',. '. "~ , " . ' . ~ ' <
, "': ...(.'O..iI.~4:'''''' . :.,.,. ""'..,.' )r- r-. ..'~.. ~A...:,..~.~,.:.".,..!J'" . -.'. . ""..1: .~
, .,", .~"''''.,::, ".;,::.~. .~ ' . .~:: ',.. ','\10.-';'"." ',':;.,,;'. . . " I' ",,','r'\,~~
'. ,.,:.? 'r...,iJf1.)' ~'J "."..O\'f, ,'\~ ./li' . ':"if'~ . " ~~;;'\" " ,,''''. ',j'" :. ' ';,.,;' . ' " "":""!f" 't-.ll '
". ' ,...::;,. ~'.'I ..' ,'~: :~." ~'" ',;., :.' .:~ :~~..~... '-:'~'., .:.. . ":.. '. " - "a~~~. ~.'=' 'O:..,:. ::"; ~ .: '. "",.;, :', ..' . ':-' "':\'~~~'~ '.~ ,.'
ThO'E~~ning'r~sl, ,fetir~~;Y~~::1 ~"~1¥~;i;!ii3~~?G! '!'i~l4~~ .. ~ ...~. ' . ..";";~&1f,:;i'),j~V~~I~' :::,; ft. . .. . ~
," ,......,',"""."- ....'.I.~.,.",....,.,~".:- ' ",,,..,,,,,,', '~".: ;' ,'...' ,""~ '," '.... ,', .:: .1
'. ".:-. '. -"If,',' ,..:,:to' ~.~....;..; '. ;~':';";~'I'~:m1' ;'Vs.~' 't~ ' "~I~i;;.'::':";:'::,: ",~ !. , '~~~'. " 1+., '!Iii,. :.":~ :" ~:..,...~.,,,,,,,~,{..,, .\..t')It't :1
, ::,p.." ~':~. ..., .' ,~:). ":..i:4~i~.. :".,~ :,:"i~':.~~j}~ 1'\: ~ ~) . :'~t:~':;.~"i\'~"':":: .~~.. ~~.." ,:~ r. "i',,~ :.~'O ..:::.: ',. ~.o:n-...",,, ".~~'..' . .:! .,.
:: :: ;-"", . '.. ~:;, ' '", . ,)~ ',:.;:,\~;~t;., ;;~;~~ ~t~~~:';f,i ~ i~.; . ~~~ '" , )~:.:;,..::~:,,;f~{;: ': ":::, 'i 'i,:"'~i/\?:;ij,', ;~,:..,'i!;';~~~~~~,t.., ;. ':'~,,:;,~:~':'f.:~~:~;m,~'" . ;:'::'.'~~'I mJ.'.; , :
-Hol!.. wood ;{s~ee~s .raii't/fo~t~xtenatwa1er.i~nries~;'
. ,.;. '. .,' i"'!... '," >; .,. . ,:.":.'~;;. ... \~. 'i,~ 9 <;, {o, h ,'... . ,,;..;,~, --P-'; ';;to- . :.-:: ,;::;t!1. : ,'-'::;: ..../. .';;:~ ;~.:' _. .1
" By CHARLES ROWE. .:' ~I:~~.:., ' .. : ,- ':~~~~"'O'i;' .:' ttie,tJIroJect Is aecessary to eUp1laaI.e'.,hat the maJOr . uld the,.tode inca, ~Ia th~ ~rlgiDafta(ma~
: Po8t-coun.r~ 'I' ',. ". ~''''''., .' .,:,(.r ,::" .', 'comlden. bealth.bazard. ", ';' ',:::' ","<':i': i baYebeeDalaberror::',I.." ':, ;.:'~.~i1i,'"", ,'~
..' 'ft ".. " .,' I 'r_'~' ... 0' ...~ ~._.t--
, HoUywood ',waats a graat- to: ~rleDd. w.ter: tIDes to }' '. ~ Dickenoo" aald loc.11 DHEC offlclala first.told ',', ,F~g.~d EQC aebbed .resldeat.s.oOt to drlDt: fiOc
bouses Dear a todc waste aUe, but the towa'a '.may~,; - ~deats ID 1985 .that, tests bad foUDd coata~tI aad '," the welli ~~ 4Jae ofO~ ~~ ~~~ve test ~~'D'" , ' .
,beUnes cbances of obtalnlDalt have been hampered b,', ',urged the!D Dot to cIrin;k water from theirwelfs.: Later,~. the wa~ .to.be ~~ :-.t;~t'''' .,\~;t~n,~)-l\,~k ,',4" .:, . &..
. lack of aupport fr:om .tate..~ federal '~viromoe.ata1 ~ D~ offlciab told residents ~t .ubsequeat tatl,fOUDCl(~) :~,EPM~ffl~lab~Ja/~tI."l:bqw.. (ha~f'~~~.. '
officials.' '. "3,\ :,; ::"~' ,', ''T:~:,r':'" i /,.:;;.. ,: ,: . ':"!'~:- :'ii!;thepeir weU water was sale, but ,~~~ ,~.. ~~~~~.cro1UlChra~~o~,a1!.,~m,~WJ»1,~~~, aqd ~
.- '''The JOutheni aiar1estoa cOuntJ'tan' taU ~p;Ued for ,~m aot to drink .~'abe sa.ld.~~:'ir:.~:~',' ,< :.~..,:,~t(;~~~.~:~.DO 1mm~~}a~z~rct",eJ plao.~ :~I~ ~p ,the 'i1~~"
..'. .fed raJ' , , .' ". ". '~~~'d like to havelOmethiDg more CODCluslve;- 8he~!ihs.C:la2. DmJeaf toW!. t loag terDfbW~~incl~'-
~O"18a,250 .ID . ecommu,mty d~el~pmeot, ~~ ,~d-.I:{ .O'"t ~ould belp to 'ge~ the giaril"~~'fh; :i~~~:~~~~en~....~- :::. ~l~~~'f.~~~;;t ,
:"mInlstered by.pae governors offlce,to p~~4e,wata' to~,. ficialswtthEPAandthestate~ea~ofB~tb,>~~thewa~.,w~..c;c?~. - ted,theD/\iii~~cipeJ1.,..~
~ ~~ bo~ ~eou:.a todc ~waste 5I~ ~ft:d .~y.~e Y~~EDvI: !Eaviroamenta1 Coatrol Jay',that tests ofieS1deaUal~~.e~.oold ~ha,e.~j1~erte~Phem~t'" another .IO~~':.
',ronmenta1,~. tecUOD'AgeacyU"ODe'Of.e~ UOII', "_If;' "..'.. .1;';'" I ~"'.,. "''''~-'''''''.~PA:'~' '~';C-"Th,"'r'J.. . ..' ~:.~
.~ I" .t.'$.~jf' ~-tMt '. .~ arv~dJb~..~aste,oUalte:pI,Ranto.. ~ .'~~'{l.~.a~,,~.. prO~~r~~.:10~~.Oth,ia(~:~eaol'
\~~~~~. '. ~~\1'¥':;:.'I;r!~.~~~~\j.)'.;~~1' '~'~"'" I ' ~1;that,bas ~geIY:beeDJDCOrpora~}D~JIOU~I. W~"~-" ;;t b ~fl~~:t{~.ith~.
i:~,TOWD ~yor fa piCkenoD sald~' week.l'ater,lj~, pow no sigos of .tOn~UoD by t01,l~ :~~~'3~ tt .ater'r '.... ~11tj{4J'~..~.//:':;.~, .
,\c:o~d O'~.~eoded ~y. faU U the towugets th.e mODey,ti~r ests 'ID early\~~85"aho"~! trac!es' o~ .~"(II ~~. ;~'~~den., ,.' ~dbe.~ . "O!~~ ,~th :~tj ~ater, ~
<:.sh~ fea~!he p~Jectco\lld,b.e.Uarea.ten~ b"lack, of,~p-; ',. gle weU.'!b!1t,.ub;equeat1'Usb'!f~QlClt.to::CoDflr:DI ,1O~d~'~~~~,~~~~~1.,~.,~ ~Iudin~
~J.r~ .~~~ Ep'A'ed thn~te ~~t ~f ~eal~1Dd 'Original findJ.D~ '.Wa~ ,F~g, ,~istaDt:dlrector, of ~.., '\'.\. ~I~~~V' " :'t('.::~"~' ":~':::, ~ ' " ",~ ~',,~,.:' , . . . I.)
1.'ED~~tDta1 ~CoatroL". Nelther'ageocy: agrees.:that . 1IEC'.'districlj:l!vuoDlDenta1 QualilyCoDt(vl oUl~ !i~"~~.\". {~' t::"~:':'. ',,:: .:'~ .sa~ HoUr-ood.Page 2.Bi
',\'i~'-.;J?'»~t';~''''l",;'r: {:f,-;':~ : :'~I-;' 'i~'~~ ,4111'-'1:.. ': '.~" ,,'i ',: ~~:: t ;~1 . . "'.;","';.1;;:.:\":':H.~j:'.i~,;' ,.' "~' \',r, :..~::,..,..,:\:;:~, ',,:.': ".'" i~~':i :"',1';.t:..' ~~1\': ie," '; ":~ :,.., ,~:"'," " "J.';':'.',:" '''\~
~'.~ ",. ',."<.. .'",,-:-:;,:..,;;.. ~,,~.i,~~-' : '-' ,; ':... , , :', _":". : ." . :~. '.., . < . . , . ...,.
I..~t,~f:'~'~-;;:;'!! ':', )f.' :'~f' ,:',' ,'~"" ~',' ..:..';,.',..:.. (
:, :I"'e ~~~:n ,g.~a:p:~gi f:,~t g.~ ~~ ~I,!~J~J~~~~!~,I,,~~;
, ::~, 0, IF ~ 1::':,. ,t:I'~: "0 4'18 :1 e IF 18 ~ A.,' go II ;I..;. ',,':11 ~. ]
,"1.18. g~. ,1:-- 110"1" <011 '-~ "
.. 8:&"1'1 "~,a.~~,6:. D'S ..Cb:i~B S S:""o-I 18 a~ I'). ~".
&." :,~ . c,a ' ~ "5.~rl8 ~.~cf' aiR- .,~ 0'
~'~~['~r~:)~!Q:I~, = 1;'4 i~1i15 "Ii~ih qlJ~~....;,
~,t:=:~' a- e. 1:.":It D' E~:! rIQ~1 ~ I!, ~ tt ~ 6 tD. .~ a. ~ IIJ I! 8 "t3~~
:',', t8~ . 18 fit tj"bD'nj\- .~OI8t8.c.OQ""""
. .,' '..) '0. .. ... ... tr,t8OQ .="1 " t8 ~ ..po ,,:~"D;,,:'
,~_e-bili'''O;!. 'Z ..J"I' ,.~~n"O~"~ 0 r:-R='ltZJ~ 1:;..,.,.11,../:-".., .,
m~-~ u'E-a ~c., /!"', "'~q:g 'D>~.S' D'-...[ ~Ci,&:a:t"~,,,oI\L'itJ
~~ 'O'~~~.;..s t;f,:r,25..Q, ,~ ~~'.;~~~ C"-';>J:!I!\~.l.'~~O
(: = :0'"".' -t:;5;C'" ,0 ~ '.ClG
-------
....-...,....,..
~.~~......" .
":.~..,~~:'.' . " "f~" .... .i' , , '
, ,"r'" " -,',', ~~/, '.. '" 'I ',,, ':, '~,'t..;"~', ',..'\ ',",',', ~. " ""~:,,'t ': :::', :",
'". , p. ,.", ... of " ", ~ ~ 0 "'.. ,'" \1, .o,...~ '~'~I;"I'~i -.'!~i',:":":-y"".t~,:,,,,,,""-4I,.""i,,.,l\i;'~"~'I"
" ".,', " "., , '.""',. '""." ''0 ',"\ , ' ~..:,'tJ,~r, :~f'~'~'.:':"~.'t~t:.:~:..::",:.'.':_~:" ~. '",', ., ,,->,
~'.';',~ ,"JA...~,,4,'~,H/1!..At~.fI:"'!~n.;, ":',~:'~~." '..'" '~.",'. '''.1i,:,:,,~;;{/;,),,~.»j,~14.t!. I ..' ',", ' , ;. ',' ." ''''''.'\6: ~~ ~,1fI , ~';""J;1,1~1\ (.., ,I,~., ~,JI ",-I,m::'. \1.,..:..: , .; ~<,' ,~. ,.,', ' "';'
~,J.r'I-'" ,.I.t;:-,~.. ",,~£;. ""'" ''''''',,~'1o':OI',~~/!'''iIi'1>c\~., I I." -'.. """ " ' ,,' ',.', '''''..',,-' ",- '" . "
'L.'.........,'.",.."'.'"'_,.,,o , . \ ".,.-......., "......., ""~-"",..~-~"".oo""_,,,,,,""'.i""""""''''#4 ,.' .'
. ;':':,:'~~'\>";("';" ,.' , "1OhB J'b}~:,~I, ""1i:;~~"i$~'!"~' ">"j" ":,B~
NtWG an~
-------
Appendix B
Legal Notices summarizing
Proposed Rdcrel..1ial Alternatives for tne
Geiger (C&M Oil) Site
. .
-------
.'
. . - ~ .
.:...". ..~..:::'...;-.:-..... .~'-'" .
NorrCE Of PUBLIC MEf:.i'ING ArJC
SOLICITA'l'I(lIJ OF Cr contmination at the C,e :rJer (c&rl Oil) National Priorities
Li5t hazardous Wt'Iste site:: in Charleston Ccunty, South Carolina. A Sl..lJm'lary
of rE:!'!ledial altl~rnat ives will hi. presented, and cOTrents will he solicited
fran concerned citizens. The meeting will be held at the following location:
Hollywood City Hall
. (-316 Highway 162
Holl'{\oJOCYJ, Sooth Carolina
(1103) 8H9-3222
29~49
'!he drClft Feasibi.lity Stu\.ly (FS), dt:tailing remedies bP.i"C1 consh!cred hy EPA,
r'~'y ~ ccviC'Wt:..d at the Hollywoo-1 City Hall. Thc pulJlic mecting will IT.ark
thf: start uf a three-\.t~t'k public <:crr.1t~nt f)Cri
-------
.' .
. -,
.'.. .
.. ~ . - -
Th~ Fca~ibility Study (t~) ~valuation resulted in tite development of several
alternatives tor cleanin~ up'soil and groundwater cont~ination'at ti\~.
Geiger (C&M Oil) sit~. The alternatives werE: ~valuated on how (~a.sily they
coulu t)t. implemented, hew we] 1 the:y would clean-u!) the t:nvirvrrl1~nt and
protect p.1.bHc health, and hCM cost-effective they are.
The following alternatives arc being considcrtKI for thn Gcig€r site:
ALTERNATIVES FOR GHOlJND.-JATEr. RL'1f.DIATIOO
A-I
J:;xtraction, Air Strippirq, Optional Flocculation/Sedi.Jnentation, and
Disposal ot Groundwatt'l'
Unocr this alternative, gra.mdwater waJld he Pl.ll':"lp(.~ fran several ~lls on
the site to the top ot a portable air stripping unit. The water ~~ld
fall through the unit, whil~ air blown upwards Ct9ainst th~ flow wculd
rCJrCiVt: volatile organic crrnpounds which contaMinate the watQr. It, during
rE:JT1Cdial d0sign of the altl~rnativ(.', it is det<:rmined that rn::>tals present
a contardnation problem, a f.locculation/&.'>(jiJnentation system will also he
used. Li.Jt\(~ would be added to 'the extracted graJrYJwater, causinn metals
in the water to scttl~ out. The treated watcr would be filtered and then
discharg~1 to the stream west of the site. Approximately 62 ~illion
qallons of watpr would be treated.
A-2
Extraction, Optionid flocculation/Sedimentation, Carbon AGSorbtion,
and Disp("'\sa1 of Groundwatpr
This alternative woulu involve pl~ing groun~later from several on-site
wells to colufnns ()t Qranular activated carbon, would adsorb orqanic
contd carbon would be dis[X)st.>d off-s ite in an
approv~~ landfill. Should metals be deter.mi~~i to present a contamination
problem, a tlocculation/s~diIrentation systan would also 00 used, as
describL~ above in Alternative A-I. Treated water woul~ be discharced to
the stn~am west ot the site. with this alternative, approximately 62
million qallons of wate~ would ~. rumrcJ and treated.
A-)
Extraction and TrOdtl~'flt of Gro..mdwater at a Privately-0Nncd 1'rcatrrent
~rks
This alt~rnativ~ would involv~ extraction of groundwater from several en-
site \~lls and pulT1pin() it throuqh a 4-inch pioc alo~ ~outes 162 and 17
to a s~r line about 6 r::ile~; trom the site. The water would flow in t.ho::
scwcr to a water tr~atMcnt plant.
B-2
-------
"
" .
';-4
S lurry ~iall oi;inLi c.-I~)
, .
1\ tno'neil ~J()ul(j t'\.' CXt.:clv~lt: J to .::1 .J0j)th ot ar>l:.rox~..r..;;;!t.:?ly 5J ~\,;(;t arourid
the contaMinated 'Ir~i:!. Uack-f:illin1j t!1Q tr(m~'b h'irh lr.('\tE-!rial of low
rcrnea~ility woullJ pno'vr.?nt tth: tic...'] of c()nt~jl1C)toO C)rwnd""'C:ltl:'r out or
the enclosed i'tr~:a. A cap \-fould pr0vt'nt wat(-~r frr.r1 cntcrif\l thi!'.; Cired
~:rCrn thto! (jroun(1 surfac.::.
A.LTEm~/\TIvrs mn SOIL E-',F!1r.:nIT\TIOJ
- .----.-- -- . ----
8-1
Cap
A thrce-ldy~rL'(j t.:dp \o.oulu Uc constructed over the area of hignest soil
contamination, ;10 are~ ot approxlJ'1\'1te1y 1.2 acrt?s. Thi~ would pr~vent
tUJI"!.an or ,:nvirc;If:'(.'ntal contt:lct with the soils an~ y/OUld prcycr.t their
t:rosion into m>arby streams and Wt.:tli'tnds. Infiltration ot watE:r tro" t!~
(_~I'CAJI1d ~Ut"tiIC'.; would a150 J.: r" tin"~c',;.
~2
Vc.:qctiltiv(: or Gt'iJv.:l CfJVL'r
A vL-'9~tated 1dy.:r ot t<..;j)suil c;r a lay!.!r of yr.uvcl I.-Je")Llld be pJ aci:.'\J over
tlf': J'X)st-cont,'1T1indtL".:J :.rl:i\, prc:ventinq h'...J""-<.1.n an'~ -.rNin'rIT,.;lital cuntact. ~J.;.th
CC.Jntclf:1ini'tlJU soil. SULtC:IC'~ w.;ltc:r ~"oulu sti 11 int iltratc t"10 ~oi 15.
f1- :~
Pactial Exc.Jvatic,n, On-Sit,.... [)j,~;msa.l., an"i Cd!,
~.Qi1~ ot 10.."e.:1:" cuntcu"inution ~1t.>Uld DC plclccd in t.J\c hiGhly contronin::\"..ec
area And CI Cel;) ~K)ul(j bE' ;,laced l:ver thro uS d~scril,<:,~ in Clltf:!rn,lti'Je R-l.
I::xcava t\..'(! .::1r,-",::;, W( .uId I)l: : :<:let; t i llt:':! rtntl ~!rad(.'(:.
P,-.1
Pc=trtial txcavatir:,j), \)n-S; tC' Disposal, 2nd Cov(~r
Lcsser-conrc:.a:',in.:itf'C.1 ~r'l ls ~..0u.l(j he ;.)lac..'Cc.: in the.: hiClhly contaminatL-d are'!
and ,", 'JC'q.~t(]tIV(! or 0r,lVtd cover, as clcscril)0I' jn altcrn<'ltlv,; B-2, '.lClJlc1
tk [)ldc\.:(i OV0r tl"1".
1;-5
Ext,;"vation, O:I-~i tc' Inc;i:'..:rati,on, Ginl1 SOliJitiCi::Ition/Stiibilization
i~ll cc.nt<'r!inat~d s~i15 un tl:c ,jitc: '''''(.>\Jh~ b. t:x.:'.o!vatn'J .111'~ incir.~r;~t..::~ in
,. J'"X..;ull.J iCllri'.1r'--~ i,.ctl!-.:r,lt'_'.r :0 rl:.'f'VJV(; onJrlnic cont:.;\f.'.in<.:1nts. 'i'hl;:::J~
5' ,il~ "Joul,. tllC.'n ~10 thU:"JI.;h ('1 ,)tilt)i1i~()tio:o rrCt';8:.;S, ~:hich rl:r1'lCl~S th,:
r-ovcr:t,;nt. r:.t n-:ta.ls tru:' tile ~cil into th~ liCc.'UnrJ':lc;tl'r. The' tn-."t(:-:J soil
",.oJ(;ul~ t',.: j'lluc(:rj O~CK int'.0 thl: ' XC.Jv"t."'i.! ilr: '".
B-3
-------
1-
". '. ~
. , .....~ .".
IJ-6
f.xcavCltion and Off-Si.te obrosal
.'
i,
I",
I ~
I"
Al~" contar.'inatC'd soi 1 on the s i tp wau)
-------
o
~ Nt"" nnb Ctonritt"
D
THE E\'E~I~G POST
State of South Carolina
County of Charleston
Pel"$OnaJly appeared before me
the undersigned advert ising Clerk of the
above indicated. newspaper( s). publ ished
in the City of Charleston. County and
State aforesaid. who. being duly sworn.
says that the advertisement of
c copy alla('ht.o I
AFFIDA VIT
OF
PUBLICA TION
~.
appeared in the issues of said newspaper( s)
on the following day ( s) :
JANUARY
11,
1987
at a cost of $
248.40
Account II
000159153
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this
12th
day
of
JANUARY
a..--~... ~r. J~t"'-<7~J
87
A.D. ]9_.
c:.~'~ ~LJ~ ~~
r\OTARY PUBLIC, S.C.
. NOTARY PUl:lt Ic ,~
u ~, ~r,.,.
.1 Com' . .w H CAROL
I "orm 130%0, mISSIon ~pire.s S INA
. eplr:.nber S. 1994
II
B-t:',
." ','~"-' '.(. .
:'::~"'I. s: 4 \...I"P'-e"v ')f "!-f.
:.~' ! '~""'.)'.,,~\ ...... ~ O"'!\t"'f':.
)I"'~ :.,..--!-'\ ....I :>. \.:Ih(,'~
; ":)M ::"':!'''''I!'O ell It"" !"'\e
I 1'T".l!'tl""" :;,e- "'tiC: .' '''e '''''0'''.
: ."'1';1 ."'-c~' ':'." "'~lIywCiOO C '... 1"1411
~ '>1~~'" ~""''' ;,tl 1-1':)<\" ""oOd. SC:
. 1''''. 'e~j!e9'Jn7
, r"e 0'15" ~ta\,o,. '.., SluO... 'c:s:
: ce'a,,,J".1 ,!-ec eo\ oe'''~ C.01\\.<:.
! !r!~ 0, EDA. -av De 'e..!.~ af
I ':'Ie ~oj"""""OOd C,I" Mal' Tne CuD"
I hC m!!hr.; ...It mar. t!"'! \'41'1 Of
4 It",(re-",re. OuOI.C CO~~f"'. oe-
(,CO on '''e orOI)OStG rr"""",,',,.
~ ir:.t tommen, Of(I~CJ WIIJ :>t;ln
I Jan 29. 1981 ':'Id c""clude on
I T!"Iur\d''''. F=eo. 10 1QS7 OU'I"Q
: :~I~~~~~~;;:~"I!~~~I~.tr\t~:~~~~
. I QO\fd rr"T"eO!.u In r"'r 1=5 rroc"
'-.' ~I" !;>(,~~;;I~O~~~..~;ts,;,~,~P~
I oo'tmlr"rd no "rer t~.~ '''110-
I ~~g:"'t: efn~':nal,9t:" aRg,.r..o~~'?.~
I 0111 ProiKI M.n.oer. US e,.".-
ronmenl.1 PrO'fer-O" ",ge~cv. ).s
Courulnd S"Ht. He. A"18n'8.
Y:'~:.~?J,fi'y('t~~~'iffi' 1.,,1-
u.ficn r.\Un.., in 11'\. O...~~t
of le.I'.1 ,u.rnl"".' for (le'''I''O
uQ ,Oil and oround*..., eO""""I-
n.l,on .t the Gt'9fr tC&M Oil)
,.11. Tn. ,u.rn,"y., -er. .....t--
ualltd on no- ,.,il., I",.... (Ould De
irnol.".,ln'lIfd, no. .,11 '''ty -01..tk2
(I""-UD '''. ."".,on",e'" .nd D'O-
'.el oubhC "..nn. '"C "0. (.0,1-
IUKlive In,OW' .rt. T". '0110"'"9
eltern.'..,.s .r. Deing consi4tPrl'd
tor ,,,. G'loer si";
ALTEIINATIVES FOil
C,IIOUNOWA1EII liE ""EO I"
ATiON
A-I e l'r.Clion. Air S'riDoing. 00--:
1ional 1=~cu"'ion.'S.d1-e:'\t.'IQIft,'
.nd DisDOS.- of Groundw.'''. I
under 'hil 8"""'''-.. "round-'
..al.. - ~ .......- from -.
era. - 011 ,,.. ,iI. 10 lite 'DO of
a _laOl8 air ,'ioo'lI9 UIIil. TIle
:~!: :r~~1o::~ ~:=:S ~~~f
Inl 'lOw would rl'f'r\OvI vOlatile 01-; .
C)8nlc comoouncs, ,,'hel' con,.mi-'
nal. 'h. ...,81.r. If. durino ,~i.f
d.'Ign of ,,,. .U.,nalivl. it is .s..
lim.led '''.1 mela" Dr.,.nl I con..
'aminal ion DroOJem. a
floccula'ion/sedimen,.,ion ,.,s,.",
WIU .110 t»e uNdo Linw would ore
.dded 10 'ne e."ICII'd Ground-
.Iter. CausinG m."" In ,.... ....,
10 lem. oul. Tn. ',ealtICS ..'"
would be lill.red .t\d ,Pt8ft dil-
(naroed '0 I". s"..m wes' of I".
,il'. AQD'Oxim81ef" '2 million MJ-
~~~ o~ ~~~~~i:-~c:-~,.,.'rkX--
cuillion/Sedimenl.,iol'l. C,'bOn
Ad\orCtion, ."d 0'100'.' ot
y~:un:l~e~':=ljy. would involve
oumoittC) ground.IUtf' 'f'om s.e'W.
eral on.sile we'" 10 COlumns of
granular ,Cliv"ed ClrDOn ..ould
absorb Qro.nlC eOnlaml"II"" in
Ine wI'.r. Used ,.roon wouJd De
disDOI.d oH."f' in .n 'DDrov~
Iindfill. Sno...ld ""'I" tie deler'
mined '0 D'fSfn' I conlamlnilion
DrotJl,,". a floccull'IOI":s..dim."..
"110" ,vstem would alto oe used.
as desUIOtd lOG'" in AII.,nah".
A.I. Tre."d .11'" wOuld 011 dis.
cn.ro'., 10 tn. ,Irram W'S' of ,,.,.
Iii.. Wit" ,r.., I"ff'nl""', alD--
DrOlim",I" 62 million gano"I of
wa'.r would be DUmDed .nd
!realed.
A-J e.trae'ion and Treatment of
Groundwarer at a Priva"'v-
Owned Trea,m.n, Wer..,
Thil Illernalivt ""QuIO .n"Olv' ,.-
Iflerion of Qrou/'Id.ater 'rom
I'vrral o",-,.t. w,lt\ Ind DUmaln;
i' Inrou;h I ,.,nc" DleNt atonG
~oul'I 162 and 1110 I iew,r line
aDoul . mlt's t,om ,!"\. \If.. T,...
"",.It,. wo"":~ flOw ,n :~. M"U 10
. wiler 're,'me"' DI.""
I A-4 S\urrv Wan ancs CaD
.. 'r,n,n would 0. ..(Iv.red '0 .
I o'o'n of "CDroalm.f"OW' SO tMt
around "'Ie con,amlnerl'd Irel.
8.c"-hlhng In, Irenc'" "'II'" mare--
r,"1 oJ lOw ~'m'aClhty .-Ould Clrf--
...,nl '1'1, flo. 01 con,.mln,tPd
grOund.llff" oul 0' Ine enCIO\flI
I area. Ii. caD wQUIO Dr,vent waf,r
from entertng I"., art. trol""l f"'.
ground lurfaCt.
AL TEIINATIVES FOil SOIL liE-
MEOIATION
8.1 CID
A Itlre'-'I't'.rl'C caD "'OUI~ b\I
COn\fruC1,a Ovtf ,"'. arta of '\1;".
eSf 1011 conlamlnahon. ,:'\cs .rea of
.porollmll',Y 12 .cre\ Tn"
...OuIO Dle".n, l'Iu"""n or e"l..,r~n-
men,al cenlac' "".Iro In, lOtl\ and
I woula Dr,."n' 1I"I'lr .rOlIO" 1"'0
I "earcv \1feam\ '1"10 .,t;an:\ '1'\-
I filfr"ion of ".',r tram IP'!, g'O~t\d
I ~ri'~:g~t~~l~e .~~o d'~a=:lraC~~:;
I A v'O,f4red layer at '00'0'1 or 8
! ~''4vee: ,~~ ~Q8r.~~~o~'~~~t'~d"~'r~~~
: Dre'",nling nurnan .n" ''''-Ire''-
. menta' (on'8C' WI'" cenI4rT'!.".ttd
I \0'1. Sur taCt ".'er wO",IC: ,'ul ,n'i,-
! [~J' :,~,~~.I'E.caOW'llion. On-,;r.
I O,\OQ,"I. Ind CID
SOIlS 0' 10....." conf.mina'ion wouid
I ~:I:~a~~~al".~~' l"il;~OW' ;~8~~m~
I DJICrd o...er 'nem as o,scr.0ec2 ,..,
IlIfr"."...e 8-1. e x(.""'eo ar,s,
I B?~ldp~~I.~~CkJ1:~~...:71~r.gr~":~~,,
\ OiiCOIII. ."d Co....r
LtUe,-conl,mu".'ed ~iI, -ould
oe PIIC'd In In. nlg1'\IY conr.rn,-
"aled area Ind' ¥f'Q,'.'.y. Or'
I ?~:nv.e,II...~oV;~2.'I.~~~~r':~ ~I~C~~
. o."er '''em,
I 8-5 E xCIV. lion. On-S.le l"'Ic,n~"
. . , - - .. .. .. c..' ,.. ~ ~"".- - -
-------
Personally appeared he fore me
the undersigned advert i~ing Clerk of the
abo\"(~ indicated. newspaper! s), pub I ishC'd
n the City of Charleston. County and
State aforesaid, ~.ho. being duly s\\'orn.
says that the advertisement of
'ropy allarh('c1,
appeared in the issues of said newspaper! s)
on the following day( s):
JANUARY
11,
1987
at a cost of S
248.40
Account /I
000159153
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this
12th
day
@~J ~.. './,"~~J
of
JANUARY
A.D. 19~.
~~~ \~Lj\0 ~r~
;\;OTARY PUBLIC. S.C.
NOTARY PiJlI!lC f-
.. ~, 'Chr
..y Commi$S' ~ H CAROl/AI"
«Form t3020) Ion upire.s Se ""
Ple.nber S, 1994
R-h
- ,',;- ~..:::- 'j.j...~l:-.~~":.-':":;~'"
.
...I"::!" t.. \ -' '!?,A J! -I? .:':.....":'
N!'e' "".: . J :t :;I_.-ce~ '"",f'""" '.t'"
~ra' owl?"'\ :" '''~ .. 'e .~ ::"~ IC::: ,f
. a ::Ion~o'e 5'" ..:,~o.:,,'J '.In,! T"I!'
""a~e" "0....,0 '4.. !"':r~.J-;:"I !"'f! ...",.'
"",r:..e ~.r CIC""'~ ..0""'5'0\ 10a.',1
, I!"'e 110"'" .....QuIO 'e""'owp ""oJa!..e ),.
Qal'\i( ccrrDO'~;'\O\ ...r..r.f'I (0"""'-'-
Mile l!"Ie ...a'e" If C',;f.:"IQ re:TIea.al
i oes.gn of Il"If 111!r:-Illvf. II 1\ f\-
. IImaleO I:-.al me'al\ Qre\fn' a cco"-
I lamina' Ion prODIem I
flOCCulation- \eOu'T'le/"llarlon \'W'\lt'"
will 11\0 0' U\fd L,mf -oulO oeo
ad(jed !o lI"'t f"'raClfO gr",,;"1-
i ""IIer, CaV\1r; -.e:51\ \n I"e *&!!r
1'0 \elHe Ou! T"Ie Irfafed *a',,,
wOulCJ D~ III',r.o .nd ''''el'l d.\-
Cnargrd to Inf \"eam ..,. 01 I'"
\ile Aocrro:llmO'f\v 61 million -;61-
lon\ of -at,r wOUIO De' l'f.I~O
A-.' e.'''aChon, 00tlon81 FlOC-
CuJ.alion, Sfdlm,nl8lion. Caroon
Ad\Ort)tion. ano Oi\OO,.1 of
Groundwalfr
Tn. allerna.i.. wou'd invol..
oumoing grounowa..r from \...,-
.r., on-\i'. w~U' 10 coturnn\ of
gfanular activaled carbOn W0'-614
.D\orO organiC cor"amlnln" i.,
tn. .at.r. U~'d carbOn would 1:.
4\\oo\ed ott-\ile in .n eooro..,eo
landWI. Should mllals tie d~'~'-
mined '0 or,~,nt 8 contaminat,on
probl.,.,. a fioccuiation/Mdl""n-
lation ,,,,Iem would aiSle be u"O.
I' described eoov, in .4...,nll1v,
A- t. frea"d walfr wOulO De Oi\-
cn8rg.d 10 11'1' ,Ir,am wfl' of '"e
,ire. \~i'n 1"1' au,rn8'ive. ao.
proximaltl" 62 million gatlon, of
water would b. pump.O and
Ireal~d.
A-3 eolraction and Tr~I'm.n' .f
~roundw.,er al a Pri.,attly-
wned Tr.elmenl Work"
"i. aUtrnali." wOUld inve»'ve e.-
traclion o. groundwaler from
Myer,l on. ,it. weil$ and oumo,nQ
It '11/'-" . '-incll Di.,. alOn9
Rout.. '42 .l1li 17 ,. . WW8l' line
-. . mi... from '118 "18- TII8
-a'8I' -- Ita. In - - 10
a ..'81' Ir..'.....,' plan..
A-' Slurry wau and C...
.. ".rct\ wOUld be ...,.v.'M to .
d8P'ft o' aDDro.imltWiv SO feet
.round lhe cont.minated .'.a.
Back -filling ,"'. ",ncn wil'" mal.-
ria' 01 tow oef'me8bdlly would or,-
v.nt ,ne flOw of conlamlna'l'd
groundwa,..r out of I". .nclo'~
ar'a. A cap would Dr.v.,,' W81..-
from enl,r,nQ ,ni, ar,. from 'P\e
r~¥~dR~u~!fI~ES FOR SOIL Re.
MEDIATION
B-1 C"D
A tnree-Iav.,-ed caD would be
con,rruel'd o.",r I". .r.. ot 1'119"-
'" ,oil con'amlna'lon, and .r,. of
looroxim.,,'y '2 Icrei. Tl'lt'
would £w.venl num.n or .nviro"'"
mental con'lc, WI In t". \011' Ind
would orfV,n, tn'lr .rO'IOl" Into
ne.roy \I"lml and ..,lIa"O' In-
filtration 01 .at,r t,om ,,,, ground ..
lurfa" would al,o t)e r'f.rd'd.
8.2 "....etlfive or Grl..,el Cov~
A .egl'.'~ IIYlr Of 100'011 0' a
taver at gr I"~' wouto be ~ae~
o.,er 'he mOJ,I-contamlnatt
-------
SUM
AFFIDAVIT
OF
PUBLICATION
x I Cbt 2Crtt* and Ccmrirr
THE EVENING POST
State of South Carolina
County of Charleston
Personally appeared before me
the undersigned advertising Clerk of the
above indicated. newspaper!s), published
in the City of Charleston, County and
State aforesaid, who. being duly sworn.
says that the advertisement of
(copy ;il!;u'hc A -REGION IT
ATLAMTA, ft*
JANUARY 28, 1987
at a cost of $_
Account #
155.25
0159153
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 29th day
of.
JANUARY
-
placed
ajffrifl"v
wou'5 cx
-rv cor.-
a'ea and a cap woe.
i**^ as 3«cr,>
3-1 Eica*a'ed a
n^-MKuous v.i$T£ SITE i
Tne U S Environrr-f.-'ftf RrcteC'cn I
Agency (EPA) *.ll f-.oid a ouD'-'c'
meeting on Tnursaav, Jan. 79.
' 1987. 8 CO o m *o discuss proposed
remedies tor sou and gro-jndwa'er
contamination at me Gtiger (C4M
' Oil) National Priorities List nat-
ardous waste site in Charleston
' County, ,VC. A summary of reme-
dial alternatives will be-oreiented,
I and comments will be solicited
from concerned citizens The
: meeting will be he'd at the follow-
' ing location: Hollywood G'tv Hail
' 6316 Hwv 167, Hollywood, S.C
I J9449. (M3IilW-««
.j2J
A.D. 19_£L
NOTARY PUBLIC. S.C.
jan , 7J, r967 and conclude on
Thursday, Feo. 19, 1987. During
this three-week period, the public
is encouraged to review the pro-
posed remed-es in the FS report
and to submit comments to EPA
All written comments must
aotlmj»'fc«'« « •-•— "
(Form O020)
postmarked no later than mid*
night, F«b. 19, 1987 and shou'd be
sent to: Thomas M. Roth, Reme-
dial Project Manager, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection A0encv, 34$
Court i»nd Street, NE. Atlanta,
Georgia 30M5 (404)J47*>M1.
Th« FMSfbtMv Study eveJ-
nation resulted In th« dt»«*oomtm
at several alternatives for cleaning
uo soil and groundwater contm-
j.«i p-roieci Manager, U.S. £nvi-
'onmental Protection Agency, 34$
,ourtland Str»*» we Atlanta,
tvaj-
_- ™««T«I alternatives for cleaning
UP soil and groundwater contami-
nation al -the Geiger (C&M Oil)
site. The alternatives were eval-
uated on now easily they could be
implemented, now weft tn*v would
clean-uP the environment and pro-
tect public health, and how cost-
effective they are. The following
alternatives are being considered
for me Geiger site:
ALTERNATIVES FOR
GROUNDWATER REMEDI-
ATION
A-l Extraction, Air Stripping, Oo-
liona' Fiocculation/Sedimentation.
and Disposal of Groundwater.
under this alternative, ground-
water would be Pumped from sev-
eral wells on me site to tne loo of
a portaoie air slipping unit. Tne
>ater would fail through the unit
white air blown upwards aga nsi
the flow would remove volatile or-
ganic compounds which contami-
nate me water if, during remedial
design of tne alternative, it is es-
timated that metals present a con-
lamination problem, a
floccuiation/sedimentation svstem
will also be used. Lime would be
added to the extracted ground-
water, causing metals in the water
to iptiie out The (reared water
would b« filtered and then dis-
charged 10 the stream west of the)
site. ADproximafeiv 62 million gal-1
ions of wafer would be treated. I
A'? Extraction, Optional Ftoc*
cuiation/Sedimentation, Caroon
Adsorbtion, and Disposal of
Groundwaier
The alternative would involve
Pumping groundwater from sev-
eral on-sife wens to columns of
granular activated carbon would
absoro organic contaminants in
the water, used caroon would be
disposed o'f-sile in an approved
landfii'- Should me'aij be deter-
mined to present a contamination
prootem, a ^peculation/sedimen-
tation svtfem would also be used,
as descried above in Alternative
A-1. Treated water would b« dis-
• charged 10 the stream west ot me
I siie. With this alternative, ap-
proximately 62 million gallons of
' water would be Pumped and
| ireated.
i A-J Extraction and Treatment of
• Groundwaier al a Privately-
i Owned Treatment Works
J This alternative would involve ex-
t traction of groundwater from
several on-sife wens and pumping.
! it tnrougn a 4-lncn pipe along
• Routes 16? and 17 to a sewer line
' about 6 miles from the site. The
water would Mow in me sewer to
( a water treatment plant.
A-4 Slurry Wan and Cap
A trench would be excavated to a
depth of approximately 50 feet'
around the contaminated area.
Back-filling the trench with mate-
rial of low permeability would pre-
vent the How of contaminated
groundwaier out of me enclosed
area. A cap would prevent water
from entering this area from me
ground surface.
ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL RE-
MEDIATION
8-1 Cap
A three-layered cap would be
cons'rucfed over (he area of n.ia.n-
est soil contamination^, and area of
appro xima'eiy 1.2 acres. This
would prevent human or environ-
mental contact with the soils and
would prevent tneir erosion into
nearoy streams and wenands. m-
fitlraiion of water from me ground
surface would also Oe retarded.
B-2 Vegeia'iv* or Gravel Cover
A vegeiated laver o' IOPSOI) or a
laver of gravel would be placed
over the most-contaminated area,
preventing nitT**« •-" -•
~.<.a*0'>0« O""
Co-*er
. ,, w~r. n*?ev>
gray*- cover, as described i"
fer^a'-«« 8-2. would be pu
over '".em
B-5 Eicavafion. On-Sife tncir
atiO", and Soifdificari
/$taOn-:a'ion
Ail csn-ammafed soin an fna
would oe excavared and and me
elated in a mootte infrared ftc
era'or 13 remove orga/
contamma.irs. These iam wo
then go through a stacMJzat
process. wh
-------
. ~ ~. . -
Apoendix C
Pact Sheets and Press Releases
Geiger (C&r1 Oil) Site
...'.. ~ -........ ...
II
-------
. . . ~ ~
. .i" -.~ .. .
_.._-
-. ...--
United States
Environmental Protection
AQency
Region 4
Office 01 Public Affairs
3-45 Courtland Street. NE
Atlanta. GA: 30365
Alabama
Flonda
Georgia
Kentucky
MlsslS!I:;!;:)i
No~:'I Carolina
South Carolina
Ten r-.e!.Se1!
&EPA
Environmental News,
("04) 347-3004
Sep~ElTtber 2, 11986
H.. Mi~hael Henderson
404 :. 347 - 3004
PRESS ADlJISORY
Atlanta, Georgia - The U. S. Enviroranental Protection Agency (EPA)
will 'hold an informational rreeting on 'I\Jesday, Septanber 9, 1986 at 8 p. m.
in the Hollywood TOwn Hall, 6316 Highway 162, Hollywood, South Carolina.
The purpose of the rreeting is to present the summary results of the
Remedial Investigation Study (RI) for the Geiger ( C & M Oil) Site which is
located in Hollywood, Charleston County, South Carolina.
The RI included
the drilling of temporary wells below the groundwater table, installation
of permanent monitoring wells, sampling of local residential wells and
sampling of groundwater.
It also included sampling of soil and surface
water, both on and off the site.
There will be an opportunity for citizens to ask questions during
the two hour presentation.
Information concerning site activities for the Geiger (C & MOil)
Superfund Site is currently available for citizen review at the Hollywood
, Town Hall.
The Geiger (C & M Oil) Site is being considered for long-term cleanup
under Superfund which is a National Trust Fund established by Congress to
deal with major environmental problems and is authorized by the compre~rriSive
. Environmental Response, Coopensation, and Li~ility Act of 1980 (CERCIA).
The Superfund program is managed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
,
it # C-l
-------
. ~.". . ..
..1 ' . "
,
". - ~". . ".-i .". , .. " .' ..,
NOTICE TO CITIZENS
OF
HOllYWOOD, SOUTH CAROLINA
. .
. .
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WILL HOLD
INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON THE GEIGER SITE
HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL, 6316 HWY 162
across from SIRES FORD
TUESDAY, SEPT. 9, 1986 AT 8 p.m~
For More Information call: 889-3222
LOOKING FORW ARD TO SEEING YOU THERE
c-?
-------
"'. .'.
United States
enVIronmental Pro'
Agency
)n
Region 4
Office of Public AHai~
345 Courtland Street. NE
Atlanta, GA: 30365
Alabama
Flonda
Georgia
Kentucky
~I.I s.s: s.s;:J:J1
Nor:n Carolt,..,a
Soutn CarOI.r:a
Ten ne s.sP.'e
'oEPA
i
Environmental News
January 16, 1987
( 4'0 4) -347 - 3 0 04
H. Michael Henderson
PRESS ADVISORY
Atlanta, Georgia - The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will hold a Superfund public meeting on Thursday,
January 29, 1987 .at 8:00 p. m. at the Hollywood City Hall, 6316
Highway 162, Hollywood, South Carolina.
EPA officials will discuss the proposed remedies for soil
and groundwater contamination at the Geiger (C&M Oil) National
Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste site.
A summary of
remedial alternatives will be presented and comments will be
solicited from concerned citizens.
The draft Feasibility Study (FS) detailing remedies being
considered by EPA may be reviewed at the Hollywood City Hall.
The public meeting will mark the start of a three-week
public comment period on the proposed remedies.
This comment
period will begin January 29, 1987 and conclude on Thursday,
February 19, 1987.
During this three-week period the public
is encouraged to review the proposed remedies in the FS report
and to submit written comments to EPA.
- MORE -
.11
.,
~-3
-------
I
. .
. ..
All written comments must be postmarked no later than midnight,
i
t.
k
.
t
r
!
February 19, 1987 and should be sent to:
Thomas M. Roth
Remedial Project Manager
U. S. Environmental Protection
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2643
Ag e nc y
,
'.
The recently reenacted Superfund Program is designed to
i.
I,
l
.
protect human health and the environment by providing money for
the cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites and spills of
ha~ardous substances.
f
'.
.
,
.
.
tit
.,
c-~
-------
.'. .'. ~ -' ,- .
,to sr.,
~...' '.$I
... II .
~ J., I 'i
~~,; :':
C -
1 ..
~... t
1-, (,'
.( ....O'\.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
Prep~red by: H.M. Henderson
Public Affairs
(404) 881 - 3004
FACT SHEET
FOR
GEIGER (C & M) OIL SITE
CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
JUNE 26,1985
As a part of a Remedial Investigation, a contractor under
contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
be initiating efforts to determine the nature and extent of
any contamination resulting from past activities at the
Geiger (C & M) Oil site in Rantowles, South Carolina.
These efforts will start around July 8, 1985 and will
continue for approximately two (02) months. Soil, sediment,
surface water, and groundwater samples will be collected
and analyzed for hazardous contaminants. The results will
be incorporated into a Feasibilty Study (FS). The Feasibilty
Study will be presented to the public in a public meeting
upon completion.
Under the Superfund Program, a Remedial Investigation (RI)
is a field effort to determine the nature and extent of the
problem at the site, to develop viable remedial response
alternatives, and gather all necessary data to evaluate
the remedial alternatives and support the selection of a
remedial response in the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility
Study evaluates alternative remedial responses based on
cost, engineering feasibility, and environmental impact.
It recommends the ~ost cost-effective solution that will
adequately protect public health, welfare, and the environment.
Several residential wells are scheduled to be sampled as
part of the Remedial Investigation. Those residents whose
wells are to be sampled will be contacted. The purpose of
this sampling is to confirm the analysis of samples previously
collected by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. Residents in the area of the site ~
should be aware that the drilling and collection of samples
may require increased traffic in the area.
I of 2
C-5
-------
..
.. ..
The Geiger (C & M) Oil site occupies approxim~tely five
acres in the community or Rantowles. Rantowles is 10cated
approximately twelve (l2) miles west of downtown Charleston.
The site, under previous owners, has been the object of
concern by the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority
and the Charleston County Health Department since 1970.
It was added to the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983
and is scheduled for long term remedial activity over the
next several years.
For more information:
. .
Jeff Pierce
Remedial Project Manager
Remedial Action Section
u.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881 - 2643
HMB : hmh
Chris Staton
S.c. DHEC
2600 Bull
Columbia,
(803) 758
Street
S.C. 29201
- 5681
EPA SUPERFUND CLEANUP PROCESS
tll'N"UTIQA"ON
,'''.......,. ".....OW,. flf N..o.dt
I" "'MIO'AL.
INVI.STtc;ATIOfitlf
(4' '.A,II'LITY
STUOY
IJJ """'-
1III""'.'''''O/L.'ITINQ
S'8Id' 'Of '01,fUl.8l1y ".-o"'ltJl. ,...,i.
Com""'I"I,r, RII.flon.
SUPERFUND CLEANUP PROCESS
'nil. I. . simplified ,"plan8110n of how 8 lono-
lerm Superfuru3 responsa works.
AtilT 8 site Is discovered. It Is (1) InsPecled. usu81.
Iy by Il'Ie S181e. The Stal. Il'Ian (2) ranks Il'Ie site
using I syslem Ihat lakes into account
. Possible rtsk to POPulation;
. Huard potenti81 01 substances al tha site;
. Potential lor conll"lInalino drtnklng walar su~
piles; and
. Potential lor pollullng/tlarmlng Ihe anvlro",
ment.
" Ih, sll"s problems ,re serious .nough, II will
be listed on th, National Pfloflties Lisl (NPL), .
rosIer of lhe Nilion's worsl hazardous wasla
dumps. Every slle on Ihe NPL is .Iiglble lor
lederal Superfund monay.
Nerl, EPA usually conducts a (3) remedial in-
vestigation to assess how bad the contamInation
is, wnal kind 01 contaminants are present, and
wno in the commun.ty is al fisk.
Than .EPA does a (4) leasibility srudy, wnicl'l er.
amines various cleanup acllv.lles.
A (5) cleanup plan is then chosen and designed.
Once Hus IS "nisned, lhe actual cleanup c:.an
be'ijin.
The time It takes 10 compl.!e each 01 these steps
varies wilh every sile. In general, a remedIal i",
vestigalionJfeU'bililY study lakes from 1 to 2
years. Designing t"e cleanup plan may take &
months. And implementing the remedy - Ina ac:.
I...al containment or remOval 01 I"e wuta - m'l
lake from I 10 3 years. If groundwal8r is con.
tamlnated, Ihe tinal cleanup may tall. many ".,ore
. years.
C-15
-------
,1(0 ST.,
~ ',so
; I .. ~ i
~~4~
""" .,~
., ~O'\"
UNITED ST A TES EN VI RONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
". Remedial Inves~igation Summa.ry
. for Geiger (C&M Oil) Site
Hollywood; Chariest.. County, S.outh Carolilla
September 1 9 8 6
Introduction
The u. s. Enviroranental Protection kJency (EPA) recently c::arp1eted a
Remedial Investigation (RI) to evaluate conditions at the Geiger Superfund
site near Rantowles, South Carolina. This fact sheet provides background
information on the site and summarizes the findings of the RI report.
Site History
The Geiger (C & M Oil) site is a five acre area located approxLmate1y
1 mile southwest of Rantowles, South Carolina. A series of eight irregularly
shaped waste oil lagoons were oonstructed on the site sanetime between 1969
and 1971. The lagoons ...ere approximately one foot deep. The lagoons were
oonstructed and nodified by various owners as part of several attetpts to
dispose of, or recover, waste oil. The bottan of these lagoons was in, or
near, the groundwater. Within the last several years, the current owner, Mr.
George Geiger, filled the storage l~ns to allow the si te to be used to store
construction equipnent belonging to his oompany, Pile trivers, Inc. The
soils in the filled area are roticea,ly black. cne pit approximately 10ft. by
10ft. by 2ft., oontaining an oily liquid was found at the eastern end of the
filled area during a site visit in Decetber 1984. N) waste oil or recovery
operations are known to have occurred at the site since at least 1980.
In 1980, the Surveillance and Analysis Division of U. S. EPA Region rv
oonducted an investigation of the site." The analysis of the waste oil
residues in the lagoons indicated that they are similar to those associated
with autarotive crankcases, brake fluids and degreasing corrpounds. Trace
ancunts of PCB's and small arrounts of organic s:>lvents were detected. Also
found were elevated levels of metals often associated wlth automotive oils.
'nte U. S. EPA estimated the waste quantity in each lagoon at 18,700 gallons
(374 druns) or a total of 149,600 gallons (2992 druns) on the site. The" --
site was added to the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983 and is scheduled
far long term remedial activity over the next several years.
(:-7
-------
- .--
. . . - ~ .'
Remedial ..w.stigation Results
EPA oontracted Ca1rp, tresser &. McKee, Inc. to perform an. extensive
study of the Geiger site. This study included the drillin;i of temporary
wells below the groundwater table, installation of permanent monitoring
wells, sampling of local residential wells and sampling of groundwater,
soil, and surface water, both on and off the site.
The results of the Remedial Investigation indicate that soil on the
8i te is oontaminated wi th Lead, ChraniU'ft, Mercury, PCB, and several organic
CCI1p:)unds above background levels. Ibwever, no oontaminants have J1Dved
off the site, and there is no danger to the p\blic £ran exposure to
contaminated soil.
Q:'oundwater at the si te oontains Arsenic, Lead, Caanium, and several
organic canpounds at ooncentrations above the drinking water standards.
O:>ntaminated groundwater has not moved off the site. The velocity of
groundwater flow is very slow and oontamination will remain wi thin the
Geiger boundaries for a very long period of tiJre. Q:oundwater flows crway
£ran residential wells, 00 ro hazard is posed to drinking water supplies.
Residential wells have been sarrpled and ro oontaminants were detected.
Current Activities
The Remedial Investigation was completed on July 1, 1986 and the
Agency For 'Ibxic Slbstances And Disease Registry (ATSDR) is currently
reviewing the plblic health evaluation. The Feasibility Study (FS)
is R)W being prepared. The FS is scheduled for oompletion in early 1987.
Future Activities
EPA is examining a wide range of technologies as a part of the Feasibility
Study to determine which ones will offer the greatest degree of cleanup at the
Geiger site, while still being oost-effective and technically viable. This
process will enable EPA to develop several remedial alternatives. The public
will be invited to comment on these alternatives before a final decision is made.
C-8
-------
.~:".- l .--",'..,:...
E.zbiJn, A
SliPERFUND PROCESS
.'
I,
I.
. .
"
i.:
I'
CON"'"Hm ULAT1O"',\
In 1980. Con.r... .nacrrd ,h. Comp,.h.n,i..
Enyir~n.aJ RnponM. Com~I\UI,Oft..nd l,ab,I,,) Act
lCEllCLA."",", CDmmnn/! .""..n II .Su~rn.nd-, Th"
8C'I au,hoti... EPA '0 rupond 10 ..k.... 0' ,h.....rwd
.....- 01 haaa,.... lUbatan«' ,ha, may ftldan,., publi(
..hft '" _II.... cw rtw m"ironnwn,.
nia nhibi. JWOY- . .itftplilird nplana,ion 01 how .
Ipn."rrm Suptrfund raJIIIftM -orb a. ai... w.. rtw
Sodyfto '''r.
I. Aft., a ,i,. ia ~ it ia _w""..i. ....wly by tI.
Sea...
2. Th. S,a,. 'twn ..lib ,tw III. III'ne a ry.~m WI .ur,
inlo 8Ctcalnl:
. P..,iblr /wahh '0 ,he ftuman popula'lOn
. POIrn,ial haaards Ir..., ',om cLrrn CDftC8n, intlala.;"n.
Ii..., or apa"",) of IUbI,ancn a, ,ho ,,,.
. Po..n,ial for ,ho tuba,a",," a' ,he II~ ID ('OfI.&mlnal.
dr.nlun. -a... IUpphn,
. Potrnr..1 10, Ih~ luballnc'l'l 81 d.., lur 10 pollulr or
_hftwYilf harm dw m¥lronnwnr.
If ,Iw probl..... a, a ,i,. a.."mod wriow by lho 5,a,. and
EPA ,Iw ,i.. -ill b. lis..d on ,Iw Nauonal P,IO",... Lit
{NPll,. -,., 01 IIw ..."on', "01'1' hau,dow -"'UI'ft.
E...". ,i.. on .he NPl ia .Ii.iblr lor "",al 5u~rlund
tnOlWy
, II a II. 0' any ponion .ho,..ol poan an imminm. ,hrn.
III publIC /wahh 0I.1w m"'lVIUIWn' al a..,. lunr, EPA may
mnd..... and rmr'F"'1' rnponw ..I..~ '0 OJ an
........JMJ, ,.-.ot141 _"0..
4 Nn., EPA ......lIy mnducu . .....,J..I -""".';D.
(Ill, Tht RJ 'UGS.. ho.. .,ioIII ,Iw "",eam.onallon ..,
wha. kind of mncam,nanu 8ft ,",wn.. and chi""."""
I"'"'"',ial ,U.Ir.a 10 the mmmuniry. A. pan 01 the RJ, EPA
ryplC8.lly mnd."cu an ftldaftlrmwn. .....,mrn. dIa,
Infor.ation Contacts
nonas RJth
Remedial Project Manager
u.s. EPA Region IV
345 CDurtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2643
Michael Henderson
Superfund Chmuni ty
Relations Coordinator
5., EPA Region IV
.5 O::>urtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3004
CDMN\.'NITY ULA"ON~ .
.1C1'~' lho problrlTU a. ,ho ,i.. .nd .Iw pot.nllil hnlrh
.nd en"tronnwnc.1 C'Df\IIfq~ncn if no lunMf uuun II
uken 8r lhe IUf
). Follo-.n. mmplr..on of 'M RI. EPA ~rlOfm' .
/,.,i"'") "..) (FSI whidl euminn W8I1OIII (lranup
.lrrtna,iYft .nd ....iuam .hem all .... buia of ...mnic..
1nei!Nlory. publl( tw.lth rlfrcu. rmoirOMW1l..1 impaCt"
ina.iru.ional (_III lincludi"l campliara -i.h..... and
....., Ia-". 1mpIC'! ... ,Iw mrnrnuni.,'. and ma.. T1w
flndi..,. a... pnwn..d in . dnI. FS "'fOn.
6, folio-in. mrnp~ion 01 ,hedraf. FS "'fOrt. EP A hoJd..
,./~ '0""'..-1 ,rtWNi 10 nee,..... tiuacn comnwnu
CDIIC.rnln. ,Iw recomrrwnclrd alr"","~, u,i"'111 ml)'
prOy,. ('Om.....n" ."Iw, OIllIy If public ..-.,nl' a,
throu.h -"n.n aln'ftponclrncr II) EP A.
7 AI.., publIC
-------
. -. .
f L
\'{£o $7'4,
.;)'" F.J'
... ...... ."
~ .. oJ
"" :t
~~~w
~ .~~
""',. ",\,,-,
-------
- ~ .:~... ;:~ ;":." '::'~:~::J-.~:".:,~"'~~~.:iLi'-.;t,
-. -
. "to Sr4~
.i' rJ'
'" . ...
,*I,~'i
~~~~
~ "
~1-'~
'4( PAO,\.c,
UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I \I
J,15 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORG.lA 30365
FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY
GEIGER (C&M OIL) SITE
CHARLESTa-J (X)UNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 1987
IN'rnOOOCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently completed a
Feasibility'Study (FSt evaluating rerredial alternatives for the Geiger
(C&M Oil) Superfund hazardous waste site in Charleston County, South
Carolina. This fact sheet provides background information on the site and
summarizes the draft FS report.
At sites like Geiger (C&M Oil), EPA typically conducts an extensive
investigation and study called a R~edial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). (A detailed description of the Superfund clean-up process
is included here as Exhibit A.) The first part ot the study, the Rl,
defines the type and extent of contamination. The second part, the FS,
8valuates the clean-up alternatives. The objectives ot clean-up of
Supertund sites are to: (1) control or eliminate the source of contamination,
and (2) minimize the threat of harm to human health and the environment.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Geiger (C&M Oil) site is a five-acre area located approximately one
mile southwest of Hollywood, South Carolina, in central Charleston County.
SametUne between 1969 and 1971, several lagoons were constructed on the
site for use in waste oil recovery operations. These lagoons were unlined,
about one toot deep, and cover~ a total area 50 feet wide by 1000 feet
long. The lagoons, filled with waste oil, were abandoned and later filled
with soil and graded.
II
. C-11
-------
. . -,,'
...' ':,.: :.t.; '.: ".': .'., ~~. '.":.' '.:~: '.~"':~ :'-: -: :;/ _: ',::,,-;
The site was placed on the National Priorities List, a list of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites, on September 21, 1984. In October of 1984,
EPA issued a work assignment to Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. to perto~ a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study of the site. The Remedial
. -Investigation included the drilling of wells and sampling of groundwater,
and sampling of soils and surface water both on anq otf the site. The
results of the RI show that soil on the site is contam"inated with Lead,
Mercury, Chramium, and various organic compounds associated with waste
oil. Groundwater at the site is also contaminated, but presents no
threat to nearby users of residential wells.
No risk to human health is posed under current use of
groundwater may migrate off-site to sensitive wetland
contaminants may run-off into these ~reas if the site
Various endangered species, including the Bald Eagle,
as a feeding area.
the site: however,
areas, and surface
is not cleaned up.
use these wetlands
FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS
EPA conducted a Feasibility Study (FS) to evaluate various ways to clean
up the Geiger (C&M Oil) site. The alternatives were evaluated based upon
how easily they could be implemented, how well they would clean-up the
environment and protect public health, and how cost-effective they would
be.
This evaluation resulted in the development of several alternatives for
cleaning up soil and groundwater contamination. These alternatives are
described below.
ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNCWATER REMEDIATION
A-I
Extraction, Air Stripping, Optional Flocculation/Sedllnentation, and
Disposal of Groundwater
Under this alternative, groundwater would be pumped from several wells on
the site to the top of a portable air stripping unit. The water would
fall through the unit, while air blown upwards against the flow would
remove volatile organic compounds which contaminate the water. If, during
remedial design of the alternative, it is determined that metals present
a contamination problem, a flocculation/sedimentation system will also be
used. Lime would be added to the extracted groundwater, causing metals
in the water to settle out. The treated water would be filtered and then
discharged to the stream west ot the site. Approximately 62 million
gallons of water would be treated.
EST~TED COST: $1.73 million
C-12
-------
" .
.. . . ...." ',~:':',',:'::~~',.,":r::1.'~.~'''~ :..,'':".:.:' !."" .' ::-:
;. .... '.. - -':~'. ..... r. >;. ,..-'"~ :;:"'"
~ '. .::.:.J..:.:,"_:':':"::' ~.:::.....
A-2
Extraction, Optional Flocculation/Sedimentation, Carbon Adsor~ticn,
and Disposal of Groundwater
This alternative would involve pumping grouncrNater from several on-site
wells to columns of granular activated carbon, which would aesorb organic
contaminants in the water. Used carbon would be disposed off-site in an
approved landfill. Should metals be determined to present a contamination
" problem, a flocculation/sedimentation system would also be used, as
described abOve in Alternative A-I. Treated water.wo~ld be discharged :0
the stream west of the site. With this alternative, "approximately 62
million gallons of water would be pumped and treated.
ESTIMATED COST $2.5 million
A-) Extraction and Treatment of Groundwater at a Privately-0wned Treatment
W:>rks
This alternative would involve extraction of groundwater from several on-
site wells and pumping it through a 4-inch pipe along Routes 162 and 17
to a sewer line about 6 miles from the site. The water would flow in the
sewer to a water treatment plant.
ESTIMATED COST: $1.5 million
A-4
Slurry Wall and Cap
A trench would be excavated to a depth of approximately 50 feet around
the contaminated area. Back-filling the trench with material of low
permeability would prevent the flow of contaminated groundwater out of
the enclosed area. A cap would prevent water from entering this area
from the ground surface.
ESTIMATED COST: $4.95 million
ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL REMEDIATION
B-1
Cap
A three-layered cap would be constructed over the area ot highest soil
contamination, an area of approximately 1.2 acres. This would prevent
human or environmental contact with the soils and would prevent their
erosion into nearby streams and wetlands. Infiltration of water from the
ground surface would also be retarded.
ESTIMATED COST: $972,000
B-2
Vegetative or Gravel Cover
A vegetated layer of topsoil or a layer of gravel would be placed ovec" "
the most-contaminated area, preventing human and environmental contact with
, C-:!.3
-------
. ,
~ :~~.:..:. :~~~-. "'.- :,~..:..~ ~-;...;;: ~.)<~~; ~-~." . , . .:...:- .
..,..-,:.
." "..;'.
'....' ",- ..
. ~,:::"',~: ',;.:'~.: ~-;:. :. ":0'.. :.:: :.:.. ~
-.. '.
.' ...~.,
. ..'.'
contaminated s~l. Surface water would still infiltrate the soils.
P.STIMATED COST: $619,000 - $653,000
8-3
Partial Excavation, On-Site Disposal, and Cap
.Soils of lower contamination would be placed in the highly contaminated
area and a cap would be placed over them as described in Alternative 8-1.
Excavated areas would be backfilled and graded.
ESTIMATED COST: $1.02 million
8-4
Partial Excavation, an-Site Disposal, and Cover
Lesser-contaminated soils would ~ placed in the highly contaminated area
and a vegetative or gravel cover, as described in alternative 8-2, would
be placed over them.
ESTIMATED COST: $666,000 - $710,000
A-S
Excavation, On-Site Incineration, and Solidification/Stabilization
All contaminated soils on the site would be excavated and incinerated in
a mobile infrared incinerator to remove organic contaminants. These
soils would then go through a stabilization process, which prevents the
movement of metals from the soil into the groundwater. The treated soil
would be placed back into the excavated area.
ESTIMATED COST: $5.56 million
8-6
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
All contaminaterl soil on the site would be excavated and hauled to an off-
site landfill, approved for handling hazardous wastes. The excavated
areas would be back-filled with clean local soil.
ESTH1ATED COST: $4.28 million
00 ACTION ALTERNATIVE
No remedial action would be t3ken at the site, and current conditions
would persist. Monitoring of groundwat~r may be done on a periodic basis.
NEXT STEPS
A public comment period, as described below, will be held
to Comment on the remedial alternatives considered in the
Study. Following the conc1us -,on of the ccmnent period on
formal decision document will be prepared that summarizes
process and the selected remejies.
to allow citizens
Feasibility
the study, 'a"
the decision
('-,y,
-------
, . '":,, -.~'.~ '.' .' .': ..'.'" ..,.
'" .
,.. , ~.~ . r. '. '.
..' ';.- '..., .,.
.' .
. . ..
- -
. ;~\. ,.:' ~!.,~"- :~:~-..~~ ,_....~:':;.~' .:-:I;~'~"'~'7J':.~:'~~'~~;;~::':~~~:;
This document will include the Responsiveness S~~arl (a report that
summarizes citizen comments and EPA responses) and will be submitted to
the EP~ Regional Administrator for his approval. Submission of ~1is
decision document is expected to occur in March, 1987. At that tL~e,
the design of the remedy will be developed. Upon completion of the
design, implementation of the remedy will begin. Copies of the draft rS
.report and the RI report are available for review at the info~ation
repository at the fOllowing location:
Hollywood City Hall
6316 Highway 162
Hollywood, South Carolina
29449
(803) 889-3222
When completed, ~~e Responsiveness Summary will also be placed on file at
the information repository.
PUBLIC C01MENT INVITED
EPA will hold a public meeting on Thursday, January 29, 1987 from 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m. at the Hollywood City Hall, located at 6316 Highway 162, .
Hollywood. At the meetinq EPA will present a summary of the RI/FS process
(including the results of the FS) and explain the proposed remedies for
the site. There will also be an opportunity for citizens to ask questions.
The public meeting will mark the start of a three-week public comment
period on the draft FS report. The comment period will begin January 29,
1987 and conclude on rebruary 19; 1987. During this three-week period,
the public is encouraged to review the remedies proposed in the draft FS
report and submit written comments to EPA. Copies of the draft FS report
are available at the information repository. All comments must be post-
marked no later than rebruary 19, 1987 and should be sent to:
Thomas Roth
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2643
. C-1.S
-------
-. > ~... .r. ..,
I
\ >
I'
I
" .
. . ~ . ~
".. ~'':.;'~'-'::'~:~.....~,'~~.~:.~.-,~.~~.:.'-:'....:,: '..".... .l:.':"::''''''~ ".
. .~ A 7'~.. . :....: .=-..
For questions or furthe~ info~ation contact either of the fOliowing:'
Thcrnas Roth
Remedial Project Manage~
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2643
. C-16
Michael Henderson
Community Relations
Coordinator
Office Qf ~qlic Affairs
u.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3004
-------
~::.. ~-.:.' ; .
'. -
., -:: '.: j ~ ...' ~. . - ... (,- : .. -. , .....-.
APPENDIX D
CC11MI:NI'S HECElVED WRING
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND EPA RESPONSES
.-' : . --'. ~ -'-
. -
-------
. -
. . -. .,.
. ":": . ..._";- ":.Lt:.,f"',. ~:.:~...::~.~':.~~.~fi::i
. . .-
rHUR RAVENEL. JR.
ISTRICT. SOuTH CAROLINA
QCongres5 of .tbe IIniteb i>tates
~ou5e of ~epre5entatibe5
Rlasbington, Ia~ 20515
Fehruarv 17, 1qR7
ERR8/RAS
I
. ~.
Hr. T.homas noth
Remedial Proiect ManaRer
H. S. EPA
34~ Courtlanrl ~treet, ~F.
Atlanta, r.eorgia 1n3~~
.A-IU;rolC IV
ATLAlcTA, C:A
T'lear Mr. Roth,
My ~taff memher, .nana Re~ch, attended t.he most recent puhlic
hearing on t.he propo~p.d cleaning of the' toxic wa~tp ~itp. near
Hollvwood, ~. c. T am concerned that no well monitoring was done
down gradient of the contamination. t also understand fr.om Mavor
T'lickerson that no siRn~ have heen po~ted identifying t.he site as
contaminated. '~ince.th~ ori2inal well monitoring done hv DHFC
di~covp.red trace amollnt~ of hvdrocarhons, t would recommend that more
comprehensivp. testing hp. conducted to assure residents safe drinking
water. UnlesR the residents can be guaranteed that their water is
safe now, and will he safe in the future as new wp.lls hecome
necessary, it would seem prudent to provide municipal water to the
immediate area. Plea~e keep me informed aR to t.he progress of this
situation. Thank vou.
everv good
Ravenel,
0"
AR/db
cc: Mavor T.ela W. f)ickerson
~:.
-------
. '."
. -'
. ... ...,... .
~. ;'.- . '.- . .. :--
'. " .
" ,. -.
", - .; ';'..-',; .-:"t
" . - .'. -..... _.'~ ..' 5'::... ':-. ,'_:;.." ~'.
. : ,. . :~ '" :.~'. ::.: '.-
. _. .'. -
~\,:EO s-r....,.
~~ ~..
; ft i
~~~
'" ~
1-, ,>tJ
~( "RO,t."
. UNITED STATES ENVIRor.MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FES 2 6 bol
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND. STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
REF:
4~vD- t:R
'.
'i
,<
I'
1
I'
Honorable Arthur Raven;;:l, Jr.
House ot R~Qrasentatives
~Jasj1il1gton, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Ravenel:
This is in response to your letter ot February 17, '1987, to my
staff member Thomas Roth, regarding the Geiger (C&M Oil)
hazardous waste site near Hollywood, South Carolina. In your
letter, you stated tour conc~rns about the site: 1) No wells
wer~ sampled downyradient of th~ site~ 2) No signs have baen
posted to identity tha site as being contaminated~ 3) More
comprehensiv~ testing ot residential water supplies should be
conducted~ and 4) Municipal wat~r should be supplied to the
iln,ned i a te a rea, un 1,,5 S t 112 res iden ts can be assured tha t the i r
drinking wat8r is not cnddlHJereu. I \-Jould lik\::! to respond to
each of these conCJcns individually. .
1) \oJe do not feel ti1.3t sarni)1in:J of residential wells downgradient
of the Geii.Jer sita is warranted at this time; however, samplin~
ot select.;d w3lls will b\1 L>-=r1:oc.ned as part of the remedial
design activities, aol! durin'.J long-term monitoring following
complation of our re,n.;;dial action.
Groundwater monitorin~ wells we~8 placed downgradient of the
site at points b~tw\::!en the site and residential wells.
Contaminants were J~tected at elevated lev~1s in the monitoring
well nearest the sit2, indicatil\] contcHninated groundwater is
migratil1g of.t-sit.~ to th.; west ~ll1d northwest. However, no
conta,\\ina:1ts were det0cted in ti)~'monitorin~ well group further
down gradient. .
Furthermore, calculatiol1s based on the porosity' of th~ aquifer
. and, the hydraulic graJi2!1t acro~,s the site' indicate that the
ground~ater would have tcavellea a distance of only 300 feet
since th0 time wasta oi1 was initially deposited 011 the site
around 1970.
Our conclusion is t:ut contalnin.,ted groundwater has mov~d
oif-site, but has n'.>t lr1i'Jrated r.o a Doint where it would endanger
the drinking watac s~~01ies of Lhose residents with groundwater
wells down:,;Jradient 0': t:w sit8.
2) 'fou an~ correct L;' that n01.'J!1s have b.;en I,)osted to identify
the Geiger site as ~Jinj a haza~jous waste area. As part of
D-2
-------
. . -' . '. ~
~ ,..:.~ ".:;~;'. ~ ,. -.
. . .
: " ..' " ,
. .
. . .
, "'. . .,",'j'.
". ..
our remedial investigation, a pl::,lic .health evalua.tion (pri!::)
was performed to identity and as:,ess risks to human :-18 a 1 th .
posed by contamination at th~ sic.e. The PHE concluded t;1a.t no
adverse risks to human h~alth wc~e associated with nor~al
day-to-day contact with the .contal1\inated soil. The !:)it,~ is on
private property which is fencel1 and gated, limiting access to
the site.
3) More comprehensive testing of residential wells adjacent to
the Geiger site is not E~lt to be warranted at this tilne.
However, wells in this area will be sampled as part of our
remedial design activities, and will be included in the long-term
monitoring which will foilow c~npletion ot our remedial action.
Sampling of residential wells was performed by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (uHEC) before
completion of EPA's remedial investigation. DH£C's analyses
detected a trace amount of trichloroethene in one residential
well. Resampling by DHEC failed to detect any contaminants in
this or other residential wells.
EPA sampled four residential wells near the site in 1985. No
organic compounds wer~ detec~~d, and lavels of all metals were
well below the Maximum 'Conta,ninant Levels (NCLs) established
under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The trace contaminant
detected in DHEC's initial sampling et[ort is considered to be
a resul t of improper sami.) 1 i ng tp.chn ique, labo ra t()ry con tami na tion,
or inadequate quality control.
We have concluded that the residentin.l wells adjacent to ti1e
site are not contaminated by ch,=,nicals In);n the Geic]er site.
4) E!?/\ cannot reco'nmend that municipal water be L)rovided to
residents near the Geiger site on the basis of endangerment of
the present wa te r sUi?Ply by contami na t ion resul t i ng t ro.n the
site. Our remedial investigation determined that contaminated
groundwater flows away from the residential wells whicl1 are
immed ia tel~ adj acen t to the site, and has no t reached res iden t ia I .
wells downgradient of the site. A threat could possibly be
. posed to the downgradient wells in ti1\= tuture, but our course
of action will result in rell\ediation of- the groundwater before
it can endanyer presdl1t or tuture drinking wdt8r supplies.
Aesthetic properties such as t~ste and aDpearance wer~ not
included in thl) dn.~tlj~>'~s IJi: Lhl~ n~~)i.lknti;.d W
-------
Thank you tor your int~r.;st in t11'} G.}il.J.}r (CH1 Oil)- ~it,.}, and
in EPA act.iviti~s. I l1upt.: your concc:rns c.;.,Jardintj t:l1is Site
nave been anSWGre~ to your sdtistaction. Pleas~ do not 11esitat~
to contact this ottice it you have turtl1~r quustions or wisl1
. ddditional. i.ntcJnndt:ior).
Sm' ncu ely yours,
. /J
f. "~~J/
/
. Jack E. Hav n
tVRegional . ministratot"
cc: 'Chris Staton, SCDH£C
D-~
-------
..
.' ':.:1', . ;:::.:~.:'
..
. .
"SMAlL BUT PROGRESSIVE"
TOWN OF HOLLYWOOD
po BOX 5196
HOLL YWOOD. SOUTH CAROLINA 29449
(803) 889 3222
January 16, 1937
. ,
I":
"
J:RRB/R~S
L r. r{l~ oJ:::; e l:t ':!rlgijt, Ch i cf
l~elne'-~La1 :'~ction ~3ection
U. S. ~nv.i ronmenta1 ~;rot~ct5.0!1
:tgency
?, 2g~.on IV
345 :ourt1and street
~t1anta, Georgia 30365
R:~: Geiger (C&H) Hazardous ;:.~aste ,')2. te at Rantow1es
IPA-RI;ION 1Y
"n.AJfTA. COA
Dear Mr. ~right,
l'
:~!j :l rem:l t of tIle r8:.iei ~-,-t.~ Investigat:Lon report dated July 1, 1986
?nn t11e I'i.nal :i?e..:t::;.i..iJ Ll i. ty :.:tW1Y nate(l January 9, 1987 o~ the above
~i.te, tl1!~rc:l f8':: (li.!1<;r'2j..:'lf.<;i,;;; that I fe;]. GIlOUld be noted for the
r'::>f:Or"! ::.1nd you \.':.1J. fin:l t!Jr~;:1 J.tt2.c}Jed ,,~s '::e11 -as ~,jther attacb'!'!ents
"::LLch \.:i.11 .:..1.110\; you to :';<;8 '::11Y they are p:~rt of our concerns.
It :;l:"Y :i~~!">I1~ to yo:] tlJlt '.:,:: ,~rs "'!lLt pi.d~ing", to use a slang ex-
: r8:)3~0~i; j:o':,'evcr, tJl i:) i.s t'!:'uly r:.ot tLe C.l:ie. Our concerns are the
10::1: t'2rn 1;.:::;.) tlJ. a!.rect:, of tlJ8 people 15.v ~ng in and. around the
~r.:ri:edLate ;.I'..'~~l of tJJe G,,:,i.g8r :;i te ar.d those ':Iho .l.ive along the log
L::, ~ (; ~ e '. . r P. e ~: tot jl e ~ 0 t.:. t 1:<.: cst.
I iJ~d a nU::Jt:cr of t:eoplc coming by my off.i.ce and also a number of
t.~lepJ)o':;e call~j after tile :'ublic Ee area" "fat led to sho';; under-
Gt~~:."Fllg of tI~c CO'1(~err.:'; 0:( tilC peop.'.e".
I
I
,.
!':n afra:iJl I must S}:2.:-':: t1je:~r vi.e';!3. :;i.nce it h:ls not been ma.:'.e
cl ear ,'.I(;~n the e.' ean-u;, ':.:5.11 beG.Ln, nor has th~re' bee!1 any ass~r:.r:ces
t~at th~ ~ourse of acti.o~ to be ta~~n ~ill in fact eliDi~at~ .the
!.o:isilJiltty of .l.'u'!:'tlJcr co::t~'n.:.ndtioi! of tl;e :=Jource of drinking '..!:.lter'
~'" tr.~ r-lltllrr" r..L}""'rC\ ...-.. .0 "1"rr",,,..t"o"" a" T r<'>call anY'lhe~Q in t1-o
.... ~'.; '...-. J....- JCl.",~. ;)..twG.:":J.'...~.., ...,- ._- -'. --_J. .:.J-
stu.:;y, tl;.tt tJJ(~ p0.opl~ r::;. !::pt On th8 publ i.c I;:ater system nor dLd
. ;':r. i C.i tro;~'::~.:.cz .8l1;3C'=:~t t];.:lt thi.s SLlOUL: be 2. possilJlltty.:..
D-5
-------
." - .' :'.:" :.. :"::....:"_:_~;.;.:~
::"i~ = ~. L~ :::.n ar{~r. T tlj':,j" :'r. .;.'2..~'m.i.n'Z ;;l'loulrl b.; c~:r::'1.:::ni9rl for J.etti!1o:T t:,e'
-"....:J J ... . . - . --
J:)','10 r:'lo':.' tili.s. '1'112v b~~.8i.V'3':: !li.~:; t!12n e:rJ1 tbev still b9J.eive it.
'i;',S~~ arp"st;.ll c::lrl7i11G '.':ate!:' ,.,-fter ?.2.::JO~;t t,,!O ,)''9<1r8. . -
.',
i
!.,
;~ur in~tL;-il Gr :..!t for tn? ;,il1:Ji~i.pal:.?.ter 8yst~m \':as in 1982, cam-
I 1 r:-t':?:'l L n 1 se5. Tb ~ Lrcopl.? .i. 1, th,= Clrea:.; of the Ge iger Site were
a;~njx~n. ;,nto t):;~ 'IO':i"1 of 1:01J.YI.;0011 ~july 1984. ::iOGJe of the people
along Jii..e::-:'::ay 162 h::).v.~ ac ~uire,-1 the ':Iater; hov.'ever, those closest
to tiJE Geigar ~ite anrt t~o~e !iving in the area of Log Bridge Creek
a.r~ 12'';0 f2p.t or more fl'r)~!! :ILCn-::.3.Y 162.
I f~el that cons~~eratio~ should be given to the fact that these
reople n?ve up.en ::;ubj ected to tl1p. possi bili ty of drinking water
ti:at han tr .ce3 of ,contarninltes over a period of 17 years. They feel
that since this has gone on for so long, to tell them that traces of
co~t~rninate~ are within the standard limits of safe drinking water
creates doubt on their Lart. I must say that I would feel as they
rto if I lived in the area.
':'11,= Geiger ::i te ~,:J not f'el1cc:>\! in nor is the area designated as a
Eazar(~ou~ Waste ;;';.t2. I rr.U8t ~>ay that I am not familar with tl1e
re} u L re~ncnt of tll":' ~:'c(1era1 Ia':.'s in th::'3 regard, but I feel that
t]J~~ shcul~ be rione. 1 f~e~ that the deeds of this property should
be r'?stricte'! to allo'.1 i :.r:J :.tF';=.~ u:)e anri should never be allowed to
be us~d 2.:; a rr~s_i.1ellti':1 are,:~. '.21Je {IDeas shO\:1 tIjat the property has
ci:a:1g'2rj 0'."'~Jer3 t}~rse t:.i:;2S :;:.r.c:c 1969, \.:heE it became a I..'aste site.
.:'2 2.rc i.nv~stigat~.ng ~i;:;t /10'.: ":12 can r2qui.re this legally.
ThLs ar~a is t~uly 2. s~~rn~y, ~ar3hy area to the west and south~est
of t~e Gei~er ~Lte a~.l a ~lood ~one that is affected by tidal flooj-
i:1[. (see attaclvne:lt) Tl1L~3 ':.'as not mentioned in the study.
'}e ars try~ng to correct t~e 3it~ation by providing safe ~rink-
i:1~ -::2. tor. '.,~ a ro 2.1' L 1y ;nG for ,l C:orr.r.Ju:i;. t~, Dev e 10 prr;ent ]5lock Grant
i.:: the ~:'Y <37 cycl~.
-: truly feel tl,3.t recco;;J.:;~datio:l~ shauLl be forth:::oming from your
office as to the need for tl:e :'junicipal \.:at8r be.ing furnished to
tlJcGe ~;eol'le i.n t:;CS8 t',.'o J.rea~.
- I \.,:ouLl ap:'recia t':? h sari. q; fro~ you 2. t the earliest date possible.
:c t t2.C 11:: e~~ t s
~;'~7f; iP~~.
I./" r:l~: :.:. :;i ckGrson
r-:a.yor of 7-:011Y':1001
!)-~
-------
." ;.. " . -' ..'-~
:. :.<
. -
'-..:"'.0' '::. '..,;-.._._"......q.!-
-:-:h-."~~~f:.' ..'
'.::=-: r'I~7.
- ..''l'~f~'-:; ::.~~C:j"l ::.'~~.: :'~-"'~.;:b~I:~TY :~':rC=-.::
.. -
?-.:~~~r~':-::JI:J:Y ~;=:_:"~'Y--~-?~g':r (/~I.~j:) :~ite
;0 S ~1l:: P~1t O' J t~"O 1
;.r:.lft j?. t.;.> ~
,U-::09r
t; ,11: ~~,
1 2 tr - ..: ,J :~
'19(37
~l~ .~~;-1
. ,
~ est i..01~
1--.;.1. te ",ocatioY)
~~1::1..'eGCrj.~. tion
':';;;; st~l::i~r
S!10','JS
that tb::
a:;_i~b2~"' ':i t(:' i~J a
five acre area. Incorrect.
'~o!'rsct: 'll;;/; G:~ i.!;Rr ~;i ts 5.G comp03erl of tl;!O ;Je:Lces
~ ,.., ," + ~ . 0 t 0 t ., 1 :" ~ 1 / 11 .., (' r e ~
~.;.;, "'......., ..;.I. -..;""J ,('L~~ ..0.
of pro:~erty
la::;t paraGraph page 1-1 t;lird 3e~1te;~ce tl1.1.rd lone from th~ bottom,
t:Je sentence :,bould ree.a. .
:.lro..i.ns tIH:,ouc;b ail outl<::t Oi.c),; ~,~ltO a 8trearn
of the LOG Eri~Ge ~r~~k 8~8ie~. This system
car, be af~~:;ct~:l by u~"Ju;.;ln.l i" 00(1 t des.
and marsh which is a part
is a tidal system vlhich
raG~ 1-5 ~~raGr~r;) 2 at to~ of ~~G~....laGt sentence should read
~G 1011.0'::3.... .:;8ver:'.1 t'0::JL~':]nces e.rc .loc<1t~:l to the east anc north-
28.:=:t a8 '..:211 ~8 to t:J1:~110','.r aqu5.fer? tr.13 is
1-151~l;;t '2.raGr~~pr:...... ~U~Gtj.o~.: fto (1. id tlle t\':o dQt.mgrac.ient
::'21.J.3 tlJat ':.'er'2 t<::~t,:; :. J'") 1 SJO 09' one to?'::lY \':,~ren 't t.,e people
. r.ot i.L,erl? 'Ol:<".t '.'cr~ t::=: !'~;:;ul ts? "";Jer~ ar<: t119 re3ul ts?
: .""'.::;<:: 2-1
:.:cct. 0\1 2 0: ti.? >~ri:<;':i.:.:tl Tnvr::'3t i[/lti.on fiatcJ J:..l1y 1,
1 ce-'
-'uv
~l:": ~"O":~l of
~~-.I! tl1~ ~'Ol;orn
..J.'.to'.!lc:"' :.:: a: pr(j=:i.:-;;~::.tely o~e
:)1 "al.l.y.:::::'; :.:5 fcur ~i.l~:> 0:
ml~c northeast of t~e 3ite
tj:c :J.t te. ThLs is .:.r:co:'rect.
:~.oJ.:~to' :lr~;'3 °L ~
'"
,..
18 C?2. . i::.-
':: '. t:; -~ n t;, '?
to ':.'1:
15.m:!. ts
of i-;011Y'..:00d.
D-7
-------
,.,'. .. .,..
" .' '. ,,'.:'
',.~ '~..
....'... ' . ,".
. ..~~'-
~' e.~ e
2 - 2 ".;::;-; t
: .:.l L'C;.S:,"'a ~~~ ~ ".
5.::cJrrect. ..
co~rsct st:~te'Jent...
T!~c;re!.;:; .1. burro',: :'~; ti '1 cIa;,::; :roxi.ti}!. ty to t>~ Ge~G:;r',::i ts i;1
':.'~:':'cj: 05.1 ".ru'11:J ".'crr~ : l[lcc:~ ,..1:1:1 drU:l:s tj!~t L::JcluQ<::,:: J:YI', ',.:her: :':0'1'
'..:ctG (j,l1'1e:'\. -r:t '..'~:3~-.l:'.c~,: t.:'sr~ 'In t~J0 70's. TI,e ::eople living
(;£xt to tLe borro',: r' i'~ :];lY~~ th~y arc sti..ll t:lere. There i3 also
a sand m:;':!i.l:: op-:r;=.ti..on to t};9 ,':est of ti,e si.te, \'!h5..ch is beJ,ng
carriel,to other areas. ! ~ont recal~ that ~o~itorlng wells ~ere
:~lace''': I.n t..€:3S t~..~O 3.r':2.::>. ::ee 2.ttaci,r:.ent
:;,=ct; on 5.. lja69 5-6 i,::; tlJ'2 ::;taterr.ent t!1at l'2ads us to bel:.,=ve
tl)2..t t~18 .-cople 1 i vir\G :~:I t:~(.? area of .-'-,0[; ~3ri6.gc ('reek(Al ta and
Gertru
-------
. -.. 4
.. .,: :.: . ~, -. :.'
.- - --
, .
. .',. . .' .
-.....: ':. .,.:, ',":: .~.:::'-:"--
..,1£0 sr~r
,.J . "oS',
;- I . \ 'i
\ ~tlZ ~
<""'''' ~+f
..( 'AQ1t.V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
MAR 1 0 1987
~f:
4WIrE~
The flonorabl~ Lala H. Dicket:'son
Mayor of Holly....ood
P.o. Box 5196
Hollyw:>od, Souch Carolina ~~44~
RE:
Geiyer (C&M Oil) Supertund Site
Dear Ms. Dickerson:
'!hank you for your recent letter cOl1t\enting on the Gei'Jer (C&M Oil) site
in O1arleston County, South Camlina. I It.Ould like to take this opportunit,y
to respond to your concerns r~ardil~ this site. I have outlined your
cannents below, follo~ by our t:'eplies.
1) "It has not be0n inade clear when the clean-up will begin, nor has
thet:'~ been any assut:'ances that the course of action to be taken will in
fact eli,ninate the possibility of further contanination ot the source of
drinkin~ water in the future."
, The s~l8ction of a remedial alternative is expected to be made near the
end or Marcn 1987. Renedial design is scheduled to begin by cecenber 1987
and will take approx~n3tely one y~ar to complete. The amount of tline ths
actual sits cIGan-up will take is dependent upon which alternative is
selected. I refer you to tne transcript of the January 19 public :neeting,
pages 51 and 52, tor a discussion by EPA of the expected remedial action
t ime- frame.
The selected remedidl action will assure that drinki~] water supplies do
not becone contaminated by the site in tl1e tuture.
2) "'n1ere was no suggestion anywhere in the study that the people be
put on the public water systen, not:' did Mr. [Pietrosewicz] suggest that
this should be a possibility."
The r~nedial investigation detcDnined that residantial wells are not
Vnmediately threatened by contamination trom the Geiger site; thus, an
alt~rnate drinklng water su~ply is not necessary. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Ie]istry (ATSDR) also concluded that the resid~n~ial
we 11s are not endan.Jered, whicn is Ytny Cnuck Pietrosewicz, at ATSDR, d ia
not CI~cannend that th(~ r~s ich~nts bf.? sup~.lied with municipal water.
D-9
-------
. ..' 'J'. ~' ' ~ .: - ~ ,~. -' . '..... :.
. ..
, '
..,
. , ~> .f':..':~', :;: ~.
, . .
- "
" , "
," ".'
. \ ': . .., ~):..~:.
,::"~:i:- ~'. ,;~::~~,::' ~~~}.-::
3) "A letter was sent to the people in the immediate vicinity by W3yne
Fanning of DHEC in 1985 and suggested that the people tind another ?ource
of drinki!i;1 water."
,',
DHEC's letter to local residents was sent in June of 1985, before the
results of £PA's remedial investigation were released. The recom\endation
that another source of drinkir;.] water be found was a precaution that was
suggested based on data frO'Tl one sampling etfort. Subsequent sanpling
failed to detect contaminants in the residential wells, and the remedial
investigation confi~~ed that contaminated groundwater is flowing away from
ti1e residential wells adjacent to the site. The contaminants detected by
DHEC in their 1985 sampling may be attributed to improper sampling
technique or laboratory contanination.
,",
r
4) "I feel that consideration soould be given to the fact that these
peOple have been subjected to the possibility of drinkinJ water that has
traces of [contaninants] over a period of 17 years."
Ajain, we have conclLrled that the residential wells in the site area are
not receiving contaninants tra~ the site, and the trace substances detected
by DHEC in l~85 are the result of improper sampling or of laboratory error.
5) "The Geiger site is not fenced in nor is the area designated as a
hazardous waste site. I feel that this should be done. I feel that the
deeds of this property should be restricted to allow limited use and
should never be allowed to be used as a residential area."
The site does not posc any adverse risks to human health under present-
use conditions. An adv~rse health risk would be posed by contaminated
soil only if the site were to be excavated or if the oil-stained area
were to be used tor residential purposes. The site is privately owned
and is used for the storage of heavy equipment. Access is restricted to
those who work at the site. Fencing of the site to control access is not
necessary tor the protection of human health.
Following remediation of the site, deeds to the affected properties may
be changed to restrict the use ot the site if necessary. If a pe~nanent
rem~y is selected which destroys the hazardous substances, no restrictions
will be required.
6) "1he area is truly a swa:~i?Y, marshy a rea to the ~st and southwes t ot
the Gieger site and a tLCXX1 zone tnat is atfected by tidal tlocx:iing.
1his was not mentioned in the study."
'The Geiger site itselt is .not aftected by tidal flocxjing, and is
significantly influenced by these other areas. The marshy areas
the site were sa~pled to dete~ine the pres~nce of contanination
areas.
not
west "of
in these
D-l0
-------
. .
"" ~ -... . - .
.. .-:..:-::_~.:..~.:.=-~
7) "I truly feel that recommendations should be forthcoming from your
office as to the need fer the municipal water being furnished .these people
in these t'AO areas." .
As stated above, residential w~lls in the area of the Geiger site are not
receiving contaminants from the site, and are not Unnediately endan]ered
by ti1e site. OUr r~edial action will assure that these wells are not
threatened in th~ future by site contanination. we cannot recommend that
municipal water be supplied to local residents on the basis of contamination
existing at the Geiger (C&M Oil) site.
8) "'!he stooy shows that the Geiger site is a five acre area. Incorrect.
. The Geiger site is canposed of two pieces of property arC the total is
6-1/4 acres."
The final Faasbility Study will be corrected.
9) "Last paragraph, p~e 1-1, third sentence, third [line] from the
botto~; the sentence should read: '... drains through an outlet pipe into
a stream lnarsh which is a part of the ~ Bridge Creek system. This
system is a tidal syste:n which can be affected by unusual flood tides.'"
TI1e final Feasibility Study will be revised to show that the drain~e
strean is part of the Log Bridge Creek system. The fact that this system
can De affected by tides does not have an impact on our investigation.
10) "Page 1-5, paragraph 2 i last sentence should read as follows: 'Several
residences are located to the east and northeast as well as to the
southeast of the iJnlnediate vicinity of the site. I"
This section of the Feasibility Study presents a description of the site
and the immediate area. The r~sidences to the southedst of the site area
are not considered a part of the immediate area and are not included in
this discussion. A more conplete discussion of area-wide land use lnay be
found in the remedial investigation report.
11) "W1at effect could this have on those who live in the area of Log
Bridge Creek to the southwest, since this is in a flood zone area? There
were no tests made in this area. There is another [area] to the northwest
of the Geiger property which is also in a flood zone area.
As stated earlier, these floc~ zones have no direct effect on the Geiger site.
12)
"~at is the depth of tr.,:; shallow aquifer?"
The shallow aquifer includes all of the surficial unconsolidated sedUnents
from the ground surface down to the Cooper r-1arl, which underlies the
shallow aquifer at a deDth of aDproximately forty feet.
0-11
-------
, : . ~ ': " 1.: ,~;::...",.,
. .
" ~: ;:. ~; :: ..: -"-.. . '.: " .
: ".. . ~ ,:" .:< ;. "'..
., .
-, ."' -, ,
, .,
- ',:"', ' ~,," ", -
, ':..". ".~ " ' .' :
13) 1IW10 did the tw::>- dowTl']radient ....ells that ~re tested in 1980 belong
to? Why weren't the people notified? ~1at were the results? Where are
th= resul ts'?"
Information regardi~J the 1980 testing is contained in the following
reference: Study Plan, Hazardous waste Investigation, C&M Oil; Surveillance
~nd Analysis Division, EPA, R8gion IV, Atlanta, Georgia; 1980. 'Ownership
of these wells is not known. No hazardous substances ....ere detected
in either of these W81ls. The reason for not notifying the residents of
th~ results is not known.
14) "There is a borrow pit in close proximity to the Geiger pits in
which oil drums ware placed, and druns that included DOl'. The people
livil'YJ next to the borrow p,it say they are still there." .
EPA conducted an investigation for buried drums at the Geiger site on
t-'ebruary 19, 1987. Ms. Peggy J)Jkes, a manber of your staff, was questioned
about the borrow pit and she replied that no drums were placed in the
~it. Residents living adjacent to the site were asked if buried drums
could be located in any areas other than those investigated by EPA. These
residents said that all suspect areas had been investigated.
15) "There is also a sand mining operation to the west of the site,
which is being carried to other areas. I don't recall that monitoring
wells were placed in these t\ooO areas."
The sand mining operation is not part of the Geiger site, and 1IoOuld not
be atfected by the site; there tore, no monitoring wells were placed in
this area. The borrow pit is also not part of the site, and there was no
evidence of waste dunping at this location at the tbTIe of the remedial
investigation.
16) ..f In Section 5, pa',Je 5-6, a statement leads us to believe that the
people livin] in the area of Log Bri~e Creek may als0 have their drinking
water affected. No tests WGr:-e made in this area."
The discussion on pa]e 5-6 of the remedial investigation report concerns
surface water and se
-------
. . -* .r - t .. -'
I hope this answers your conc~rns satisfactorily. I would like to thank
you for your interest in the Geiger (C&M Oil) site and in EPA acti~ities.
Please contact Thomas Roth of my staff at (404) 347-2643 if yo~-have any
further questions.
~incerel
,,-"
~4~ ,/
.~~ - / ~ ~/
Russell wright, Chief
Remedial Action Section
I:}nerg~ncy aoo Remedial Eesp:ms3 Branch
cc:
O1ris Staton, SCIEEC
TY.:13
------- |