United States        Office of
          Environmental Protection   Emergency and
          Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/142
April 1993
v>EPA    Superfund
          Record of Decision:
          Elmore Waste Disposal, SC

-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.       2.     3. A8clplenl's ~.Ic>-t No.
   PAGE EPA!ROD/R04-93/142                
4. 11118 and SubtItle                   5. Report DaI8    
 SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION                04/26/93
 Elmore Waste Disposal, SC             6.       
 First Remedial Action - Final                   
7. Author(s)                   8. Performing Organization 118pt. No.
9. P8rfDrmlng Organization Name and Address             10 Project TuklWork Unit No.
                       11. ConInIct(C) or Grant(G) No.
                       (C)       
                       R       
12. Sponsoring Organization NaIll8 and Adclras             13. Type of Report & Period CovenId
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                
 401 M Street, S.W.                800/800    
 Washington, D.C. 20460              14.       
15. Supplementary Not-                           
     PB94-964040                   
16. Ab8Ir8cI(UmIt: 200 words)                          
 The one-half-acre Elmore Waste Disposal site is a waste disposal facility located in
 Greer, Spartanburg County, South Carolina.  Land use in the area is mixed light
 cormnercial, industrial, and residential. In addition, the site and surrounding area
 lie within the Inner Piedmont Belt Core of the Piedmont Physiographic Province outside
 of the 100-year flood elevation. Residents within Greer use the municipal water system
 for their drinking water supply; and no private water wells are iocated within one mile
 of the site. Between 1975 and 1977, the site owner accepted numerous drums containing
 various liquid and solid waste. In 1977, a State inspection discovered a number of
 drums, some of which were leaking, and in 1977, the State ordered the site owner to
 clean up the site and properly dispose of the waste materials. In 1979, the State
 notified the site owner of non-compliance, and in 1980, EPA identified a partially
buried 6,OOO-gallon storage tank, containing what appeared to be waste oil, and
 approximately 100 unmarked leaking drums during a site investigation. In 1981, another
 EPA site investigation revealed that twenty-five 55-gallon drums containing soil and/or
 wood chips remained onsite. A soil sample revealed the presence of elevated 
 concentrations of numerous inorganic contaminants including chromium, copper, cyanide,
 lead, and zinc, as well as twenty-two organic compounds. In 1983, another State
 (See Attached Page)                      
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors                      
 Record of Decision - Elmore Waste Disposal, SC             
 First Remedial Action - Final                   
 Contaminated Media: soil, gw                   
 Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead) 
 b. IcIentifieralOpen-Ended Terms                      
 c. COSAlI FlaldIGroup                         
18. Availability Statement              19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Pages
                     None         120
                  20. Security Clan (ThIs ~ge) 22. Price 
                     None         
(588 ANSI-Z39.18)
S88 /nst1llCtiDlls on R.~-
OP'TICWAL FORII 272 14-77)
(Formetty NTIS-35)
Department of Comrn8rce

-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/142
Elmore Waste Disposal, SC
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
inspection identified 250 to 300 drums in various stages of decay; a large, partially
buried storage tank; and an empty tanker trailer. In 1984, further soil sampling for a
site screening study confirmed elevated levels of inorganic and organic contaminants in
onsite soil as a result of these improper disposal activities. In 1986, the State
conducted a removal action which included excavation, transportation, and disposal of
approximately 5,000 yd3 of contaminated soil and 16,840 pounds of liquids, backfilling
excavated areas with 5,456 yd3 of clean dirt, and installing four monitoring wells onsite
after the removal was completed. In 1986 and 1987, samples from these wells revealed
ground water contamination by VOCs and metals. This ROD addresses a first and final
action to prevent contaminated shallow soil from leaching to ground water and to remove
future risks posed by usage of contaminated ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and TCE; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating contaminated soil until
remaining soil achieves the concentrations of arsenic 10 mg/kg and lead 500 mg/kg;
conducting verification sampling, pretreating the excavated soil, if necessary, and
transporting the soil to a permitted RCRA hazardous waste landfill; backfilling and
revegetating excavated areas; designing, constructing, and operating a ground water
extraction system; treating extracted ground water onsite~using aeration by oxidation,
chemical reduction, and chemical precipitation through pH 'adjustment, in combination with
phase separation by flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration to remove metalsi
dewatering solids {from the treatment process and temporarily storing these onsite for
late~ disposal in a RCRA landfilli using an air-, gas-, or steam stripping unit to remove
VOCs, followed by treatment using an activated carbon ~polishing" uniti discharging the
treated ground water offsite to an industrial sewer or other appurtenance of the local
POTW; and monitoring ground water-and surface water. TAe, estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $2,823,300, which includes an estimated total O&M cost of
$i,494,200 for 30 years. '
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil excavation goals are based on either health-based remediation goals, EPA Region
health-based level of concern, or leachability-based remediation goals. Chemical-specific
soil excavation levels for surface soil for metals include arsenic 10 mg/kg; beryllium 4
mg/kgi and lead 500 mg/kg. Chemical-specific subsurface soil cleanup levels include
arsenic 300 rng/kgi beryllium 9 rng/kgi cadmium 4 mg/kg; chromium 800 mg/kg; manganese
10,000 mg/kgi nickel 400 mg/kgi and vanadium 600 mg/kg. Ground water clean-up goals are
based on either MCLs, proposed State MCLs, EPA action levels, or health-based remediation
goals. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals include benzene 5 ug/l; beryllium 4
ug/l; cadmium 5 ug/l; carbon tetrachloride 5 ug/l; chromium 100 ug/li cis-1,2-DCE 70 ug/l;
lead 15 ug/li manganese 3,000 ug/l; methylene chloride 5 ug/l; nickel 100 ug/li PCE 5
ug/i; 1,1,1-TCA 200 ug/li 1,1,2-TCA 5 u9/li TCE 5 ug/li vanadium 200 ug/li and vinyl
chloride 2 ug/l.

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
GREER, SPARTANBURG COUNTY
SOUTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OP DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
E~ore Waste Disposal
Greer, Spartanburg County, South Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the E~ore Waste Disposal Superfund Site (the Site) in Greer,
South Carolina, which was chosen in accordance with the the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based on the administrative record file for this
Site.
The State of South Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may pre~ent an
Lmminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedial action addresses onsite soil contamination, the
principal threat at this Site; as well as onsite and offsite
groundwater contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
SOURCE CONTROL
[J
Excavation of contaminated surface and shallow subsurface
soil, with verification sampling;
Transport of the soil to a permitted RCRA hazardous waste
landfill;
Disposal at the RCRA landfill facility, including
treatment of the soils if necessary to comply with Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).
[J
[J

-------
- 2 -
GROUNDWATER
o
Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the surface
(shallow) and intermediate aquifers;
Treatment using aeration, chemical precipitation and
filtration to remove inorganic contaminants; and
air/gas/steam stripping to remove organic contaminants;
Discharge of the treated groundwater to a local Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

CONFIRM EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
o
o
[J
Further sampling to confirm the absence of contributing
sources of contamination east and north of the Site;
Further sampling to confirm or further delineate the
vertical extent of groundwater contamination.
o
SITE MONITORING
o
Quarterly sampling of groundwater and surface water
samples to monitor the concentrations and movement of
contaminants.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
-
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technology to the
max~um extent practicable for this Site. However, because
treatment of the contaminated soil was not found to be
practicable, the soil remediation coaponent of this remedy does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. The selected groundwater r888dy component satisfies the
preference for treatment.
Since selection of this remedy will result in contaminated
groundwater remaining on~ite above health-based levels until
remedy implementation is complete, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to insure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
~(r)~

Patrick M. Tobin
Acting Regional Administrator
4 -z' -9$
Date

-------
TABLE OF COH'l'D'rS
iv
SECTION
PAGE
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
SITE
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Si te Description................. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Site Topography and Drainage ........................4

Meteorology- .........................................4
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting ..................4
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ..................8

2 . 1 Site History- ........................................ 8

2.2 Enforcement Activities........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ...................14
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY ......15
SUMMARY O~ SITE CHARACTERISTICS .........................16
5.1 Site-Specific Geology- and Hydrogeology- .............16

5 . 1 . 1 Geology..................................... 16

5. 1.2 Hydrogeology............................ . . . . 19
5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination .................24
5.2.1 Surface and Shallow Soils ...................24
5.2.2 Subsurface Soils............................ 24.
5 . 2.3 Groundwater.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
5.2 .4 Surface Water....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS..................... 8- . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6 . 1 Contaminants of Concern............................ 41
6.2 Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
6.3 Toxicity Assessment of Contaminants ................45
6.4 Risk Characterization.............................. 53
6.5 Environmental (Ecological) Risks ...................56
DESCRIPTION
7.1 Source
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ....................57
Control Remedial Alternatives................67
No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . 69
7.2
Soil-Synthetic Membrane Cap .................70

Soil Stabilization.......................... 71

Soil Washing, Stabilization,

and Offsite Disposal ........................72

7.1.5 In-Situ Vitrification .......................73

7.1.6 Offsite Disposal............................ 74

Groundwater Remedial Alternatives ..................75

7 .2 . 1 ~-;:;-No Action.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
7.2.2 Groundwater Use Restrictions
7.2.3
7.2.4
and Moni taring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Groundwater Containment, Treatment,
Surface Water or POTW Discharge .............79
Groundwater Extraction, Physical Treatment,
Bioremediation, Surface or POTW Discharge ...81

-------
SECTION
8.0
9.0
10.0
Table of Contents (cant' d. )
v
PAGE
7.2.5
Groundwater Extraction, Physical Treatment,
Air/Gas/Steam Stripping, Surface Water or

POTW Discharge.............................. 82
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .........83
8.1 Source Control Remedial Alternatives ...............84
8.1.1 Threshold Criteria....................... ...84
8.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria ..................85
8.1.3 Modifying Criteria ..........................87
8.2 Groundwater Remedial Alternatives ..................88
8.2.1 Threshold Criteria......................... .88
8.2.2 Primary Balancing Criteria ..................89
8.2.3 Modifying Criteria.......................... 91
~ S;~~~C:~~I> ~~I)1r .....................................91

9 . 1 Source Control..................................... 91
9.1.1 Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
9.1.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs).........................92
9.1.3 Performance Standards .......................95
9.2 Groundwater Remediation ............................96.

9.2.1 Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

9.2.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)........................100
9.2.3 Performance Standards............ .-........ .103
9.3 Confirm Extent of Groundwater Contamination .......104
9.4 Monitor Site Groundwater and Surface Water ........105
STATUTORY
DETERMINA.TIONS ............................... 105
APPENDICES'
APPENDIX A - ~SPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - STATE LETTER OF CONCU~NCE

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
FIGURE
PAGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
Site Location Map
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5i te Layout ~p....................................... 3

Si te Topographic Map .................................5

Location Within the Piedmont Physiographic Province ..6
Site Layout Prior to 1986 Removal Action ......~.....11
Area of 1986 Removal Action........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Site Sampling Locations...................... . . . . . . .17
Off site Sampling Locations ..........................18
Groundwater Potentiometric Map: June 1991 ...........21
Groundwater Potentiometric Map: September 1991 ......22
Extent of Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil
Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Extent of Surficial Aquifer Contamination ...........37

-------
LIST OF TABLES
vii
TABLE
PAGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevations .......20
Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity (K) ...............23
Surface and Shallow Soils Analytical Results ........25
Intermediate Soils Analytical Results ...............30
Deep Soils Analytical Results .......................33
Shallow Wells Analytical Results ....................34
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Analytical Results ........35
Intermediate Wells Analytical Results ...............38
Deep Wells Analytical Results .......................39
Surface Water Analytical Results ....................40
Summary of RI Contaminants of Concern ...............42
Exposure Point Concentrations ........................46
Summary of Exposure Parameters ......................48
Critical Toxicity Values ............................51
Derivation of Dermal Critical Toxicity Values .......52
Site Hazard Index SUIIIIIlary ...........................54
Site Cancer Risk SUIIIIIlary ............................55
Initial Screening of Remedial Technologies
for Contaminated Soil (Source Control) ............58
Initial Screening of Remedial Technologies
for Contaminated Groundwater ......................62.
Components of Source Control Remedial Alternatives ..68
Components of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives .....76
Source Control Remedial Alternatives ................84
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives ...................88
Source Control Performance Standards ................96
Groundwater Remediation Performance Standards ......104

-------
DECISION' SUMMARY
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
GREER. SPARTANBURG COUNTY. SOUTH CAROLINA

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Page 1
1.0
The Elmore Waste Disposal Site (the Site) is located near the
intersection of Sunnyside Drive and East Poinsett Street (South
Carolina Highway 290) in the City of Greer, Spartanburg County,
South Carolina (Figure 1). Site coordinates are 34°56'07.3"
North latitude and 82°13'00.5" West longitude.
1.1
Site Description
The Site is a grassy field approximately one-half acre in size.
The Elmore home and the largest Site land parcel (Figure 2) is
owned by William J. Elmore, Sr. The site is not enclosed by a
fence, and access is unrestricted.
On the west side of the Elmore Site are an empty building (a
former tavern) and four residential homes. These two land
parcels are owned by Mrs. Betty K. Pearson, sister of William
Elmore, and Mr. Thomas Wood, respectively. A railroad owned by
CSX Transportation, Inc., borders the Site on the north, and
Poinsett Street (SC Highway 290, a two-lane highway) is the
southern boundary. A single family residence borders the Site to
the east. The area between East Poinsett Street and the northern
set of CSX Railroad tracks, encompassing the Site, ~s zoned for
"light commercial" use. Just across Sunnyside Drive west of the
Site, an asphalt plant occupies land zoned industrial. To the
north of the Site, beyond the CSX Railroad tracks, is an area of
single family homes which is zoned residential.

Most of the city of Greer lies within one mile to the.
west/northwest of the Site. Land to the east and southeast of
the Site is mainly used by small bU8inesses and industries.
These businesses and industries are surrounded by large tracts of
pasture land. According to the Spartanburg County Planning
Department, most residential expan.ion in the vicinity of the
Site is toward the south and southeas~.
A well search/survey early in the Remedial Investigation verified
that all area residences are on the Greer city water system, and
that no private water wells are located within one mile of the
Site. The source of the Greer public water system is Lake
Cunningham on the South Tyger River. Lake Cunningham is located
approximately 3.4 miles north of Greer, five miles upstream from
the confluence of Wards Creek and the South Tyger River. Wards
Creek is a small tributary located approximately 700 feet north
of the Site, which flows northeasterly into the South Tyger
River. The South Tyger River and its tributaries are classified
by the State of South Carolina as Class B waters, suitable for
fishing and as a drinking water source after standard treatment.

-------
SITE
1In:
..~ .- ..J
,,,,,,'
. .._._~..

-------
h-,.J
('i;jl"- .
'71"
-Jl
HIGHLAND AVENUE
'-(1M:( ~ PA\OIOIr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CS) /t./t.
. . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
-==rll...."..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
STOIIM
DRAIN
.~nJI« .
-5- -1 _1 1- 1/
s- -5- r
~ r---]:R:[:---~------I'I
~ \ ~/ i :rJ'. i(
~ I ~ "
l@D HOur ~ I L.
KOCH
ASPHALT. .
PLAHT
-
I
LEGEND:
~ PROPERTY PARCEl NO . .
- - - PROP[RTY lIN[
FIGURE 2
SITE LAYOUT MAP
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERfUND SITE
t'iS
i
~
2:
PI:a
CIllO
rtO
100
11
00-
...
ClIO
'gHl
:i'
'tI""0
III ...
enOl
10 ......
rtO
wCD='

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 4
1.2
Site To~oaraDhy and Drainaae
The Site is a grassy field with a dense incursion of kudzu in the
north and western portions. Surface elevations at the Site
decrease toward the northwest, with slopes ranging from 5 to 10
percent (Figure 3). Surface drainage and runoff from the Site
flows northwestward and discharges into a storm drain inlet
(shown on Figure 2) located at the intersection of Sunnyside
Drive and the CSX Railroad tracks overpass. This storm drain
consists of both below-grade concrete pipe sections and open
concrete ditch sections. The storm drain also receives runoff
from the asphalt plant, Sunnyside Drive south of the railroad
overpass, and Highland Avenue. From the inlet, the drainage
ditch runs northward along Sunnyside Drive and discharges into
Wards Creek approximately 700 feet north of the Site. Based on
the 1978 floodplain map for the area, the Site lies outside the
100-year flood elevation. .
1.3
Meteoroloay
The annual precipitation in Greer is 51.18 inches and is well
distributed throughout the year. However, at most only one-
quarter to one-third of the precipitation filters down into the
saturated zone, while the remainder is lost to surfAce ru~off or
evapotranspiration. The mean annual lake evaporation is 40
inches. Average monthly temperatures range from 39.7°F in
January to 78.2°F in July. The normal daily minimum and maximum
temperatures in the coldest month, January, are 29.7°F and
49.7°F, respectively. The normal daily minimum and maximum
temperatures for the warmest month, July, are 68.3°F and 88.0oF,
respectively. The annual prevailing winds are from the northeast
at a mean speed of 6.8 mph.
1.4
Geoloaic and Hvdroaeoloaic Settin9
The Site and surrounding area lie in the Inner piedmont Belt Core
of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure 4). The Piedmont
Physiographic Province is characterized by very dense dendritic
stream drainage and well developed topography.

The soil of the Inner Piedmont Core Belt can be classified as
Cecil sandy loam with a typical slope of six to ten percent. The
pH of Cecil soils is generally in the range of 4.5 to 6.5 at the
surface layer to 4.5 to 5.5 at deeper levels. The upper soil
.zone is a grayish-brown, yellowish-brown, and brown very friable
sandy loam varying from one to ten inches thick. According to
the Unified Soil Classification System, the soil consists of
approximately 35 percent to 40 percent silts and clays, and 60
percent to 65 percent sand. It is a well drained soil that was
formed from weathered granite, gneiss, and schist. The

-------
~
~~
~c 17"J
1ii'ir m-7t7J
I1NGS
HH6B ..
. -"H6 )
k--r-r
(~T-
'j
--
SHALLOW SOIL S~MPLE
SOIL BORING
MONITORING HELL
PROPERTY LINES
tzJ
13
o
11
(1)
~
PI::tI
CJl(1)
rtO
(1) 0
11
00.
.....
CA 0
'tjH\
o
1110
PI (1)
~.....O
PI .....
00111
(1) ..........
rtO
lI1ro::s
EAST POTNSETT STREET
LEGEND

GR
S8
MH
FIGURE 3
S~~~ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERfUND SITE

-------
~
~
~
'9
[XPlANA T ION
GEOLOGIC BEL IS IN THE PIEDttOHt PIIDvlHCI:

EJ

GRANITE
~

CHARLOtTE BELT
o
INNER PIEDMONT BELT
G

CAROLINA SLATE BELT

G
KINGS ~TAIN BELT
B
BREVARD BEL T

a.
BLUE RIDGE BELT
SOURCE. KOCt\ 1968
(II(}
~<2
~.I~
I
-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 7

infiltration, permeability, and available water capacity fall
into moderate ranges. The subsoil is a red, firm clay that is
exposed in many high degree slope areas due to the occurrence of
severe erosion.
The bedrock of the Inner piedmont Geological Belt consists
predominantly of a blue to gray granitic bedrock. This bedrock
has undergone regional metamorphism to form biotite gneiss,
biotite schist, quartzite, hornblende gneiss, and related
metamorphic rock types. At the Elmore Waste Disposal Site, the
biotite gneiss consists of a medium to coarse-grained quartz and
felspar with accessory biotite and muscovite which weathers to
dark red, clay-rich saprolite. In less weathered zones,
fractures develop along bedding and cleavage planes within
individual geologic units, and are capable of transmitting
significant amounts of water. Volcanic intrusions are common
throughout the Inner Piedmont Core Belt.

Across the bulk of the region, the hard crystalline rocks have
weathered into a soft clayey or sandy saprolite. Often, the
saprolite retains much of the original rock structure. The
saprolite may occur at the surface to as deep as 140 feet or more
below land surface.
The primary source of recharge to the aquifers in the piedmont
Physiographic Province of South Carolina is surface infiltration
from precipitation and snowmelt. Since all of the region
experiences steady and plentiful rainfall throughout most of the
year, the water table is affected more by surface features than
by climate. Groundwater is thus recharged more heavily in low
lying regions than in upper elevations, and the water table tends
to generally conform to surface topography. The water table
occurs at depths ranging from a few feet below the surface in low
valleys, to more than 100 feet in the higher elevations.
Groundwater throughout the region occurs in both the fractured
metamorphic bedrock and the overlying saprolitic zone. The two
layers are frequently hydraulically connected, allowing the
weathered saprolite to recharge the unweathered metamorphic
bedrock. Because of the geology of the region and the pathways
of recharge, groundwater flow can be expected to mirror the
regional surface flow to the southeastern and lower elevations.

Saprolite in the Greer area generally ranges from 40 to 60 feet
thick. The saprolite may be as thick as 200 feet in valleys
where well yields are generally sufficient for domestic use.
Higher yield wells typically extend to the fractured metamorphic
bedrock at depths of 150 to 250 feet. These deep rock wells
intersect water-bearing fractures and faults and yield up to 200

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 8 .
gallons per minute, depending on the abundance and
interconnection of the fractures in the metamorphic rock units.
The groundwater aquifer in the Greer area is classified by EPA as
Class IIB and by South Carolina as Class GB groundwater. Both
classifications define groundwater from this aquifer as a
potential source of drinking water.

In areas close to the Site, the average yield of domestic wells
drilled to obtain maximum yield is approximately 50 gallons per
minute. The highest yields are obtained from wells in biotite
gneiss and migmatite. Typical depths to the water table in the
area range from under 10 feet in river flood plains, to
approximately 40 feet in other areas. Seasonal fluctuations of
water table elevation are on the order of 5 feet. During the
summer and the early fall, the rainfall events are typically
intense and short, resulting in surface runoff, and thus
considerably less seepage into the aquifer. During the same
period, evaporation and transpiration take place at maximum rates
and a large percentage of the rainfall is returned to the
atmosphere that might have otherwise recharged the aquifer.
During the winter, rainfall events tend to be less intense but
have longer durations, and the water table rises to higher
levels.
2.0
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1
Site History
The earliest evidence of Site activities is provided by a report
by the EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) prepared in September 1992 (Report No. TS-PIC-92085). The
report notes a "probable" tank trailer and associated dark stains
on a 1965 aerial photograph of the Site. The 1970 aerial
photograph shows a larger stained area, a crescent-shaped berm, a
dark "possible stain" area within the berm, a probable tank
trailer, and probable horizontal tanks.

Between 1975 and 1977, the Site owner, Mr. Robert Lee Elmore,
received and placed onsite numerous drums containing various
liquid and solid wastes. Contaminated waste oil and possibly
other liquids were also stored onsite in an open-top, bulk
storage tank estimated to contain 5,000 to 6,000 gallons.
In response to odor complaints from neighboring residents in
1977, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) conducted an inspection of the Elmore Site.
SCDHEC personnel discovered a number of drums onsite, some of
which were leaking. In October 1977, Robert Lee Elmore entered
into a Consent Order with SCDHEC for the clean-up of the Site and

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
paae 9
the proper disposal of the waste materials. Later in
of the drums were removed to an undisclosed location,
of wood chips were placed in areas where drum leakage
The remaining Site history centers around enforcement
undertaken by SCDHEC and EPA.
1977, a few
and piles
occurred.
activities
For an unknown period prior to 1986, residents of the four rental
homes on the western border of the Site used a small area behind
the former tavern for produce gardening. Residents have not been
gardening in this area since 1986, when SCDHEC issued warning
letters to the landowner. The letters were based on results from
confirmation soil samples taken just after the 1986 removal
action (described in the following section) in the areas formerly
gardened, which showed significant concentrations of metals.
After receipt of the Remedial Investigation (RI) soils data, EPA
sent letters to the property owners in November 1991 reiterating
that gardening should be prohibited as a health precaution. The
former garden and the area ~ediately surrounding it are heavily
overgrown with kudzu, somewhat limiting access to garden area
soils.
During the offsite groundwater work in early 1992, EPA learned
that a former dump had existed within the present area of
Sunnyside Circle subdivision north of the Site. Ae~ial photos
obtained through EPIC confirmed the dump's location and size.
However, offsite sampling conducted to date has not identified
any contaminants that cannot be attributed to the Elmore Waste
Disposal Site. There is no known connection between the two
sites at present. The SCDHEC has initiated a sampling
investigation of the former dump area.
2.2
Enforcement Activities
In October 1979, SCDHEC notified Robert Lee Elmore that the terms
of the October 1977 Consent Order had not been fully complied
with. The wastes onsite had been containerized, but proper
disposal had not been initiated. Then, in January 1980, SCDBEC
directed Mr. Elmore to stop cleanup and disposal activities until.
potential disposal methods could be determined by SCDHEC. Later
in August 1981 SCDHEC sent R.L. Elmore a letter outlining the
methods by which the wastes should be disposed of. These
included incineration for the liquid wastes and disposal at a
secure landfill for the solids. Information was provided on
approved landfills and incinerators in the region.

The Site was referred to EPA through a citizen's complaint on
June 12, 1980. In September 1980, EPA personnel inspected the
Site and found a partially buried, 6,000-gallon storage tank
containing what appeared to be waste oil, and approximately 100
unmarked leaking drums in various stages of decay.

-------
2
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal site
Paae 10

During the period August 17, 1981, through August 21, 1981, an
EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) contractor investigated Site
conditions under EPA direction. At that time, 25 55-gallon drums
remained onsite, all containing soil and/or wood chips. A soil
sample taken from the northwest portion of the Site, in the path
of the storm water runoff, revealed the presence of elevated
concentrations of numerous inorganic contaminants including
chromium, copper, lead, zinc and cyanide. Twenty-two organic
compounds also were detected; however, the contractor's report,
dated January 1982, noted that some of the organic contaminants
possibly could be attributed to wood-preserving chemicals used on
railroad timbers of the adjacent piedmont and Northern Railroad
(now owned by CSX Transportation Inc.).
In September 1981, an attorney for Mr. Robert Lee Elmore wrote
SCDHEC stating that the waste on the Site involved Mr. Elmore's
son Lee Frank Elmore (a.k.a., Frank Elmore). The Site was said
to be no longer owned by Robert Lee Elmore but rather was "in an
estate." However, property records show that Robert Lee Elmore
owned the Site up until his death in May 1983. The letter
further stated that Robert Lee Elmore was in poor health and
under a doctor's care, and that he could not afford the cleanup
costs.
Frank Elmore applied for a permit to transport hazardous wastes
in February 1983. The substance to be transported was given as
"waste oil" and the type of business was listed as "the purchase
and transport of waste oil to permitted facilities."

In February 1983, SCDHEC again inspected the Site and found 250
to 300 drums in various stages of decay scattered over the Site.
A large, partially buried storage tank and an empty tanker
trailer were also present onsite.
Further soil sampling was conducted in June 1984, by an EPA
contractor (NUS Corporation) for a Site Screening Study.
Analyses again showed elevated levels of inorganic and organic
contaminants in Site soils. Based on these results, EPA prepared
a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package which was completed and
finalized in January 1986. The Site received a score of 31.45
under the HRS procedure.

In January 1986, SCDHEC attempted to contact Frank Elmore and
establish a new agreement for cleanup of the Site. However,
Frank Elmore could not be located.
Between June and August 1986, under the direction of SCDHEC, GSX
Services Inc. (GSX) conducted a removal clean-up of the Elmore
Waste Disposal Site. Site layout at the time of the removal is
illustrated in Figure 5. The removal action included the

-------
l
Record of Decision
E~ore Waste Disposal Site
pa e 11
L.I
>
0::
o

L.I
o
(/'I
~
Z
z
::::>
(/'I
H\GHLANO AVENUE
CSX R.R.
NOTE: DRUM STORAGE AREA LOCATION
IS APPROXIMATE. NO SCALE MAPS ARE
AVAILABLE.
o
k-....J
1011

I
_?
s-- .
---
- - - S - 6- - BULK
SAJ'!!~ S - - STORAGE
F'ORt.lER TANK
GARDEN ---
AREA (' ~
~ "',. - DRU" , ~
HOME (, I STORAGE I
. \ I \. AREA /
~ \..-J; ---.--
~
~
~' ----

i" Ell
SITE LAYOUT PRIOR
TO 1986 REMOVAL
ACTION
~
PARKING
ARfA
EAST POINSETT STREET
(SC 290)
SOURCE: NUS. 1985
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
SUPERFUND SITE
FIGURE
5

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 12
excavation, transportation and disposal of 5,477 tons
(approximately 5,000 cubic yards) of contaminated soil and 16,840
pounds of liquids. The solids were landfilled at GSX's
chemically secure landfill in pinewood, South Carolina, and the
liquids were incinerated at Thermal Oxidation Corporation in
Roebuck, South Carolina. The excavated area, shown in Figure 6,
was backfilled with 5,456 cubic yards of clean fill dirt. The
total cost of this state-funded operation was $927,207.91. To
facilitate groundwater monitoring, four monitoring wells were
installed onsite after the operation was completed. Samples from
these wells in 1986 and 1987 revealed groundwater contamination
by barium, cadmium, lead, zinc, tetrachloroethene, .
trichloroethene, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
Pursuant to S107(g) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C.
S9607(g), and the applicable state statute, SCDHEC assigned a
lien to the property in an attempt to recover its costs for the
1986 removal action.
In June 1988, the Elmore Waste Disposal Site was proposed for
addition to the National Priorities List (NPL), and was added to
the NPL on March 30, 1990.
A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Search comple~ed in
November 1988 did not result in identification of any viable
PRPs. In May of 1989, EPA Region IV sent out PRP Notification/
CERCLA Section 104(e) Information Request letters to the Elmore
family members and those who were believed knowledgeable of the
Elmore Waste Disposal Site. Based on the PRP Search Report and
the information received in response to the CERCLA Section 104(e)
Information Request letters, no viable PRPs were identified, and
EPA elected to perform a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) using public funds under CERCLA.

Planning of the RI/FS took place in late 1989 and early 1990. A
public meeting concerning the start of the RI/FS was held at the
Greer City Hall on March 22, 1990. However, the start of field
work was delayed due to problems gaining access. While
surrounding property owners readily granted EPA access, the two
main Site property owners refused to grant EPA access to do the
study.
After numerous attempts to obtain voluntary access failed, EPA
submitted a Request for Civil Action (Order in Aid of Immediate.
Action) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 13,
1990. In November 1990, in accordance with DOJ instructions, EPA
issued an Administrative Order (AO) for Access to the Site
owners. Certified mail records indicated that the AOs were
received. No responses were received to this Order.

-------
NOTE: LIMITS or EXCAVATION ARE APPROXIMATE.
NO SCALED MAPS OF WORK AREA ARE AVAILABLE
I I I . I I I . I I I I I I-=-:
I I I ft I . I I I I I I . I I I I I 0 I CS}( R.R.
I I I I I I I I . I I
I I i I . I . -
I . I - . . .
MW4
.
L1W3
.
LIMITS OF
?-?
S--.
-?-
 s 
w  
> ~ 
Q:: 
C 
W ~ 
0 
V1 
>- C[HOMEJ 
Z 
z 
::> ~ 
V1 
 0
'/~
~~
~
L1W2. ~
PARKING
EAST POINSETT STREET
(SC 290)
t1iliT-

~'''-V-
FIGURE 6
AREA OF 1986 REMOVAL ACTION
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
~
~
MW1
.
b---J0
100

,
SOURCE: GSX, 1987
-?-
t!j
I-'
a
o
11
(I)
~
1»:0
(/) (I)
rtO
(I) 0
11
OA-
.....
(/) 0
"CHI
o
(/)0
ttJPI(I)
111 1-'0
.....
(I) en(/)
..... .....
I-'rtO
W(I)=='

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 14
Further efforts to reach agreement on the terms of access with
the landowners were successful in early 1991. Signed access
agreements were obtained in late February 1991, and RIfFS field
work began on March 12, 1991. Site field work ended in late June
1991. Offsite groundwater sampling events were conducted in
January, April and May of 1992.
3.0
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Initial community relations activities at the Elmore Waste
Disposal Site included conducting community interviews in late
1989, and finalization of the Community Relations Plan in January
1990. An information repository was established at the Greer
Branch of the Greenville City Library in January 1990.

A "kickoff" fact sheet announcing the start of the RIfFS was
issued in early March 1990. On March 22, 1990, EPA held a public
meeting at Greer City Hall to present the Agency's plans for the
RIfFS. The meeting was attended by more than 60 citizens and
covered by three local newspapers (Greer, Greenville,
Spartanburg) and two television stations. EPA's presentation to
the public included information on how to participate in the
investigation and remedy selection process under Su~erfund. At
the meeting, many questions were asked and a fair amount of
interest was expressed by the community.
Between April 1990 and March 1991, the start of the RI was
delayed while the Agency tried to reach an agreement for access
to the Site properties. As described above in Section 1.2,
access agreements had been obtained from adjacent landowners but
not from the two main Site landowners. The public was aware of
the situation due to steady coverage by the three local
newspapers. RI field work was initiated in early March 1992
following resolution of the access issue.
EPA prepared and released another "RI begins" fact sheet at that
time (March 1991) because one year had elapsed since the
announcement of the RIfFS start. Additionally, EPA personnel
visited Greer on March 11 and 12, 1991, to meet with local
officials of the City of Greer and of SCDHEC to brief them on the
planned RI field work. News coverage of the RI by the local
newspapers continued steadily throughout the remainder of 1991
and 1992.
A second public meeting was held in March 1992, to update the
public on the RI findings to date, and to explain the planned
additional groundwater sampling in an area north of the Site.
The meeting was only attended by a few members of the public, but
was extensively covered by the press. At this meeting, concerns

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 15
were expressed by nearby residents about a former dump area in
the Sunnyside Circle subdivision just north of the Site. The
former dump location is within the area of offsite groundwater
contamination attributed to the Elmore Waste Disposal Site. It
was explained that the planned sampling would aid EPA in
determining if any contamination was emanating from the former
dump, and whether Wards Creek was impacted. Continued public
interest was encouraged at the meeting, and the various
opportunities for public involvement were emphasized.

Offsite groundwater and surface water sampling events were
conducted in April, May, and June 1992. While work on the
Feasibility Study (FS) continued, the final Remedial
Investigation Report was placed in the information repository on
June 24, 1992. At this time and throughout the RI, the
information repository was visited periodically to insure that it
was well-stocked and available to the public.
Following completion of the FS, Proposed Plan fact sheets were
sent out on December 21, 1992. An advertisement was published in
two of the local newspapers on December 30, 1992. Both the
advertisement and the fact sheet highlighted the Public Comment
period extending from December 30, 1992, to January 28, 1993.
-
The Proposed Plan public meeting was held on January 14, 1993, to
present the Agency's selection of Preferred Alternatives for
addressing soil and groundwater contamination at the Site.
Public comments and questions are documented in the
Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A. A request was received on
January 28, 1993, for an extension of the public comment period.
Therefore, the comment period was extended another 30 days
through February 27, 1993.
4.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The purpose of the remedial alternative selected in this ROD is
to reduce current and future risks at this Site. The remedial
action for soil will remove current and future health threats
posed by contaminated shallow soil and will prevent leaching of
the soil contaminants to groundwater. The groundwater remedial
action will remove future risks posed by potential usage of
contaminated groundwater. It will also remove the threat to
surface water (Wards Creek), by reducing the concentrations of
surficial aquifer contaminants reaching Wards Creek. This is the
only ROD contemplated for this Site.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 16
5.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI investigated the nature and extent of contamination on and
near the Site, and defined the potential risks to human health
and the environment posed by the Site. A supporting RI objective
was to characterize the Site-specific geology and hydrogeology.
A total of 37 soil samples, 27 groundwater samples, and 8 surface
water samples were collected during the RI. The main portion of
the RI was conducted from April 1991 through January 1992,
followed by offsite groundwater sampling and surface water
sampling between February and June 1992. Onsite locations of
soil borings, soil samples, and monitor wells are shown in Figure
7. Figure 8 shows the off site groundwater and surface water
sampling locations.
5.1
Site-Specific Geoloqy and Hvdroqeoloqy
5.1.1
Geoloqy
To gain Site-specific geologic information, 21 borings were
completed during the RI, 16 of which were logged in detail.

Borings in the area excavated in the 1986 SCDHEC remedial action
revealed little topsoil cover. In the borings located away from
the fill area, a topsoil layer, one to two feet thick, of black
or brown soil was encountered. The topsoil had a low plasticity
and minor amounts of organic matter.
One soil b~ring, SB-2, revealed a shallow layer of fill
containing ashes and burned material, and ash piles were present
near the boring location. Residents of the four small houses at
the west end of the Site burn scrap lumber (much of it painted)
for heat or other purposes, and apparently deposit the ashes in
this area. The ashes may contribute to the levels of metals
found in soil in this area.
Below the top soil (and below the fill layers in the area of the
1986 remediation), a region of silty-clay saprolite was found
varying from 10 to 30 feet in thickness. Throughout the Site,
interspersed within the saprolite, discontinuous zones of silty-
clay and silty-sand were interlayered with more competent biotite
gneiss. These zones varied from approximately six inches to 10
feet in thickness. In the most southern and deepest boring, MW-
8B, a layer of variably-weathered hornblende biotite gneiss was
observed beginning at an approximate depth of 45 feet that
continued to the bottom of the boring. Weathered biotite gneiss
was encountered in the two deep borings at depths of 51 and 44
feet below the surface. Truly competent, relatively unweathered
bedrock was not encountered in either of the two borings.

-------
S(MI'C£:
ItIURPHr YE1.LE
~IJIL
SllRtaWG
/I'oIelr He 1161J
,... '''-'''~
:-1 I I I I I
w
~
0::
C
I4JI

~I

z,

~1
[DOC (J" PA~ENr ~
o 110

~-...,J


",,----


,-f)
.1AW6S
101W6'1 .t.4W61
II ..111111
I I . . I I . . I . . I I I ,
I. .1.,,11111.1111 '1,...1,1111... ,
~U~I rs Of" G[".
/ PROfU flAG
------------,
,----- I 0_0-

: ?- - -+?t - -
? -4-?---' I
.$85- S - - -. I ,
5 - -5 : : I

' "- Q!0 T- <~ ,",,-1- - -SO~ - ~"I ;.~ L_-i - - - - -h: 0

~ S8~ . SB4.. , I
~ I t.4W21 I . SSG , I


~ I ~..:" I sa, ! .:~ i II 0

o , .t.AWIl I

~ I I E~~~~E L___---------Uw9',0
~ GD
WW4
.
IAWJ
W51 0 . 0IAW5S
oGAJ
.UW7/
ollNi7S
II
---
I was.

- - r-'-- ~":'- - - - - --

EAST POINSETT STREET (SC 290) - - -
,.--
HW
MONITORING WELL
S SHALLOW
I INTERMEDIATE
B BEDROCK
LECEND:

-------
T
29D lDO
. I
SCALE IN FEET 
-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 19
5.1.2
Hvdroqeoloqy
Site-specific hydrogeology was investigated in the RI. Of the 21
borings performed during the RI, thirteen were completed as
monitoring wells. These wells were installed into the shallow,
interface, and bedrock zones of the aquifer, and are designated
with the suffixes "S", "I", and "B" as appropriate. The only
significant deviation from the RI work plans was the need to
install the interface wells and bedrock wells at different depths
than originally planned, due to the absence of a distinct
interface between bedrock and saprolite as had been anticipated.
The interface wells were screened two to three feet below the top
of a locally continuous stratum of weathered biotite gneiss.
This contact may represent a poorly-defined interface zone
between the saprolite and deeper weathered gneiss. Because of
this uncertainty, the wells screened as described above are
referred to as intermediate depth wells.

Two sets of groundwater elevation data were obtained during the
RI (Table 1). The general direction of groundwater flow is
toward the north and northwest for both the shallow and interface
aquifers (Figures 9 and 10). The data suggest that there may be
a slight upward gradient in the northern portions of the Site
(near MW-6S/6I/6B), and a slight downward gradient-in the western
portion of the Site (near MW-2S/21 and MW-SS/SI). No evidence of
any confining conditions was observed during drilling.
Rising and falling head tests were performed on the monitoring
wells in order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the
aquifer beneath the Site. The calculated K values are presented
in Table 2. For the shallow wells, K varied from 4.8 x 10-4 cm/s
at MW-7S, to 1.4 x 10-3 cm/s at HW-2S. For the intermediate
wells, the values ranged from 1.1 x 10-4 cmls in MW-1I, to 2.1 x
10-3 cm/s in MW-9I. The geometric means were:
Shallow Zone:
Interface Zone:
9.5 x 10.4 cm/s
4 . 7 x 10' 4 cml s
A piezometric surface gradient of 0.0175 ft/ft was calculated for
the water table measured by both the shallow and interface wells.
Using this gradient and the calculated Site-specific K values,
groundwater velocity in the horizontal direction was calculated
to be 34.4 ft/yr in the surface aquifer and 17.0 ft/yr in the
deeper saprolite/interface aquifer.

-------
!-
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 20
:
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE ELEVATIONS
 Top of Casing Water Level Measurements Water Level Elevations
 Elevation (ft below TOC)  (ft msl) 
Well (ft msl)     
  6/5 - 19191 9/11/91 6/5-19191  9111191
MW-l 961.09 - 20.25 -  940.84
MW-ll 956.55 13.44 - 943.11  -
MW-2 946.77 - 7.50 -  939.27
MW-2S 947.36 5.60 733 941.76  940.03
MW-2I 947.46 6.10 8.00 941.36  939.46
MW-3 946.41 7.25 8.67 934.16  937.74
MW-4 942.84  8.83   934.01
MW-5S 945.69 9.00 8.08 936.69  937.61
MW-5I 945.44 9.00 11.00 936.44  934.44
MW-6S 953.20 14.83 15.75 938.37  937.45
MW-6I 953.53 14.17 15.00 939.36 - 938.53
MW-6B 952.99 14.68 15.67 938.31  937.32
MW-7S 955.43 10.85 16.25 944.58  939.18
MW-71 957.80 1733 15.50 940.47  942.30.
MW-8S 953.73 10.29 12.08 943.44  941.65
MW-8B 953.80 21.25 12.58 932.55  941.22
MW-9I 959.19 15.92 18.92 943.27  940.27
. Data from field notes were suspect and not used in creating elevation contours.
-: Data not obtained
,.....,
June 2, 1892
A:\FEB82\ElMORE\KM\ TABl.D-3.RI

-------
. .
h...--rl
... ... --...,...


(EUTLANT A
~l
HIGHLAND A,/[NU[
~ £Ocr OF p~l.f:llfHl"" =
w.
.
!oJ
o
in
>-
z
Z
::J
VI
i
I
EAST POINSETT STREET
(SC 290)
1;-
I:
r
IIW9~ I

.

I

.-'
LEGEND:
--------
SHAllOW W£ll CONTOURS
INTERMEDJA T[ W£ll CONTOURS
I FIGURE 9
GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC MAP
I . JUNE 1991
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
tJj
!;
o
11
/t)
~
PJ::O
CI) /t)
rto
/t)0
11
tH1.
~.
CI) 0
'0 HI
o
Cl)tI
IUPJ/t)
PI ..... 0
~.
/t){J)CI)
~. ~.
IVrtO
1-'/t)::S

-------
-J
",/
,..,.
'"
"". /'
;-'"
,;'
-5
--
&&I
>
~
a
&&I
c
Vi
>-
'Z
'Z
~
en
~
~
~
~
k--r-i
i
"'IGHLANO AVENUE
(1IG£ or PA~IIf}j~
-7-
.$((1

",- --
......9
......
."'"
EAST POINSm STREET
(SC 290)
cs:x 'Ufo
'f'
SI
~.
If
~.I
I

-.
LEGEND:
SHALLOW WEll CONTOURS
INTERMEDIATE WELL CONTOURS
--------
~.---
fal
\."'Ji1 TLAHT A
FIGURE 10
GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC MAP
SEPTEMBER 1991
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
II
tJj
......
a
o
11
(t)
~
1lI~
en (t)
rtO
(t) 0
11
tJp.
...,.
en 0
tOt-+,
o
entJ
~1lI(t)
III ......0
...,.
mcnen
...,......
rvrtO
rvm::1

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 23
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K)
  K 
 Rising FaIling Overall
Well ( cm/s) ( cm/s) ( cm/s )
MW-lI 1. 7E-04 1.1E-04 
MW-2S 1.4E-03  
MW-21 1.6E-03 1. 7E-03 
MW-5S 1.1E-03  
MW-51 2.3E-04 1.9E-04 
MW-6S   
MW-61 4.6E-04 4.2E-04 -
MW-7S 4.8E-04  
MW-71 5.2E-04 1.8E-04 
MW-BS 1.1E-03  
MW-91 2.1E-03 1.3E-03 
Shallow Wells, Geo. Mean 9.5E-04  9.5E-04
Intermediate Wells, Geo. Mean 5.6E-04 3.9E-04 4.1£-04
Site, Geo. Mean 6.9E-04 3.9E-04 5.2E-04
-: Data not obtained.   
Note: Falling head test not performed on shallow wells.  

-------
--~.-
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 24
5.2
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Environmental contamination at the Site can be summarized as
follows:
1. Surface and shallow subsurface soils contain greatly
elevated levels of several metals, and trace levels of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PABs) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
2. Groundwater in the surficial and intermediate-depth
aquifer is contaminated by VOCs at levels ranging from the
detection limit to 16,000 ug/l total VOCs, and by several metals.
The surficial aquifer is the most highly impacted.
3. Contaminated groundwater in the surficial aquifer,
migrating northward from the Site, is entering Wards Creek. Two
VOCs, trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene, are present in the
creek at levels of 16 ug/l and 84 ug/l, respectively. Two other
VOCs were found at less than 3 ug/l.
5.2.1
Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soils
Surface and shallow subsurface soil analytical resu:~s are
presented in Table 3. These 16 samples were collected by split
spoon from the surface to either one or two feet below land
surface, except for samples SB2-S-1 and SB4-S-1. During the
planning of the RI, surface and shallow subsurface soils were
considered to be a single potential exposure point, due to the
past gardening activities and the lack of clear garden
boundaries.
Figure 11 illustrates the area of surface and shallow subsurface
soil contamination. Lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel,
and zinc are among the nine metal. present at levels
significantly elevated (greater than 1.5 times) above background.
The principal contaminant of concern is lead, which was present
at levels exceeding EPA's level of concern (500mg/kg) in surface
samples SB3-S-1 and GA3-S-5, and shallow soil samples GA2-S-4 and
GA3-S-6. Trace levels of organic compounds, specifically VOCs,
PABs and dioxin, are present. The maximum levels present were:
VOCs, 37 ug/kg; PABs, 2.6 mg/kg; and dioxin, 84 nanograms per
kilogram (ng/kg).
The estimated volume of the contaminated soil, based on a depth
of 2 feet, was calculated to be 650 cubic yards.
5.2.2
Subsurface Soils
Table 4 presents analytical results from the 11 intermediate (5 -

-------
TABLE 3
SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
  Backaround    Backoround Backoround    
Sample No. Freq 57969 57660 58297 58782 57640 57962 57663 57659 57658 57648
Stellon No. 01 MW11-6-1 MW2s-&-1 MW51-6-1 MW61-6-1 MW8B-8-1 MW91-6-1 SBHH SB2-6-1 SB3-&-1 SB4-6-1
SamPle Date Detect 050191 042591 050891 052191 041091 043091 042691 042591 042591 042491
Inoraanlcs  mlllka malka malka maiko malka malka malka mglkg mglkg mQ/k1l
Aluminum 16118 54000 29 000 24,000 20,000 24 000 20,000 32,000 30,000 16,000 36,000
Arsenic 15/18 9.1 J 4.6 J 10 3.0 UJ 14 J 2.5 J 8.1 J 6.0 J 24 J 6.4 J
Barium 16118 22 47 270 J 6.6 60 20 52 42 160 60
BervlliJm 4/16 1 U 0.25 U 1.8 1 U 0.98 0.22 1 U 1 U 0.24 U 1 U
Cadnlum 3/16 0.49 U 0.51 U 0.74 U 0.45 U 1 U 0.44 0.46 U 0.46 U 1.0 U 0.46 U
Calcium 15/16 490 530 500 30 U 2,000 160 210 750 4,000 610
Chromhm 16116 59 31 55 J 16 32 20 41 40 24 23
Cobalt 8/16 2.8 3.0 U 10.0 2U 2U 1.0 U 7U 4U 5U 4U
Copper 14/16 17 20 U 76 J 20 UJ 56 6.6 29 16 44 34
Iron 16118 57000 28 000 24,000 23.000 28,000 16000 38,000 33,000 16,000 20,000
Lead 15/18 26 J 47 60 13 J 140 J 7.9 J 30 U 57 530 J 45
Maane81l.m 16118 270 860 4.300 320 1,800 J 260 2200 1200 790 770
Manaenese 16118 75 61 132 26 170 19 100 63 120 65
Mercurv 1/16 0.11 U 0.11 UJ 0.12 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ
Nickel 16116 5.5 6.5 26 2.8 5.9 3.6 15 5.5 9.8 6.0
Potasshm 16116 460 1200 3600 500 2300 360 2700 1600 910 930
Silver 1/18 0.73 U 0.76 U 1.2 U 1 U 0.34 UJ 0.66 0.69 U 0.72 U 0.73 U 0.72 U
Sadum 3/16 40 U 40 U 76 20 U 120 U 27 40 U 50 U 120 30 U
Vanadum 16116 120 56 50 42 48 J 35 63 69 38 31
Zinc 15/16 97 61 J 220 14 87 20 U 80 J 57 J 350 J 94 J
Cyanide 1/16 6.3 U 6.2 U 5.9 U 6U 0.55 U 5.3 U 5.6 U 5.9 U 6.1 U 6.2 U
Pumeable Omanles  ualka ualka uii/ka . ualka uanrn uanrn ua/ka ualka ua/ka ua/ka
1,2-Dlchloroethene 1/16 7U 12 U 2J 6U 12 U 6U 12 U 12 U 13 U 13 U
Trichloroethylene 2/16 7U 12 U 4 J 6U 12 U 6U 12 U 12 U 13 U 13 U
Tetrachloroethylene 2/16 7U 12 U 37 6U 12 U 6U 12 U 12 U 13 U 13 U
Toluene 1/16 7U 12 U 12 U 6U 12 U 6U 12 U 12 U 13 U 13 U
Extractabla Oraanlcs  ualka ualka ualka ualka UIi)j((] UQ7kC ualka uw'kg ua/ka ualka
Naphthelene 6/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 53 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 150 J 430 U
2-Melhylnanhthalene 6/16 660 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 62 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 220 J 430 U
Acenaphthylene 1/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 420 U 430 U
Acenaphthene 1/16 860 U 410 UR 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 UR 410 UR 420 UR 430 UR
Dlbenzofuren 1/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 67 J 430 U
Fluorene 1116 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 420 U 430 U
Phenanthrene 2/16 660 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 61 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 330 J 430 U
Anthracene 2/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390U 410 U 62 J 430 U
Carbazole 1/18 NA 410 U 410 UR NA 400 U NA 390 U 410 U 42 J 430 U
Fluoranthene 7/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 91 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 390 J 59 J
Pyrene 8/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 62 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 360 J 72 J
Benzvt Butyl P hlhalate 2/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 420 U 430 U
tI:I
~
a
o
11
ID
~
1»::0
fj) ID
rtO
ID 0
11
00..
,...
fj) 0
to......
o
fj)O
'tI1»1D
I» ~o
,...
ID en fj)
,... ,...
"-'rtO
U11D='

-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
   Backaround    Background Backwound    
 Sample No. Freq 57969 57660 58297 58782 57640 57962 57663 57659 57658 57648
 Station No. of MW11-&-1 MW2&S-1 MW51-&-1 MW61-&-1 MW8B-S-1 MW91-&-1 SBI+1 SB2-8-1 SB3-8-1 SB4-S-1
Samele Date Detect 050191 042591 050891 052191 041091 043091 042691 042591 042591 042491
Extractabla Oraanlcs lcontlnued!  ualka ualka u!¥k!l u!¥k!l u!¥k!l ualk!l ualka uoJkn u!llk!l ualk!l
Benzo/alAnthracene  6/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 220 J 52 J
ChNsene  3/18 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 80 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 250 J 66 J
Benzo(b andlor k) Fluaranlhene 6/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 180 J 760 U 390 U 410 U 580 J 430 U
Benzo-e-P vlllne  5/16 660 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 210 J 51 J
'ndeno 11.2.:kd! Pvrene 2116 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 420 U 430 U
Benzolohnp ervlene  1/16 860 U 410 U 410 UR 400 U 400 U 760 U 390 U 410 U 180 J 430 U
Pesticides   ualka ualka ualka ualka ualka u!¥kg ualka ualka ualka ualka
DellailHC  1/16 10 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 10 U 2.1 UJ 9.2 U 2U 2U 2U 2U
Aldri'l  4/16 10 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 10 U 2.1 UJ 9.2 U 2U 2U 2J 2U
Endowlfan IIAlpha!  1/16 10 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 10 U 2.1 UJ 9.2 U 2U 2U 2U 2U
4 4~DE IP P~DEI  4/18 21 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 19 U 4.1 UJ 18 U 2J 4 J 16 5
Endrfn  2/18 21 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 19 U 5.5 J 18 U 4U 4U 2J 4 U
4 4~DD IP P~DDI  2116 21 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 19 U 4.1 UJ 18 U 4U 4U 5 3 J
Endowlfan Sulfa1e  1/16 21 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 19 U 4.1 UJ 18 U 4U 4U 4U 4U
4.4~DT (P,P~DTl  6/16 21 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 19 U 4.1 UJ 18 U 4U 4U 26 3 J
Endrfn Aldelwde Chlordane 11  1/16 NA 4.1 U 4.1 U NA 4.1 UJ NA 4U 4U 4U 4U
Gamma-<::hlordane  3/16 100 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 95 U 2.1 UJ 92 U 2U 2U 2U 2U
Ajeha-<::hlordane  2/16 100 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 95 U 2.1 UJ 92 U 2U 2U 2U 2U
Miscellaneous Extractable Oraanlcs  u!¥ka u!¥k!l ualka ualka ualka ualka uoJka uoJka UIJli«I ualka
Unidentified CompOunda 11/16  10,000 J  3,000 J 7,000 J    2,000 J 800 J
Dlethlllmethlllbenzam Ide 1/16  200 IN        
Hexadecanoic Acid  1/16          200 IN
Benzoovrene(no1a)  1/16         300 IN 
Trmethvlnaohthalene  1/16         100 IN 
1-Melhvlnapthalene  1/16         200 IN 
Meth~Dhenanthrene  1/16         200 IN 
MethlAanthracene  1/16         100 IN 
Petroleum Product  6/16          
Bis (Din ethylelhyQCyclohexadl-           
enedlone  3/16          
Dh>henvlftuorene  3/16          
Benzol1uorene  1/16          
M e\hIllDvrene  1/16    I      
BenzonsDhthothloohene 1/16          
BenzaceDhenanlhNlene 1/16        ncl7kO nalka 
DloldnlFurans   n!llka nalka n!¥ka n!¥k!l n!¥k!l nalka noJka nalka
Toxic EClIivalent Value (Tea) 3/4 NA 84 J NA NA NA NA NA  32 J 0.25 J
tJJ
....
a
o
t1
(1)
~
PI:O
CII (1)
('to
(1) 0
11
t:!Q.
....
CII 0
'OH\
o
CIIt:!
"dPl(1)
PI .... 0
....
(1) en CII
.... ....
"->('to
0'I(1)::S

-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample No. 57629 57630 57631 57632 57633 57634
Slallon No. GA1-8-1 GAI~ GA2-S-3 GA~ GA3-S-6 GA3-S-6
Samde Dale 041791 041791 041791 041791 041791 041791
Inoraanlce m llikg mllika malka malka malka mglkg
Aluminum 12000 13000 18000 9,400 29000 31000
Arsenfo 12 25 13 15 9.5 37
Bartum 190 190 200 210 300 410
Bervllum 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2U 1.5
Caanlum 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.7 U 2.3 1.8
Calcium 1,600 2600 2100 1600 3200 2300
Chromium 24 28 25 18 72 55
Cobalt 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.4 8.9 6.2
Copper 110 J 61 J 52 J 48 J 100 J 120 J
Iron 19000 19000 18,000 14,000 31,000 37,000
Lead 420 400 350 560 620 1900
Mameslum 790 770 990 700 1,900 1500
Manganese 150 120 130 87 410 200
Merourv 0.20 U 0.10 U 0.12 U 0.10 U 0.14 U 0.27
Nlokel 7.5 9.5 7.5 7.1 14 16
Polaaslum 960 700 1,300 830 2,400 1,800
Sliver 1.1 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.4 U 1.4 U
Sodum 50 U 80 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 70 U
Vanadum 27 35 32 26 59 79
Zinc 340 J 280 J 300 J 310 J 830 J 730 J
Cyanide 6U 6.1 U 6.4 U 5.9 U 11 6.5 U
Purgeable Oraanlcs ul¥kg uQlkg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg uWkg
1 2-DlchlolOethene 13 U 13 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U
Trichloroethylene 13 U 13 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 4J
T etrachloroethylBne 13 U 13 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 4 J
Toluene 3 J 13 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U
Extractable OrganIcs ug/kg ug/kg ug/ka ua/kll ug/kg ug/kg
Nachthalene 63 J 2,100 U 89 J 120 J 55 J 4,000 U
2-Metwlnaphthalene 85 J 240 J 13J"J 180 J 58 J 510 J
AcenllDhthylene 420 U 2,100 U 410 U 400 U 98 J 4,000 U
Acenaphthene 420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 43 J 4,000 U
Dibenzofuran 420 U 2.100 U 410 U 400 U 400 U 4,000 U
Fluorene 420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 43 J 4.000 U
Phenanthrene 420 U 2,100 U 410 U 400 U 500 U 4 000 U
Anthracene 420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 210 J 4.000 U
CarbllZole 420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 780 4 000 U
Fluor.nth.n. 300 J 730 J 360 J 320 J 2.000 U 780 J
pyr.ne 260 J 640 J 250 J 260 J 1400 690 J
BenZ1ll ButvIPhf1.lale 97 J 2100 U 410 U 400 U 200 J 4000U
ttj
I-'
S
o
11
en
~
~::d
(II en
rtO
en 0
11
t!p.
....
(II 0
to......
o
(lit!
ttI~en
~ 1-'0
....
en C/) (II
.... ....
tVrto
~en=,

-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
 Sample No. 57629 57630 57631 57632 57633 57634
 Station No. OA 1-6-1 OAI~ OA2-S-3 OA2-S-4 OA3-G-6 OA~
Semele Date 041791 041791 041791 041791 041791 041791
Ex1ractable Oraanlca (contlnuedl uglkg ulVkg ulVka ulVka ulVka ualka
Benzo(a)Anthrscene  250 J 320 J 240 J 210 J 1 300 U 4000U
Chrveene  420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 1000 U 4,000 U
Benzo(b and/or k) Fluoranthene 620 680 J 530 600 2,000 4,000 U
Benzo-e-P vrene  120 J 2100 U 190 J 400 U 660 4,000 U
Indono 11 2 3-cdl Pvrene 150 J 2100 U 130 J 400 U 420 U 4,000 U
Benzo(ahOP elVlene  420 U 2100 U 410 U 400 U 400 U 4,000 U
Pesticides  ulVka ualka ualka ualka uglkg uglkg
Delta-BHC  3 2U  2U 2U 2U 2U
Aldrh  0.63 J 1 J  2U 0.81 J 2U 2U
Endosultan I (Alpha)  2U 2U  2U 2U 2U 0.43 J
4 44>DE (P P4JDEJ  4U 4U  4U 4U 4 U 4U
End"n  4U 3J  3 J 4U 4U 7U
4 44>DD IP P4JDDI  4U 4U  4U 4U 4U 4U
Endoau"an Sulfata  3 J 4U  4U 4U 4U 4U
4,44>DT (P,P4JDT)  15 12 17 4U 28 U 26
End"n Aldehyde Chlordana /1 4U 4U  4U 12 4U 4U
Oamma-Chlordane  3 2U  2U 2U 11 4
AIPha-Chlordane  2U 2U  1 J 2U 2U 3
Miscellaneous Extrectable Oraancs ulVka ualka ualka ulVka ulVka ulVka
Unidentified Compounds 20,000 J 3,000 J 20,000 J 10,000 J 20,000 J 20,000 J
Dlelhylmethytbenzem Ide       
Hexadecanoic Acid        
Benzopyrene (nota)         
TrinelhvlnGPhlhalene        
l-Methylnapthalene        
Melhyfphenenthrene        
Melhyfanlhracene        
Petroleum Product  N N  N N N N
Bls(Din ethylethyl)Cyclohexadl-       
enedlone  400 IN  500 IN  1 ,000 IN 
Dlphenvl!uorone  900 IN  400 IN  3 000 IN 
Benzoftuorene       500 IN 
M elhytpyren e       500 IN 
Benzonaphthothlophene   I   500 IN 
Benzscephenanlhrvlene      900 IN 
Dloxln/Furane  nglkg nalka nlVka nlVka nlVka nlVkg
Taxlc Eq~elentV.,ue (Tea) NA NA NA  NA NA NA
NA - Not Analyzed; U - Material wee analyzed for but not
detected- V .1118 Is mlnlmllTl quantltation Imil; J.. Estimated
valle; R - ac hdlcates thai the data Is unusable; N c:
PreallTlptlve evidence.
tJ:I
......
a
o
t1
ID
~
PI::tI
UI ID
("to
ID 0
11
tip.
.....
UI 0
'CHI
o
Ultl
t'dPlID
PI ...... 0
.....
ID en UI
..... .....
!V("to

-------
-- --
GA
S8
MW
SB8
-
LJ")
en
~
0)
LEGEND:
SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLE
SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
PROPERTY LINE
ESTIMATED AREA or
CONTAMINATED SOIL
100
I
HOME
50
j
FEET (APPROXIMATE)
~
ESTIMATED AREA or CONTAMINATED SOIL
ABOVE REMEDIAL GOALS
EXTENT OF SURFACE AND SHALLOW
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
FIGURE 11
tIj
......
s
o
11
m
~
1lJ::tI
(I) m
rtn
m 0
11
OP-
1-"
(I) 0
'Ot-to
o
(1)0
't:IllJm
IlJ ...... n
1-'.
m {J} !/)
1-" t-'"
NrtO
\Dm::!

-------
TABLE 4
INTERMEDIATE SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
   Background   Backnround Backoround      
 88111118 No. F.-q 57970 68783 67978 57641 67963 57884 57649 67662 57652 57665 57650
 Station No. 01 MWIHH! MW61-6-2 MW71-&-1 MW89-&1! MW91-6-2 SBI-&2 SBHH! SB5-8-1 S8&-&-1 SB7+1 S8&-&-1
SaJT1)1a Dala Dalacl 050191 052191 050291 041091 043091 042691 042491 042691 042491 042691 042491
InolOanlcs   mglko mglko mglka mglka maiko maiko maiko maiko maiko mglkg maiko
Aluminum  11/11 22.uOO 16000 50.000 18,000 19.000 30,000 33,000 43,000 15.000 30.000 16.000
Arsenic  9/11 2.0 UJ 2.5 J 5.1 J 5.0 J 2.0 UJ 4.9 J 7.0 J 20.0 J 6.7 J 9.4 J 9.3 J
Barium  11/11 16 23 38 15 12 59 100 59 13 19 II
Beryllium  5/11 4.1 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.0 U 1.8 1.0 U 2.0 U 1.0 U 0.25 U 1.0 U
Calcium  6/11 50 U 40 U 590 240 U 80 U 80 U 890 340 270 100 U 250
Chromium  II/II 18 17 81 27 18 36 30 68 15 41 34
Cobalt  5/11 3.5 5.3 4.7 0.39 U 1.9 36.0 5.0 U 7.0 U 3.0 U 3.0 U 2.0 U
Copper  10/11 6.2 23.0 J 29.0 14.0 14.0 33.0 35.0 32.0 19.0 20.0 U 17.0
Iron  11/11 43,000 18,000 68.000 27.000 35.000 34,000 27,000 47.000 31000 44,000 16,000
lead  8/11 11 J 18 J 24 J 14 J 14 J 20 U 120 110 20 U 20 U 11
Magnaslum  11/11 79 1,900 16.000 1,200 J 260 4.300 1,500 2,500 470 790 190
Manganose  11/11 130 170 87 51 41 480 160 110 41 80 290
Mercury  1/11 0,10 U 0.12 U 0,11 U 0.12 U 0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 UJ 0,39 J 0.11 UJ 0,12 UJ 0.11 UJ
Nlckal  11/11 4,9 13 10 4,8 3.7 17.0 7,2 10.0 6.4 4.3 6,5
Polasslum  10/11 180 2,800 2,700 1,300 U 470 5,600 1.900 3,500 740 880 290
Sodium  2111 40 U 40 U 40 U 130 U 30 U 53 50 U 56 20 U 20 U 20 U
Vanadium  11/11 39 29 140 50 J 70 77 50 110 44 91 35
Zinc  6/11 20 U 51 42 13 20 U 120 J 150 J 260 J 20 UJ 30 U 20 UJ
PUf!laable Oraanlcs   ualka uolka uolka uolkg unlko uOlkg uglko uolko uglkg uolko uO~
Toluene  1/11 6 U 6 U 7 U 12 U 8 U 11 U 12 U 12,000 12 U 13 U 12 U
EIhYI Banzene  1/11 6 U 6 U 7 U 12 U 6 U 11 U 12 U 9,000 J 12 U 13 U 12 U
Total XYlenaa  1/11 II U 6 U 7 U 12 U 6 U 11 U 12 U 56,000 12 U 13 U 12 U
Ex1ractable Oraanlcs   uQ/ka ualka unlko UQlkQ uolkQ ua/ka ualko uo/ko ua/ko u~- un!l
-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 32
10 feet) soil samples. For deep soils, those more than 10 feet
below land surface, analytical results are presented in Table 5.

Several intermediate-depth samples contained metals at
concentrations more than 1.5 times above background, and trace
levels of volatile and extractable organic compounds. The only
sample having significant levels of organic compounds, SB5-S-1,
contained ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes at 9, 12, and
56 parts per million (ppm) respectively. These gasoline-
component compounds may represent spillage from lawnmowing
activities and may not be Site-related. No significant
contamination was found in the deep soil samples.
Soil samples from the RI borehole cuttings were analyzed using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP). Pursuant
to 40 CFR S 261.24, substances for which TCLP results are above
specified levels are considered hazardous wastes. The results of
the TCLP analyses suggest that there are no hazardous wastes
remaining onsite.
5.2.3
Groundwater
Groundwater analytical results from the surficial (shallow)
aquifer both onsite (Table 6) and offsite to the no=th (Table 7)
indicate contamination by both inorganic contaminants (metals)
and VOCs. Levels of individual VOCs ranged from below the
quantification limit to 1,400 ug/l onsite, and up to 12,000J ug/l
offsite just across Highland Avenue to the north. Five of the
inorganic concentrations and seven of the VOC concentrations
violate Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), or other applicable
standards, for those substances.
The seven VOCs exceeding MCLs and their maximum concentrations
are as follows:
trichloroethene l2,000J ug/l
cis-l,2-dichloroethene 140 ug/l
benzene 48 ug/l
methylene chloride 32 ug/l

Among the inorganic contaminants, lead (270 ug/l) exceeds the EPA
Action Level of 15 ug/l. Maximum concentrations of metals
exceeding MCLs are:
tetrachloroethene 4,000J ug/l
1,1,1-trichloroethane 310 ug/l .
vinyl chloride 69 ug/l
chromium
cadmium
300 ug/l
6 ug/l
nickel
beryllium
230 ug/l
51 ug/l
Groundwater flow is toward the north-northwest (Figures 9 and
10). Contamination of the surficial aquifer extends northward to
Wards Creek, located 700 to 1100 feet north of the Site.

-------
TABLE 5
DEEP SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
   Backl1round Backllround   Background Backmound Backllround Backmound  
 Sample No. Freq 57971 57972 56764 57979 57642 57964 57965 57966 57653 57651
 Slallon No. 01 MWI 1-&->3 MWI f.&-4 M W6 1-&->3 MW71-&-2S MW6B-S-,3 MW91-&->3 MW9f.&-4 MW91-&6 SB6-&-2 SB6-8-2
 Samele Dale Delect 050191 050191 052191 050291 041091 04309 I 043091 043091 042491 042491
Inoroanlcs   mlllkll malkll mlllka mlllkll malka malkn mnlka mlilka mnlka ml1lkll
Aluminum  10/10 9,400 12000 13000 27000 11000 15000 20000 26.000 26000 30000
Araenlc  6/10 2 UJ 1 UJ 16 J 3.6 J 7.7 J 13 J 1 UJ 2 UJ 6.2 J 10 J
Barfum  10110 19 32 33 200 16 21 79 100 110 110
BeNII\.Jm  6/10 2U 2U 2 3.9 2.4 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.1 3.1
Cactnlum  1110 0.47 U 0.50 U 0.46 U 0.54 U 0.39 U 0.53 0.53 U 0.46 U 0.46 U 0.52 U
Calc/um  3/10 27 110 U 30 U 160 90 U 40 U 50 U 40 U 56 70 U
Chromium  10/10 2.6 5.7 9.6 17 20 9 18 50 47 53
Cobalt  9/10 4.2 4.5 20.0 7.7 7.0 U 1.5 16 20 13 22
CODDer  10/10 1.3 3 20 J 25 17 9.6 17 30 46 42
Iron  10110 11000 14000 16000 40000 24,000 44,000 36000 47000 48,000 36000
Lead  10110 20 J 13 J 16 J 16 J 16 J 14 J 16 J 37 J 23 46
Maaneelum  10/10 37 700 1,500 6200 1,600 J 470 2700 5100 5,500 5900
Maooan88e  10/10 870 790 820 210 120 47 210 370 200 590
Nickel  10110 29 39 27 9.1 6.5 7.9 19 16 15 33
POlasslum  9/10 130 1100 2,100 9,500 2,100 U 660 3,600 7,800 7600 6,900
Sod\.Jm  4/10 30 34 40 U 60 U 130 U 40 U 60 U 90 U 100 190
Van adum  10/10 8.3 14 23 62 37 J 60 72 95 92 92
Zinc  8/10 20 U 32 43 95 17 30 U 70 130 120 J 92 J
Purlleable Organles   uWkg uWkg uglkll uglkg uglkg uWkg uglkg uglka ualka uglko
None Delecled  0110          
Extraclable Oroanlcs   uWkI1 u!llkl1 UWkIl UWkIl' UWkIl UWkIl iiQ/j(Q Ua/j(Q iiQ/j(Q uOl1
-------
Elmore Waste
Record of Decision
Disposal Superfund Site
Paqe 34
TABLE 6
SHALLOW WELLS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
   BackQround         Backaround
 Sample No. Freq 58798  58796 58791 59594 58799 58789
 Station No. of MWH3W MW25-GW MW55-GW MW6~W MW75-GW MW85-GW
 Sample Date Detect 060491  060591 060591 061891 060491 060591
Inorganics   uq!1  uq!1  ug!1  ul1'l  ul1'l  uall 
AiJminum  6/6 7,300 91,000 98,000 230,000 220,000 180,000
Barium  5/6 150 U 900 420 1,100 1 ,400 590
Beryllium  5/6  3 U 18 12 51 45 30
Cadmium  1/6  3U  3 U  3 U  4 U  6  3 U
Calcum  216 4,400 UJ 20,000 J 6,000 UJ 2,600 6,000 UJ 2,800 UJ
Chromium  616 17 100 130 300 230 220
Cobalt  6/6 19 74 130 250 340 93
Copper  516 20 U 110 150 260 320 160
Iron  616 14,000 150,000 140,000 360,000 360,000 240,000
Lead  6/6  6 J 69 J 270 J 97 63 J 100 J
MaQnesium  6/6 5,900 1 8,000 6,700 39,000 30,000 27,000
Manganese  616 430 2.500 2,000 7,500 9,100 1,500
Ni::kel  5/6 20 UJ 78 71 220 230 140
Potassium  6/6 5,100 22.000 9,000 51,000 35,000 34,000
Sodium  4/6 17,000 10,000 U 24,000 4,900 16,000 4,100 U
Vanadium  5/6 30 U 290 240 650 610 390
Zinc  6/6 55 290 640 880 700 460
Cyani::le  116 10 U 10 U 11 10 U 10 U 10 U
Purgeable Organi::s   uq!1  ual:  ul1'l  uoll  uall  uall 
Methvlene Chloride  1/6  6U  5 U  5U 32  5 U  5U
1,1-{)i::hbroethene  3/6  7  5 U  5U 26 41  5 U
1 ,1-{)i::hbroethane  3/6  2 J  5 U  5 U  3 J  9  5 U
1,2-0i::hbroethene  3/6  5U  5 U  9  3 J 110  5 U
1 ,1 ,1...:rrichbroethane  3/6 60  5 U  5 U 120 310  5 U
Carbon Tetmchbride  116  2J  5 U  5 U 10 U  5 U  5 U
1 ,2-0i::hbroprepane  116  5U  5 U  5 U 10 U  2 J  5 U
Tri::hbroethvlene  216 20 U  5 U  9 U 910 470  5U
1 ,1 .2-Tri::hbroethane  116  5U  5 U  5 U  2J  5 U  5 U
Benzene  116  5U  5 U  5 U  4J  5 U'  5 U'
T etrachloroethvlene  316 75  6 U 20 U 1 .400 360  5 U
ToiJene  216  2 J  5 U  1 J 10 U  5 U  5 U
TotalXvlenes  116  5U  5 U  5 U  2 J  5U  5 U
Miscellaneous PUrgeable Oroanics  uall  UO'1 uo'l  ul1'l  ug!1  uall 
Unidentified Compounds 116     10 J      
Extractable Organics   uall  UO'1 uo'l  ul1'l  ug!1  uall 
2-Nitroaniline  116 50 U ~U SOU 25 UJ 50 U 50 J
Dimethyl Phthalate  116 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U  8 J
Diethvl Phthalate  216 10 U  2 J 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 13
Miscellaneous Extra:table OrQanics  ul1'l  UO'I  uQ'1  ul1'l  uwl  uoll 
Unidentified Compounds 416     30 J 100 J 300 J 30 J
Caprolactam  116       40 IN    
CyclohexenaJ  116         10 IN  
Cyclohexenone  316    8 IN 10 IN   30 IN  
Diethvmethvbenzamide 116         20 IN  
Octadecenol  2J6 40 IN   200 IN      
OxvbislEthanedivloxv) Bisethanol 116        7 IN    
(Ethoxymelhoxvethoxv) Ethene 116        8 IN    
Butoxvethanol  116       60 IN    
Triethvlenealvcol  116       20 IN    
Butylindenbis (Dimethylethyl}- 116 40 IN          
MethvlDhenol              
Pesticides/PCB's   ug!1  ugll  ugll  ugll  ugll  ugll 
Endosulfan Sulfate  116 0.17 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0,10 U 0.10 U
U = Material was analyzed for but not detected- Value is minimum quantitation limit;
J = Estimated value; N = Presumptive evidence. --

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paae 35
TABLE 7
OFFSITE SURFICIAL AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
VOLATILE ORGANIC COM.
POUNDS
1, I -Dichloroethene IDCAI -. 4.1J 99 .. -- - -- -- -
i, I .Dichloroethene n -. ',J .- -- - - -- --
1.2-Dichloroethene .. -- 3.8J - - .. - - -
Acetone n -- 390 78 .. 490J - .. --
Benzene 3.6J u 48 -- -- -- .. - --
Carbon Disulfide .. '- " -- -' 1.4J  I.4J 
Chloroethene .. -. 7.4J -- -- -- - .- --
Chloroform .- .. ,. 0.93J -- -. - -- .-
Cis- I ,2.Dichloroethene -. 6.2 140 .. -- .. - .. --
Isopropenol 40JN 20JN 40JN 40JN 10JN ..  - -
Methyl Butyl Ketone -. .. -- 1.7J - -- - -- ..
Methyl Ethyl Ketone .. 100 .. 540J 72 670J - -. -
Tetrechloroethene (PCE) .- .. 17J .- .- - 340J - -
Tetrshydrofuren -- - 100JN ., -. 200JN - -. 
Toluene 4.5J -. -- -- -. - .- -- ..
Trichloroethene (TCEI .. 0.94 20J .. .- - 2,300 .. 
Vinyt Chloride - -- 69 -- .- - - - ..
Tot'" Vol.tiles (2)
8.1
11.24
415.2
0.93
o
1.4
2, r..oo
1,4
o
ALL VALUES IN UG/L.
J
Not aetectea above quantitation limit.
Estimated value.
N
Presumptive evidence of presence of substance.
NOTES:
(1)
(2)
Data collectea on 4/30/92 and 5/28-29/92.
Total VOC value aOBS not include five compounds detected but shewn to be sampling
ar't1fac'ts: _'thyl e'thyl ke'tone (MEK), me'thyl butyl ketone, isopropanol, tetrahyarofurau, or
acetone. Details are prov1aeQ in the FS, Appendix B.
SAMPLE NO.
COMPOUND
UG/L
TOTAL VOCs
TMW-l
Vinyl Chloride
l,l-Dichloroethane
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
O-xylene
TMW-2
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane
:rrichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
20J
5.4J
99
12J
47
47
2.IJ

160J
2,000
1,600
232.5
3,760
TMW-3
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
12,000
4,000

300
750
16,000
TMW-4
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,050
FOOTNOTESr

Data collected January 1992.

J -- Estimated value

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 36
Figure 12 shows the approximate extent of contamination of the
surficial aquifer. The offsite groundwater samples were
collected only from the surficial aquifer because onsite
groundwater samples from it showed it to be more contaminated
than the intermediate aquifer, and because monitor well
conductivity tests indicated that groundwater in the surficial
aquifer moves much faster than groundwater in the underlying
intermediate aquifer.

Samples from the intermediate aquifer (Table 8), in comparison,
show less contamination than the surficial aquifer. Three VOCs
are present at levels above MCLs:
tetrachloroethene
1,2-dichloroethenec.)
120 ug/l
74 ug/l
trichloroethene
98 ug/l
Six other VOCs were detected at levels ranging from IJ or 2J ug/l
to 22 ug/l. No significant inorganic contamination was present
in intermediate aquifer samples.

Deep aquifer samples (Table 9) contained three organic compounds.
at estimated values below the detection limit and below MCLs.
In the FS, the total volume of contaminated groundw~ter was
estimated to be 66.9 million gallons. The estimate was based on
the areal extent of contamination indicated in Figure 12. Also,
since significant VOC contamination was found in the intermediate
wells, the assumed vertical contamination extent was 55 feet,
corresponding to the average screen depths of the intermediate
wells.
5.2.4
Surface Water
Two sets of samples from Wards Creek contained low levels of two
VOCs, trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE), at
maximums of 85 and 16 ug/l, respectively (Table 10). Two other
VOCs, 1,1-dichloroethane and cis-1,2-dichloroethene, were present
at less than 3 ug/l. The TCE maximum value is above the South
Carolina Ambient Water Quality Standard (Human Health) for
surface waters, which for TCE is 5 ug/l. Despite the presence of
a former dump area along and south of Wards Creek, no other types
of contaminants were detected in Wards Creek in the second set of
samples taken on June 24, 1992. Samples from a groundwater seep
near the creek, and from a drainage ditch which runs north along
Sunnyside Drive (samples SW-5 and SW-4, respectively; refer to
Figure 8), suggest that the surficial aquifer is discharging
( * )
Analysis of this sample was for total 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE). The MCL for the cis-
isomer, 70 ug/l, may be violated although this cannot be known for certain.

-------
e = IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE
<5 PPB HIT AT THIS LOC-
ATION IS NOT SITE-RELATED.
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 37
~
200
j
100 0 100
I J I
SCALE IN FEET (APPRCXIHA TO
200
j
3~0
E. CHURa! STR IT
~ S6L
~ (e)
--
~
.9
-N-
I
L._-
-~
---1
£. POIHS£TT STRaT
TOTAL VOCs
All values in UG/L
LE GE N D
.
Ese TEMP MONITORING WELL
.
HAND AUGERED BORING
GROUNDWATER SAtoIPUNG LOCATION
~
GEOPROBE SAtoIPL£ LOCATION
x
B~ PERMANENT SHALLOW
WELL (1~1 RI DATA)
BDL
BELOW DETECTION UMIT
,Ii - ............

\l!)
EXTENT OF SURFICIAL AQUIFER CONTAMINATION
FIGURE

12

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 38
:
TABLE 8
[NTERMEDIATE WELLS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
  Backaround        Backaround
Sample No. Freq 58797 58790 58792 59596 59591 58800
Station No. of MW1 K3W MW2I-GW MW5I-GW MW6~W MW7~W MIN3I-<3 W
Sample Date Detect 060491 060591 060591 061891 061891 060391
Inoroanics  ua'i  ua'i  ug'1  ua'i ua'i  ua'i 
Aluminum 5/6 380 480 650 990 550 U 930
Barium 3/6 20 U 100 U 190 190 52 120 U
Calcium 2/6 6,800 UJ 3,000 UJ 4,800 UJ 13.000 1,000 2,900 UJ
Chromium 6/6 13 19 24 42 31 15
Iron 616 460 770 1,700 1,200 610 . 860
Macmesium 5/6 870 U 1,400 1.700 3,800 1.200 1.400
Manaanese 6/6 94 130 380 340 140 240
Nick el 4/6 20 U 20 UJ 27 25 22 15
Potassium 3/6 2.400 UJ 3,500 U 4.800 6,900 3.000 2.100 U
Sodium 4/6 7,200 U 8.200 15,000 U 19,000 15,000 22,000
Zinc 416  7 14 24 30 U 30 U 26
Puraeable Oraenics  ua/I  ua'i  ua'i  ua'i ua'i  ua'i 
1.2-Dichloroethene 3/6  5U  2 J 74 10 U 32  5 U
Chloroform 3/6 20  5U  7 U 1 J  1 J  5 U
1.1,1-=frichloroethane 216  SU  5 U  5 U 11  1 J  5 U
Bromodichloromethane 1/6  2J  5U  SU 10 U 10 U  5 U
Trichloroethylene 3/6  SU  6 U 22 98  7 J  5 U
Benzene 1/6  5 U  5 U  5 U 10 U  5 J  5 U
Tetrachloroethylene 216  5U  9 U 30 U 120 22 10 U
Toluene 3/6  1 J  5 U  3 J 10 U 10 U  1 J
Total Xylenes 1/6  5 U  5 U  5 U 10 U 12  5 U
Miscellaneous Purgeable OrQanic:s  ug'1  ug'1  ug'1  ug'1 ua'i  ua'i 
Unidentified Compounds 1/6          10 J
Extractable Oroanic:s  ua'i  ua'1  ugll  ugll ugll  ugtl 
Diethyl Phthalate 1/6 10 U  4 J 10 UR 10 U 10 U 10 U
Miscellaneous Extractable Oraanic:s  ugll  ucV:  ugll  ugll ugll  ugtl 
Unidentified Compounds 416 30 J   30 J 40 J 200 J  
Caprotactam 216       10 IN 40 IN  
DiethymethYlbenzamide 116         3 IN  
Dodecanoic kid 116     20 IN     
Octadecenol 116 400 IN         
Butylindenbis{Dimethylethyl)- 2J6   20 IN  6 IN     
Methylphenol            
U = Material was analyzed for but not detected-Value is mnimum quantitation limit;
J = Estimated value; N = Presumptive evidence.

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 39
TABLE 9
DEEP WELLS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
     Backaround
 Sample No. Freq 59597 59590
 Station No. of MW6B-GW MWBB-GW
 Sample Date Detect 061991 061991
Inoraanics   uali  Udl 
Auminum  212 3,100 1,200
Barium  212 34 100
Calcium  212 25,000 48,000
Chromium  112 20  6 U
Iron  112 4,300 370 U
Lead  112  4  2 U
Maanesium  212 2.500 77
Manqanese  112 150  5 U
Nickel  112 15 21 J
Potassium  212 7,500 84,000
Sodium  212 12.000 57,000
Vanadium  112  4U 16
Puraeable Oraanics   uaIL uaIL
Chloroform  112 10 U  8 J
Touene  112 10 U  8 J
Extractable Oraanics   uall.  uaiL 
Di-fl-Octylphthalate  112 10 U  3 J
Miscellaneous Extractable Oroanics  u!:1lL Uci/L
Unidentified ComPOurds 112 200 J  
Cacrolactam  112    9 IN
U = Material was analyzed for but not detected-
Value is minimum quantitation limit; J = Estimated
value; N = Pesumptive evidence.

-------
TABLE 10
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
VOlATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNUS
ES-002
1,1-Dlchloroethane (DCA) - - - 3.OJ - - - 0.57J -
Carbon Disuillde - - -- 70 - - - - -
Cla-I,2-Dlchloroelhene 2.8J - 1.1J 12 62J - - 2.1J -
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 16J 0.89 7.2 3.9J 26J - - 15 O.86AJ
Trlchloroethene (TCE) 85 - 38 6.7 180 - - 74 0.86AJ
Total Volatiles (2)
1.7
103.8
o
91.7
0.89
46.3
95.6
212.2
o
ALL VALUBS IN UG/L.
 J
 A
NOTES: (1)
 (2)
 (3)
Not detected above quantitation limit.
Estimated value.
Average value.
Data collected on 4/30/92; 5/28-29/92; and 6/24/92.
BL-OOI and 88-002 were also analyzed for metals, cyanide, and extractable organic
compounds. Metals concentrations were not elevated and are consistent with expected
background conditions. No compounds were detected in the other analyses above
quanti tat ion limits.

Sample SW-5 was collected from a hillside seep near Wards Creek, and is believed to
be more representative of groundwater than surface water.
tr:I
I-'
a
o
t1
111
~
PI~
rn 111
rto
111 0
t1
t1P-
~.
rn 0
'tJHI
o
rnt1
"tIPlI1I
PI I-' 0
~.
111 C/) rn
~.~.
oCIorto
0111:;1

-------
. Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 41
contaminated groundwater into Wards Creek. The VOCs detected in
surface water are found in both onsite and offsite wells and can
be attributed to the Elmore Waste Disposal Site.
6.0
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted to evaluate the risks
presented by the Elmore Waste Disposal Site to human health and
the environment, under present day conditions and under assumed
future use conditions. Currently, there is one family living on
the Site and numerous residents residing close to the Site. .
There are no potable water supply wells on, or within one-half
mile of the Site. Information from the Spartanburg County
Planning Department suggests that future land use will remain
residential, with the potential for resident use of groundwater
as a potable water source. The sections which follow correspond
to the four major components of the Baseline Risk Assessment.
Under existing conditions, the lifetime carcinogenic risk to
onsite residents is estimated to be 1.9 x 10-4. Under the future
use scenario, the lifetime carcinogenic risk estimate is 1.7 x
10-2. Both current and future use values exceed EPA's allowable
range of carcinogenic risk, which is 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6.

Noncarcinogenic risk presented by current Site conditions is
estimated to be Hazard Index (HI) = 0.25 for onsite adults and HQ
= 2 for an onsite or offsite child resident. Future risk is
estimated as HI = 14 for onsite adults and HI = 16 for onsite or
offsite child residents. One current use value (child
resident/nonresident) and both future use numbers exceed EPA's
noncarcinogenic risk benchmark, HI = 1.
No substantial risk to wildlife or the environment was found to
exist under present conditions. In the future, ecological risks
could arise in the area along Wards Creek if the levels of
contaminants entering the creek via groundwater discharge
increased significantly.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public welfare or the environment.
6.1
Contaminants of Concern
Based on RI data, contaminant concentrations to be included and
evaluated in the Baseline Risk Assessment were selected. Table
11 presents a summary of these contaminants in all media sampled.

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 42
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF RI CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
   Soil   Groundwater  Surface
Chemical of Concem j Sh..." r~"""1 0... ~..... Intermedill te Bedrock Water
Ana/yte or ComDOund <5 ft 5 to 10 ft >10 ft Wells Wells Wells 
INORGANICS      --- - --",-\-:_-:---, -: 
Auminum  X X X X X 
Arsenic X X X    
Barium    X X X 
Bervllium X   X   
Cadmum X  X X   
Chromium X  X X X X 
Cobalt X   X   
CoPOer X   X   
Lead  X   X  X 
ManQanese X   X X X 
Mercurv X      
Nickel X   X X X 
Vanadum X   X  X 
Zinc  X   X X  
Cyance X   X   
PURGEABLE ORGANICS      ---:>,-,_-:-_';i- -:_,;)
Methylene Chloride    X   
1 ,1-Dichloroethene    X   
1,1-Dlchloroethane    X   X-
1,~ichloroethene (total) X   X X  
Ci~12-Dichloroethene    X   X
Chloroform     X X 
1 1,1-4"richloroethane    X X -  
Carbon Tetrachloride    X   
Bromodichloromethane     X  
1 ~ichloroprcoane    X   
Trichloroethene X   X X  X
1.1 ~Trlchloroethane    X   
Benzene    X X  
Tetrachloroethene X   X X  X
Touene X X  X X X 
Ethyl benzene  X i    
Total Xylene.  X  X X  
Carbon Disulfide    -X   X
Viwl Chloride    X   
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS    --
Naphthalene X X     
2-Methynaphthalene X X     
2-Nwaniline    X   
Dimethvl Phthalate    X   
Acenaphthylene X      
Acenaohthene X      
Dbenzofuran X      
Diethvl Phthalate    X X  
Fluorene X      
Phenanthrene X      
Anthracene X      
Carbazole X      
.... alate  X     
Fluoranthene X X     
Pvrene X X     

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision.
Waste Disposal Site
Page 43
TABLE 11 (continued)
SUMMARY OF RI CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
    Soil   Groundwater  Surface
 Chem~a/ofCOncem Sha'ow IntennediatB Deep ShaDow IntennediatB BedlOck Water
 Analvte or Comoound 10 ft Wells Wells Wells 
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS (cont'd)   "..' b'.,'   
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate X      
Benzo(A)Anthracene * X X     
Chrysene *  X X     
Di-N-octvbhthalate      X 
BenzolB and/or K\ FlLOranthene * X X     
BenzolA)Pvrene * X X     
Indeno 11 ,2,~.D) Pvrene * X X     
Benzo{G,H,I\Pervlene X     ~,.. 
  PESTICIDES      ',:J:<':/:."
Delta-BHC  X      
Aldrin  X      
Endosuffanl {AJohm X      
4,4~DE IP,P~DE\ X X     
Endrin  X      
4,4~DD (P,P~DD) X X     
Endosuffan Suffate X   X   
4.4~DT (P.P~DT) X X   -  
Endrin Aldehyde Chlordane X      
Gamma-Chlordane X      
Abha-Chlordane X      
  ClOXIN/FURANS       
Toxi:: EQuivalent Value (Tea) X      
x = Chemical of Concem present
*= Carcinogenic PAH

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 44
Contaminants were not included if any of the following criteria
applied:
6.2
*
The chemical, compound or element was not detected at levels
above the minimum quantification limit.
If an inorganic compound or element, it was not detected at
or above twice the background concentration.
If an inorganic compound or element, it was detected at low
concentrations, had very low toxicity, and was judged to be
naturally occurring.
The data included "N" (presumptive evidence) or "R" (not
usable) .
*
*
*
Exposure Assessment
Contaminated media at the Site include surface and shallow
subsurface soil; shallow and intermediate groundwater; and
surface water. Pathways involving air as a medium were not
considered due to the extensive grass and vegetative cover at the
Site, and the absence of significant VOC concentrations in
surface and shallow subsurface soils.
Populations that could potentially be exposed to Site
contaminants are child and adult residents living en the Site,
and children and adults living near the Site who might visit or
play on the Site.
Based on these potential receptors, five general exposure
pathways were selected for further numerical risk quantification:
1.
2.
3.
4.
i
J
Current exposure of adult non-residents to contaminants in
shallow soils through incidental ingestion and dermal
contact.
Current exposure of onsite adult residents to contaminants
in shallow soils through incidental ingestion and dermal
contact.
Current exposure of onsite and offsite child residents to
contaminants in shallow soils through incidental ingestion
and dermal contact; and to contaminants in surface water
through dermal contact and incidental ingestion.

Future exposure of onsite adult residents to contaminants in
groundwater through ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation; to contaminants in garden produce through
ingestion of contaminated produce; and to contaminants in
shallow soils through incidental ingestion and dermal
contact.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 45
5.
Future exposure of onsite and offsite child residents to
contaminants in shallow soils through incidental ingestion
and dermal contact; to contaminants in garden produce
through ingestion of contaminated produce; to contaminants
in groundwater through ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation; and to contaminants in surface water through
dermal contact and incidental ingestion.

In order to quantify the exposure associated with each pathway,
various standard assumptions are made for key variables in the
exposure calculations. These variables include the contaminant
level in the medium, usually referred to as the exposure point
concentration; and the amount of the chemical taken into the
body, or chronic daily intake, which must be calculated using a
number of assumptions. Since EPA policy is that exposure
estimates must approximate a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)
scenario, each of the variables was selected with the goal of
producing the maximum exposure that could reasonably be expected
to occur.
Table 12 presents the exposure point concentrations calculated
for the contaminants of concern in each medium. For each
contaminant, the concentrations represent the upper 95 percent
confidence limit of the arithmetic means of all detections
(qualified as described in Section 6.1 above).
Calculation of average daily intake requires input of numerous
exposure parameters which are usually applicable to a particular
exposure pathway. The exposure parameters used are summarized in
Table 13.
The result of the exposure assessment is a set of tables showing
a calculated average daily intake value for each chemical or
compound, as well as a summary value for each exposure pathway.
These tables are included in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
6.3
Toxicitv Assessment of Contaminants
In this portion of the Baseline Risk Assessment, the toxic
effects of contaminants were investigated and evaluated. The
critical variables needed to calculate estimates of risk,
described below, were obtained from the EPA toxicological
database. Critical toxicity values for Elmore Site contaminants
are presented in Table 14. Table 15 lists additional critical
toxicity values which were derived in order to quantify dermal
exposure, for which EPA has not developed reference doses and
slope factors.
The reference dose (RfD), used in estimating noncarcinogenic
risk, is an estimate of the daily dose of a substance to which

-------
Elmore Waste
Record of Decision
Disposal Superfund Site
Paqe 46
TABLE 12
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
   EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION *
EXPOSED EXPOSURE  SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC.(mQ/kQ} REFERENCE DEPTH
On site  Onsite Arsenic 3.6E+01  B <5'
Adultand Shallow Beryllium 1.4E+00  B <5'
Child Resident Soil Cadmium 2.1E+00  B <5'
Onsite  Clvomium (III) 6.8E+01  B <5'
Non-esident  Cobalt 8.3E + 00  B <5'
  Copper 1.2E+02  A <5'
  Lead 1.6E+03  B <5'
  Manganese 3.5E+02  B <5'
  Mercury 2.0E-01  B <5'
  Nickel 1.6E+01  B <5'
  Vanadium 7.9E+01  A <5'
  Zinc 8.3E + 02  A <5'
  Cyanide 8.8E+00  B <5'
  1,2- Dichloroethene (total) 6.5E-03  A <5'
  Trichloroethene 6.5E-03  A <5'
  T etrac hloroethene 6.5E-03  A <5'
  Toluene 6.5E - 03  A <5'
  Naphthalene 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  2- Methylnap hthalene 4.5E-01  B <5'
  Acenaphthylene 1.7E+00  B <5'
  Acenaphthene 1.7E+00  B <5'
  Dibenzofuran 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  Fluorene 1.7E+OO - B <5'
  Phenmtl'rene 1.7E+00  B <5'
  AnU'racene 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  Carbazole 1.8E+OO  B <5'
  AuoranthEl1e 1.0E+00  A <5'
  Pyrene 1.2E+OO  B <5'
  Benzyl Butyl Phthalate 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  Benzo(A)pyrene"* 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  Benzo(A)anthracene** 1.6E-01  B <5'
  Chrysene" 1.7E-02  B <5'
  Benzo(B and/or K)ftuoranthene"* 2.0E-01  B <5'
  Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene** 1.7E-01  B <5'
  Benzo(G,H ,I)perylene 1.7E+OO  B <5'
  Delta-SHC 2.6E-03  B <5'
  Aldrin 1.7E-03  B <5'
  Endosulfan / (A/pm) 1.1E-03  A <5'
  4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.2E-02  B <5'
  Emlrin 3.3E - 03  B <5'
  4,4'- DDD (P,P' - DDD) 4.1E-03  B <5'
  Endosulfan Sulfate 2.7E-03  B <5'
  4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 2.6E-02  A <5'
  Endrin Aldehyde Chlordane 9.3E-03  B <5'
  Gamma-Chlordane 8.9E-03  B <5'
  Alpha-Chlordane 2.3E-03  B <5'
  TEO 8.4E-05  A <5'
* -. ExposU'e Point Concentrations assumed to be identical for current and tutU'e eJpOSlJ"es.
A - Max Hits 10wEI" than Confidence Umt (CL).
B - CL lower than max hits.
"* - Carcinog enic PAH exposure point concentration adjusted by mutiplyingby its toxicity equivalency factor relative to benzo(A)pyrene.
For soils, garden area (GA) soil samples were used, in order to obtain a reasonable maximum exposure (RME).
For groundwater, results from the shallow wells were used, in order to obtain the RME.

-------
EXPOSED
POPULATION
On site
Adult and

Child Resident
Child Resident
Offsite
Elmore Waste
Record of Decision
Disposal Superfund Site
Paqe 47
TABLE 12 (continued)
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
  EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION *
EXPOSURE  WATER DATA SAMPLE
MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC.(mQ/1) REFERENCE DEPTH
Shallow Aluminum 2.0E+02 B <20'
GroundwatEr Barium 1.2E+OO B <20'
 Beryllium 4.1E-02 B <20'
 Cadmium 4.3E-03 B <20'
 Chromium (III) 2.4E-01 B <20'
 Cobalt 2.6E-01 B <20'
 Copper 2.6E-01 B <20'
 Lead 1.7E-01 B <20'
 Manganese 7.6E+OO B <20'
 Nickel 1.9E-0' B' <20'
 Vanadium 6.3E-0' B <20'
 Zinc 7.5E-0' B <20'
 Cyanide 5.5E-03 A <20'
 Methytene Chloride 2.2E-02 B <20'
 1.' -Dichbroethene 2.8E-02 B <20"
 1.1- Dichbroethane 7.7E-03 B <20'
 1,2- Dichbroethene 7.8E-02 B <20'
 1.1,1- Trichloroethane 2.1E-01 B <20'
 Carbon Tetrachloride 5.0E-03 A <20'
 1,2- Dichbropropane 5.0E-03 A <20'
 Trichloroethene 5.5E+OO B <20'
 1,1.2- Trichloroelha,.. 4.9E-Q3 B <20'
 Benzene 7.5E-Q3 B <20'
 Tetrachloroethene 2.1E+OO B <20'
 Toluene 5,OE-Q3 A <20'
 Total Xylenes 7.0E-Q3 B <20'
 2-Nitroaniline 2.5E-02 A <20'
 Dimethyl Phthalate 5.0E-03 A <20'
 Diethyl PhthaBt e 5.0E-Q3 A <20'
 Endosullan Sulfate 5.0E-05 A <20'
 CI8-1,2 -Dichloro- 9.9E-02 A <20'
 Carbon Disulfid e 1.2E-03 A <20'
 VInyl Chloride 2.0E-02 A <20'
St.nace Carbon Disulfid e 5.8E-02 B 
Water 1,1- Dichbroethane 2.5E-03 B 
 Cis-1,2-DiChloroethene 1.1E-02 B 
 Trichloroethene 1.7E-01 B 
 T etrac hloroethene 2.6E-02 B 
. - Exposlre Point Concentrations assumed tobeidentic:allor current and tutU'e expoSU'es.
A - Max Hits lower than Con!.idence Umt (CL).
B - CL lower than max hits.
For soils, garden area (GA) soil samples were used, in order 1:0 obt;a1n .. reasonable maximum expoeure (RME).


For groundwa1:er, resul1:s from 1:he shallow wells were used, in order 1:0 ob1:a1n 1:he RME.

-------
:
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 48
TABLE 13
SlDDIARY OF EXPOSURE PARAHETERS
Pathway: Incidental soil ingestion    
Exposure Parameter:       
(See KEY at end)  IR FI EF ED BW AT
Population:       
Onsite non-residents  100 1.0 260 7 35 2,555
(current use)       25,550
Onsite adult residents 100 1.0 350 24 70 8,760
(current + future use)      25,550
Onsite child residents 200 1.0 350 6 16 2,190
(current + future use)      25,550
Onsite adult residents 100 1.0 275 24 70 8,760
including gardening       25,550
 (future use)       
Pathway: Dermal soil contact      
Exposure Parameter:       
(See KEY at end) SA AF AB EF E BW AT
Population:       
Onsite non-residents 4,045 0.6 0.01 260 7 35 2,555
(current use)   0.001    25,550
Onsite adult residents 4,985 0.6 0.01 350 24 70 8,760
(current + future use)   0.001    25,550
Onsite child residents 3,160 0.6 0.01 350 6 16 2,190
(current + future use)   0.001    25,550
Onsite adult residents 4,985 0.6 0.01 275 24 70 8,760
including gardening   0.001    25,550
 (future use)       
Pathway: Ingestion of groundwater    
,      
Exposure Parameter:     
(See KEY at end) IR EF ED BW AT
Population:     10,950
Future residents 2.0 350 30 70
(adults and children)     25,550

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 49
~ 13 (cont'd)
StDlllARy OF BXPOStJRB PARAIIB'l'ERS
Pathway: Dermal contact with groundwater     
Exoosure Parameter: SA PC ET EF ED BW AT
(See KEY at end)        
Population:         
Future adult residents 18,150 0.0015 0.2 350 24 70 8,760
           25,550
Future child residents 7,195 0.0015 0.2 350 6 16 2,190
           25,550
Pathway: Inhalation of VOCs - showering     
Exoosure Parameter: L RS IHR ET EF ED BW AT
(See KEY at end)        
POPulation:        
Future residents 200 12 0.6 0.2 350 30 70 10,950
(adults and children)     -   25,550
Pathway: Incidental ingestion of surface water - swimming  
Exposure Parameter:  CR ET EF ED BW AT
(See KEY at end)       
Population:       
Offsite child resident 0.05 1.0 24 7 35 2,555
(current land use)       25,550
Pathway: Dermal contact with surface water - swimming  
Exposure Parameter: SA PC ET EF ED BW AT
(See KEY at end)       
Population:       
Offsite child resident 1,160 0.0015 1.0 24 7 35 2,555
(current land use)       25,550

-------
Elmore
Record of Decision
Waste Disposal Site
Paae 50
lfIaRT.R 13 (cont'd)
SUJIIIARY OF BXPOSURB PARAIIBTERS
Pathway: Ingestion of contaminated produce grown in contamin. soil
Exposure Parameter: IR EF FI ED BW AT
(See KEY at end)      
Future residents 0.122 350 1.0 30 70 10,950
(adults and children)      25,550
KEY
Raference. for all variable. are detailed in the Bueline Risk bae._nt.

IR - Ingeation rate (1119 aoil/day, or L/day for groundvatar).
PI - praction ingeated. A value of 1.0 ..a_a all ingeated 80il ia contaminated.
Br - ~aure frequency (daya or eventa/yr). 350: daily minua 2 vita annual vacation.
moa., alternating daya for remaining 6 lIDa., minua 2 vita. vacation, each year.
montha per year. 24: tvice veeItly for 12 _Ita (a_r).
B1) - ~aure duration (year.).
BW - Boc1y -ight ( kg) . Standard valuea are 70 kg (adul t average),
35 kg (teenager average), 16 kg (children 1-6 yra, 50th
percentile) .
U - Averaging tiJlle (period conaidered: daya). The top value given ia the chronic value (B1) z 365) I
the lover i. the lifetime period of ~.ure ..allming a 70-year life apan.
SA - Surface area of akin that ia expoaed (em ).
AP - Soil adherence factor (mg/em2). I18preaenta a fraction of how lIIuch of the contacted 80il actually
adherea to the 8ZpO.ect akin.
AS - Dermal aDaorption I 80il de80rption factor (unitleaa). The toP value, 0.01, ia ..aUllled for
organic compooundal the lover value, 0.001, ia "8~ for inorganic compounda/elementa.
ET - ~aure time (houra/day).
PC - Dermal permeability conatant (cmlhr).
IBR - Inhalation iate (1II3/hr). Vol- of air inhaled per unit time.
RS - Room aize (III ).
L - Water Uae (litera).
ea - Contact rate (L/hr).
260: daily for 6 !
275: daily for 9:
I
I
i

-------
     TABLE 14     
    CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES   
      Oral  Inhalation Refe,~J
 Analyte  Carcinogenic Slope  RfD Chronic Slope RfD Chronic
(Contaminant of Concern) Classification (mg/kg/day)-l (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/dayr1 (mg/kg/day)
         ~------ -----
PURGEABLE ORGANICS        
1,2-Dichloropropane 82 6.8E-02    ND 1. IE-03 BEAST
Cis-I,2-Dichloroethene    IE-02  ND HEAST
l,l-Dichloroethene C 6E-01  9E-03 1.2E+OO  IRIS/BEAST
Benzene   A 2.9E-02  2E-OI 2.9E-02 1. 6E-OI IRIS
Tetrachloroethene B2 5.IE-02  IE-02 I.BE-03 ND IRIS/BEAST
Trichloroethene  82 1.IE-02    1.7E-02  IRIS
I, 1, 2-Trichloroethane  C 5.7E-02  4E-03 5.7E-02  IRIS/HEAST
Carbon Tetrachloride 82 1. 3E-OI  7E-04 1. 3E-OI  IRIS/HEAST
Methylene Chloride B2 7.5E-03  6E-02 1. 6E-03 8.6E-OI IRIS
Vinyl Chloride  A 1. 9E+OO    3.0E-OI  BEAST
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS        
Benzo(a)Pyrene  B2 7.3E+OO    6. IE+OO  IRIS
Benzo(b and/or k)Flouranth 82 7.3E+OO*    6.IE+OO*  
8enzo(a)Anthracene 82 7.3E+OO*    6.IE+OO*  
Chryoene   82 7.3E+OO*    6.IE+OO*  
Indeno(I,2,3-cd)Pyrene 82 7.3E+OO*    6.IE+OO*  
PESTICIDES          
Aldrin   82 1. 7E+OI  3E-05 1.7E+Ol  IRIS
Alpha-Chlordane  82 1.3E+OO  6E-05 1.3E+OO  IRIS
Gamma-Chlordane  82 1.3E+OO  6E-05 1.3E+OO  IRIS
INORGANICS          
Arsenic   A 1.8E+OO  3E-04 5.0E+01  IRIS/H~~AST
8arium      7E-02  1. 4E-04 IRIS/HEAST
Cadmium ..   81   IE-3, 5E-04 6.IE+OO  IRIS/BEAST
Chromium (IV)      5E-03 4.IE+Ol  IRIS/BEAST
Lead   82 ND  ND  ND ND 
Manganese   D   IE-Ol  1. lE-04 IRIS
Nickel (Soluble Salts)  ND  2E-02 8.4E-OI ND IRIS/IIEAST
Vanadium      7E-03  ND BEAST
Zinc   D   2E-Ol  ND IRIS
Beryllium   82 4.3E+OO  '5E-03 8.4E+OO  IRIS/HEAST
DIOXIN          
TEQ (Dioxin) ... 82 1.5E+05    1.5E+05  HEAST
--- ---------
---.
tzj
......
a
o
11
CD
~
s:u
[/1
rt
CD
t:I
1-"
[/1
td
o
[/1~
S:UCD
1-'0
o
0011
~o..
td
CDO
11 HI
HI
~t:I
IU~(I)
111 0.. 0
1-"
CD 00[/1
1-" 1-"
U1rtO
"""CD~
( 11
This table presents the critical toxicity values used in risk calculations, for all contaminants of concern which contribute
either noncarcinogenic risk hazard quotient (HOI > 0.1, or carcinogenic risk> 1 x 10-6.

Not determined
Not listed
Slope factors for these compounds have not been established.
assigned since these compounds are also carcinogenic PAHs.
cadmium has two RfD values, one for food and a second for water.
-THO. represents the toxic equivalent factor, calculated according to the procedu~es specified
Equivalent Factor/89 method.
Therefore, the EPA interim slope factor for benzo(a)pyrenc WliS
ND
in t tie inter-oat ions1 Tux ic

-------
TABLE 15
DERIVATION OF DERMAL CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUESl
Analyte
(contaminant of Concern)
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
1,2-Dichloropropane
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trieh1oroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Methylene Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b and/or k)Flouranth
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Chryeene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)Pyrene
PESTICIDBS
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
I NORGANICS
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium ..
Chromium (IV)
Lead
Manganese
Nickel (Soluble Salts)
Vanadium
Zinc
Beryllium
DIOXIN
TEQ (Dioxin) .*.
carcinogenic
Classification
Oral
Slope RfD Chronic Absorbtion Slope (b)
(mg/kg/day)-l (mg/kg/day) Factor (a) (mg/kg/day)-l
82
6.8£-02
--
lE-02
9E-03
2E-01
1£-02
--
4£-03
7E-04
6E-02
--
--
--
--
--
--
3E-05
6E-05
6E-05
3E-04
7E-02
1E-3, 5E-04
5£-03
ND
lE-Ol
2E-02
7E-03
2E-01
5E-03
--
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.85
1.0
1.0
0.41
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
8.5E-02
--
7.5E-01
3.6E-02
6.4E-02
1.4E-02
7.1£-02
1. 6E-01
9.4E-03
2.4E+00
8.6E+00
7.3E+00
7.3£+00
1.8£+01
7.3E+00
1.7E+02
1. 3E+01
1.3E+01
9.0E+00
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2.2E+01
1.5E+06
Dermal
RfD (e)
(mg/kg/day)
--
8E-03
7.2E-03
1.6E-01
8E-03
--
3.2E-02
5.6E-04
4.8E-02
--
--
--
--
t>:1
I-'
a
o
t1
CD
~
111
m
rt
CD
o
.....
m
"0
o
m:;u
111 CD
1-'0
o
0011
r::p.
"0
CD 0
11 HI
HI
r::O
td='CD
111 P. 0
.....
CD en m
..... .....
U1rtO
"'CD='
--
--
--
--
3E-06
6E-06
6E-06
6E-05
1.4E-02
2E-04,1E-04
1.0E-03
--
2E-03
4E-03
1.4E-03
4E-02
1E-03
--
(I) This table presentB the derivation of dermal critical toxicity valuee ueed in risk calculations involving dermal exposure, for all
contaminantB of concern which contribute either noncarcinogenic riBk hazard quotient (HO) > 0.1, or carcInogenic risk> 1 x 10-6.
BaBed on USBPA HEAD and ATSDR documents (see Baseline Risk Assessment);
Slope/Absorbtion Factor
Oral RfD x Absorbtion Pactor
Hot determined
Hot lhted
Slope factors for theBe compounds have not been established. Therefore, the EPA interIm slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene was
assigned Bince theBe compounds are also carcinogenic PARs.
Cadmium hae two RfD veluee, one for food and a second for water.
"THO" represents the toxic equivalent factor, calculated accordIng to the procedures epecified in the international toxIc
Bquivalent Pactor/8t method.
a
b
c
HD
..
...
C
A
82
82
C
82
B2
A
6E-01
2.9E-02
5.1£-02
1.1E-02
5.7E-02
1.3E-01
7.5E-03
1.9E+00
82
82
82
12
82
7.3E+00
7.3£+00.
7.3£+00.
7. 3!'00'
7.)£.00.
8.
82
82
1.7£+01
1.3£+00
1.3£+00
A
1.8E+00
--
--
81
--
--
--
82
D
ND
--
--
ND
--
--
D
82

82
--
4.3E+00
1.5E+05

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 53

may be exposed without appreciable risk of health effects. It is
expressed as mg/kg/day. RfDs are based on human epidemiological
studies or animal studies, and have built-in uncertainty factors
that prevent underestimation of potential adverse effects.
In estimating carcinogenic risk, a slope factor (SF) is used to
estimate the upper bound excess cancer risk posed by a lifetime
of exposure to carcinogens. The SF is an estimate of the dose-
response curve at very low doses, and is extrapolated from dose-
response data at high doses.
In Table 14, carcinogenic contaminants are classified according
to EPA's weight-of-evidence system. This classification scheme
is summarized below:
Group A:
Known human carcinogen.
Group B1: Probable human carcinogen, based on limited human
epidemiological evidence.
Group B2: Probable human carcinogen, based on inadequate
human epidemiological evidence but sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
Group c:
Possible human carcinogen, limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals.
Group D:
Not classifiable due to insufficient data.
Group E:
Not a human carcinogen, based on adequate animal
studies and/or human epidemiological evidence.
6.4
Risk Characterization
The final step of the Baseline Risk Assessment, generation of
numerical estimates of risk, was accomplished by integrating the
exposure and toxicity information. Tables 16 and 17 present
summaries of the total hazard quotient (noncarcinogenic risk) and
total cancer risk, respectively, associated with the Site.

To estimate noncarcinogenic risk, hazard quotients (HQs) are
calculated for each contaminant in each exposure pathway. The HQ
is the ratio of the daily intake divided by the RfD. An HQ value
equal or close to unity (1) indicates the potential for adverse
effects. For each pathway, the individual contaminant HQs are
added together to give a total hazard index, or HI. Under a
reasonable worst-case scenario, a person could be exposed to more
than one pathway (for example, both dermal with and incidental
ingestion of, shallow soil while gardening). Therefore, the

-------
POPULATION
Onsite Adult Resident
Current Use
Onsite/Otfslte Child Resident
Current Use
Onsite Non-Resident
Current Use
Onsite Adult Resident
Future Use
Onsite/Otfslte Child Resident
Future Use
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Superfund Site
Pa e 54
TABLE 16
SITE HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
ATHWAY HAZARD INDEX
Ingestion (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Total Hazard Index
Ingestion (01site shallow soli, garden area)
Dermal contact (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Incidental Ingestion (surface water)
Dermal contact (surface water)
Total Hazard Index
Ingestion (01site shaJlow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Total Hazard Index
Ingestion (01site shallow soil while gardening)
Dermal contact (01site shallow soil while gardening)
Ingestion (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (01site shallow soli, garden area)
Ingestion (contaminated produce)*
Ingestion (shallow groundwater)*
Dermal contact (shallow groundwater)
Inhalation (shallow goundwater by showering)*
Total Hazard Index
Ingestion (01site shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (onsite shallow soli, garden area)
Ingestion (01site contaminated prcxiJce)*
Ingestion (shallow groundwater)*
Dermal contact (shallow groundwater)
Inhalation (shallow goundwater by showering)*
Incidental Ingestion (surface water)
Dermal contact (surface water)
Total Hazard Index
* The exposure assumptions for this pathway are the same for both adult and child residents;
therefore, the pathway hazard index is the same for both populations.
2.2E-
-------
POPULATION
Onsite Adult Resident
Current Use
Onsite/Offslte Child Resident
Current Use
Onsite Resident
Current Use
Onsite Non-Resident
Current Use
Onsite Adult Resident
Future Use
Onsite/Offsite Child Resident
Future Use
Onsite Resident
Future Use
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Superfund Site
Paae 55
TABLE 17
SITE CANCER RISK SUMMARY
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
PATHWAY CANCER RISK
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Total Cancer Risk
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Incidental Ingestion (surface water)
Dermal contact (surface water)
Total Cancer Risk
Lifetime Risk =
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
-
Total Cancer Risk
':':':'::':::0::::1:':,:"" '..'
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil while gardening)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil while gardening)
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Ingestion (contaminated produce)*
Ingestion (shallow groundwater)*
Dermal contact (shallow groundwater)
Inhalation (shallow groundwater by showering)*
Total Cancer Risk
Ingestion (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Dermal contact (ensite shallow soil, garden area)
Ingestion (contaminated produce)*
Ingestion (shallow groundwater)*
Dermal contact (shallow groundwater)
Inhalation (shallow groundwater by showering)*
Incidental Ingestion (surface water)
Dermal contact (surface water)
Total Cancer Risk
Lifetime Risk =
* The exposure assumptions for this pathway are the same for both adult and child residents:
therefore, the pathway cancer risk is the same for both populations.
4.7&<)5
2.5&<)5
7.2&05
1 .0&<)4
1.7&<)5
3.0&<)8
1.3&<)9
1 .2&04
1 .9&04
2.0&<)5
8.8&<)6
2.9&05
3.7&<)5
2.0&<)5
4.7&<)5
2.5&<)5
2.0&<)3
4.8&<)3
3.0&<)5
1.7&<)3
8.7&03
1 .0&<)4
1.7&<)5
2.0&<)3
4.8&<)3
1 .3E-Q5
1 .7E-Q3
3.0E-Q8
1 .3E-Q9
8.6&03
1.7E-02

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 56
total HI for each population is a summation of the constituent
exposure pathways.
Carcinogenic risk estimates are generated in similar fashion for
exposure pathways and populations. EPA has established an excess
risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6 as acceptable and sufficiently
protective of human health and the environment.
Lifetime carcinogenic risk to current onsite residents is
estimated to be 1.9 x 10-4. The risk is primarily due to
potential ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soils by
adults or children. Under the future use scenario, the lifetime
carcinogenic risk estimate is 1.7 x 10-2. Future risk is due to
the same exposure pathways named above, but also from ingestion,
inhalation and dermal contact with shallow groundwater, as well
as ingestion of contaminated garden produce. Both current and
future use values exceed EPA's allowable range of carcinogenic
risk, which is 1 X 10~ to 1 X 10~.
Noncarcinogenic risk presented by current Site conditions is
estimated to have HI = 0.25 for onsite adults and HI = 2 for an
onsite or off site child resident. Future risk is estimated as
HI = 14 for onsite adults and HI = 16 for onsite or offsite child
residents. In both cases, exposure through dermal contact and
ingestion of contaminated soils are major contributors to the
risk, but the future risk estimate also includes significant risk
from ingestion and dermal contact with shallow groundwater.
It should be noted that there is some degree of uncertainty
associated with the calculated numerical estimates of human
health risks generated in the Baseline Risk Assessment. This is
due to the considerable number of assumptions required to provide
variables in the equations, and the specific selections of each
variable from a range of possibilities.
6.5
Environmental (Ecological) Risks
Because land use on the Site and surrounding properties is
residential with scattered light industry, the ecological
communities surrounding the Elmore Waste Disposal Site have been
altered from their natural state. No state or federally
designated endangered or threatened species are found at or near
the Site. For these reasons, the potential for environmental
risks is considered small.
Available habitat for flora and fauna along Wards Creek has been,
affected by the presence of trash, scrap metal and lumber, and
other debris apparently originating from the former dump
location. Despite this, there are no obvious signs of ecological
problems in Wards Creek or along its banks.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 57

Offsite groundwater sampling results indicate that four VOCs are
discharging from the surficial aquifer into Wards Creek at low
levels. These levels are not considered ecologically
significant. Should these levels increase, which could occur by
way of continued northward movement of the groundwater
contaminant plume, VOC contamination could pose an ecological
threat to the Wards Creek area.
7.0
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Feasibility Study (FS) considered a wide variety of general
response actions and technologies for remediating soil and
groundwater. Tables 18 and 19 summarize these response actions
and technologies, and provide the rationale for why each was
retained or rejected for further consideration in the development
of remedial alternatives.
Based on the FS, Baseline Risk Assessment, and Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), the remedial
action objectives (RAOs) listed below were established for the
Elmore Waste Disposal Superfund Site. Alternatives were
developed with the goal of attaining these objectives:
1.
2.
-
Prevent ingestion of any groundwater containing:
a. carcinogen concentrations above Federal or State
standards, or if there is no standard, above levels
that would allow a remaining excess cancer risk of
greater than 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6: and
noncarcinogen concentrations above Federal or State
standards, or if there i8 no standard, above levels
that would allow an unacceptable remaining
noncarcinogenic threat (HI greater than 1).

Restore the groundwater aquifer to potential productive use
by remediation to an appropriate degree, and by preventing
migration of the contaminant plume beyond the existing
boundary.
b.
3.
Prevent ingestion of, or direct contact with, soil
contaminated at levels that pose unacceptable carcinogenic
or noncarcinogenic risk.
4.
Prevent leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater
that would allow contaminant levels above appropriate
standards to remain in groundwater.

Reduce or eliminate the contaminant concentrations in Wards
Creek, and maintain water quality in accordance with Federal
5.

-------
GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS
No Action
Institutional ContrOl'
Conlainmen&
COntainment
Conttnued
TABLE 18
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS (SOURCE CONTROL)
TECHNOLOGY
P~CESS OPTION
I I
r-;
, ,
H

Sita Ace... end ~
Use Restriction,

~
!

Land UN Restrictions I
No Action
None
Fencing
Ai'. Soil, and Surface
Werer Monit)rin
Tempor&l'Y
::;48phaJtic-:Co~cre{e .
$011- Synthetic:
Membrane
RCRA Multilayer
, 'Ch....1eo1 SaoJonlol
" "',"SI_blll...."
:,:",,:'<:,','i,SOI,hBonlOftnO:: ,
, ' ««"",8 ' WaU,:
:,'Comont+,Bon"",b..,:
,':':','::,:S.."',WilU','" ',"
f- - Retained Procea Option at T omno logy
f--Roj8c:t8d ProcnaOpUonat TomnolOgy
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Site 111811 in its eXI$lIng $Iate.
Land use restrictions would be IIcorded in the
property deeds I) prohibil actNities lhat might diSturb
conlaminated .oil,.
Selected protaonsof Iho sile me... be lenced and warning
ligna polled durin 0 femeJtal iIIClivil_s. Long-term
mairuenanc:e and MCUrity would be required.
She conditbns and contaminant levels in these media
would ba monitor.d during and att.r remedialbn.
Mow r.,idents 10 motel, or apart men!, during the
remediation. Pay for lodging end other out-ot-pocket
expon..s.
Mow r"ldents to new homes. Pay lor moving cost,.
temporary housing and meals. monO.ge buydDwn..
utility connections. and new home cbsing cost..
Placement and compaction 01 nat;..., soil over the
eontamlnated area. Maintenance required.
Placement and compaction 0' a clay layer over U,e
eontamlnated area. Mav1tananc. required.
Placement 01 . layer of asphan over lt1e contaminatlld
area. Maintenance requited
Placement 0' a layer 01 asphaltic concrele over
Ihe contaminated area. Maintenance required.
InstaUalion 0' concrele slabs over the contaminated
area. Maintenanco required.
Ptacement 01 a compacted clay layer reUowed by. layer 01
gravel or lOil over the contamnaled area. Maintenance
required.
Placement 0' low-permeability synthetic membrane
lonewed by soil over the contamina"d area.
Maintenance required.
Placement 01 compacted clay. natM!i soil. or clay
mbced with natMllCil. followed by installation of .
synthelic membrane (including associated ba. and
drainage materiel). A hnel soil layer Is then p!aced
over the membrane. Mainiennnt;o required.
The contaminated soils would be treated with a
wow-dispersible emulSIOn or a resin ., torm a cru5t
that reduc.a water. wind. and dus! erosion. Moslare
non.,xic to plants and animals.
A trench I, excavated around the contaminated soils
and baddilled wilh a $,cul- bentonilO skmy mixture.
The working 'ece Ollho ttench and a Il\on lenghto'
trench behind It Ire $lablllzed by a Wllet- bentonite
mix until backfilling c.an occur.
A trench I, excavated afound the contaminated soils
and baddillod with a cemont-banlonl1e slurry mixture.
The woridnglaceollhe (tench and. short length of
trench behind it are stabilized by. waler-bentonite
mix unlll backfilling can occur.
Pre..,r. k\f8ctlon 0' greut akJng the boundary of the
contamk\al8d 8)US n a paner" 01 drilled hoLe..
A variation of the grout cun....1n wh6d1 . vibr.tk'lg
force is u..d 10 advance a st..1 beam nlo Ih. lOil. A
r.latNaty thn wan 0' cement or bentonite i. intected
.a the bum I. with~awn.
Inuallation 01 Iheet pl~g alo"g the contaminant
bounda-y. ~ntertocking pile. are placed wiIh a pi8
drtwr or dIop hammer.
Grout would be injctctod nlD bedrock 10 Hal traclures,
void., and 8Olution cavidl$.
Paqe
58
COUMENTS
RETAINED. Requa-ed bylhe NCP al8 baselin.
anornltiw.
RETAINED. Llmi.d appUc:8tcn. Would not reduce or
canuol contamlnanl mlgraton. Would be uNd In con-
junction with other technoD;... 8.lCh .. onlite dispoaal.
RET AJNED. Llm..,d appleatbn. Would not reduce or
oonlrol contamlnanl mlgralen. Would be uHd In
contunctlon with other opUonl, 8.lch .. onlite disposal or
use reSlr!ctio,., .
RETAINED. Would be uNd to mon"'r lite conditions and
tho etlKI""'e.. 0' other remadlal..chnolog...
RETAINED. Baud on the Rl8k Au..ament (RA) relldenls
are .t Umh8d rilk from the contemlnated lOlls.
REJECTED. Ba..don the RA raaldent. are only at limited
risk Irom the contaminated 800. and may no! be COlt effect"".
REJECTED. Ineff.cltw due to "'adeQulte ImpermeabiUry
and 'ack 01 ere .ton and n"Ollture conuol. Sublect ~c
crllcking 'rom drying and freeze-thaw action.
REJECTED. Inerr.,cltve due to lnadeQUa1e Impermeability
and lack of ero .'on ana n"Ol.tul'8 control. Subject to
cracking trom drying and treeze-thaw action.
nEJECTED. High maintenance due 10 poor .....athering
characterl5l1cI. IoUch a. photoaenalUviry. susceplibllity.,
cracking. and brtn~neis from aging.
REJECTED. High maintenance due to poor ¥III08therlng
characteristics, such.. susceptibility I) crackng.
REJECTED. Polentlal tor cracking trom unling and
freeze- thaw action.
RETAJNED. ",;ore ..1-heaUngth8n tinge-tayer cap..
Gravel has. COit advantage OWit kJamor other 1011
cover.
RETAJNED. La"g-term raliabUityol m.mbrane Is unkn:>wn,
Insunicisnt dr.~8V8 may c:au.. "'Ollon 01 the soil cowr or
damage the membrane.
RETAJNED. lDng-term reUabllltyo' membrane I,
unknown. ClAy layer provtda. addilbnal containment.
REJECTED. Temporary cover only. Not. permanent sotution
and ther. II no current risk from wind-bbwn materlols.
REJECTED. SoU contamlnaton only in 8hallow lOillewls
(0- 2 leal) and llO!aled intermediate 1011 levels (5-10 f.et).
REJECTED. SoU contamlnaton only In shalbw IOlllevell
(0-2 teet) and laoLited Inlerm.dialO 8011 levell (5-10 leet).
REJECTED. SoD contemlnatan on~ In lhaUow 101I1.vall
(O-2I..t) and taDLahld nt.-medlal8 8)U levatl (5-10 leet).
REJECTED. Sol contamlnatbn only In shallow 8)U levela
(0-2...1) and I8>Laled ntermedu8)U lavall (5-10 leel).
REJECTED. SoH oon..mr..tlon only In 1II_lIow.,U lawl.
(0-2 ,..t) end Iaolatod Intarmed....,a _I. (5-10 taal) ,
REJECTED. Soli con"m~albn only k1 ahallow aoillewi.
(0- 2 teet) and 180&aI.d Intermedlata IOU !eve" (5-10 I.el).

-------
TABLE 18
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS (SOURCE CONTROL)
(continued)
GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
extraction Wells
:":,.,..,.:.
':~;"/'~~'~~~~ir~t~~:~~. ".
':S::;WoU'~iU..:.
:~/..~:...., :.
Surface Wallt
Olwr80nlCou.cuon
S stem
Revegetation
All Proces. Option.
H
H
Remova'
ExcavatDn
Contamin..d Soils
.>~~~~k>~;~~' ...
On8b:. Tr8atment
I
I j--_odProcoaOpllonorT_1ogy
r:::::::::J}- - Rojoctod - Opllon or T _...Iogy
Sea Wuhlng
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
PreswI. inrectlCn 01 grout through clolled nolo' in a
panern 10 proVide 8 Damor 01 lOw perm..b1bty.
The contaminated ar.. is surrounded by. perimeter
banier. afler whicr. grout IS DleUUre- injected into
bolmoNts U\al have been stratogally placed wiU\in
the contamin818d .1... The grout then displace. the
contamln81a(l8orth and lorms" seal bo~"" II.
Conlrolol the ground water now by pumping trom
....Us 10 create new hydrAUIi: gradients.
Pertorated pipe or tile within. gravel-lined trench is
uled 10 control the migraten 01 contamina1ad ground
watet. May be used at shanaw depth. in conjunction
with. banler system.
A group 01 dosety spaced wells with., the
conl8mtnaUtd aroa is connoctod to a header pipe ond
pumped. Sy.Utm is boSI-suited lor shallow aquiton.
Chemic:alltabilimtt are sprayod on bare IOU. or
mulC:hod to coat. penotrate. and bind the soil panicles
togethor. Chemical siabilizers Includal8tex
emulsions. plastic: lilms.Gil-ln-wator omulsions. and
rom-In-water omulsbns.
A II.Irl.C8 water drwrsion and collection tystem would
be nstallod 10 cot\Uol storm waler and conlaminated
sur1ace water runoff.
A vegotatt\.e cover ~uld bo reestablished ovar areal
that ha... bean regradod. capped. or femediated to
decrease orosion and (if applicable) protect the
iruagrity 01 rha cap.
Various matorials Dole sprayed or spr08dover tho .reaor
concern 10 provont dLl:.1 and'or vapor general iOn.
Proce" options ,"Clyde: wllter. membranes or larp..
organic agenrs:PO:ymerslloams. or hydrosccpic a08nt$.
I Removal 01 COI"II....on.1Cd soils by c:onyentional
.aM-mo\lIl"lQ .'1.. 1'''0(11''1/. :.0"1 a5 back"oes.
bulldozer.. an~' . C'.IO lOaUOIS.
Contamina.c. . ..... ...-d8"loaQI.adoY8te
controlled .,.. . - ~. ... .,..... '''''''''0 mo'5Iur.
and nuUient.... ... -; . .... ~o.., (l8atluClcn 01
lheconlamr.,... ""'.. .~..._.:Jr~~.PPfOprlate
mic:roorg"".-.
Contemln..., .. . . -.... .... I IIJ . ~
high and "'.'..,1. . ." .. ..oJ _.1""" Y.y
occur n 8n ....... - ...- .... -.,....4 ~.'tule
aro aadea a' -- ..-. -.. ...,.. _48""'.Ct\
appropriat8 ""'.'" ,- -..
Conlamina.C .
aunclen( ""'.... ..
wl\h mecrootg... ........
ar..dded ...... ......
.'.."''''IOO'..e'\
... .....ry '. r.oded
- - _4 ..., -...4 Hl,lllIen($
An oxidizing 898'" ..."... .....~ r..o.o08. 010ne.or
h'fp)CI\bri1e) 8I'tJ.... .-..-..... 8:)8.e ",...0 1"1. ,.actor.
The contam"'8I'\8 ... ..- ....-...... ID"'" ....mea&8le
GOmpound80( \lU''''''"", w. -...,.,.. ""''''''0 ..al«.
A reducing aoonl I. o"'~ ... ... -",-..10 10--
Ih8 c:ontemlnanr. o...o8lCft .... ...41 '.,,08 . ....
lazicof more tre8lab81
Add or b... b added 10 tha C08tl8nwa..d mawwlO
adjuSt the pH of the ma...l<o ~ T. n...aatzi1g
exce81 ba.. or acid in me 11\8-"
Watet \M)uld be Inliluated U"ouGh Cha ...,b..rtace IOn
to teach out the water -1Ok..b81 COftI8fN\anU.
ExcaYal8d 1Oi18 'IIIoOuJd ba wa""ed wdh WI org.anic 80Neni or
lO"""t.1O extract t.,OOI compound.. The soil. 'tIIIOuld be
be Mp......d from the sotYenl. dr.d. and UNO .a backhll.
Conlem...e.d IOtvonl would be tloal.d by dlallt&atDn or oO,er
moar\alO c:o"conhlll.lhelOOnlf,ulI.'UI'I~. TrOOlu.' wtwJn' VilnUkl
be 'ouMd. Tho c:Qu&.:orltuIiIlU .,,,,,,,"IIc,~J"'4Ib tlllUukJ IU',uIrU
funh., 1I.8tmanl Or c1bpo.al.
Similar to IOtvenl eztraClion exc.plthat walor and
apPIQPnate chemical add&livel or aurlactuUa would be
uNd 10 "'ctt out !.he WOOl COtII&m8181\ta. P,,,c... is
gM-.uv uHd lot wume reduction beIote tunher treatment.
59
Paqe
COMMENTS
REJECTED. SoU contaminaien only in shallo.... sod "....1.
It)-2 I.el) and iXl&aced intermediate aod to¥8l' (S-10 le.I).
REJECTED. SoU CQntamlnalen only in ""8110.. .oil lavel.
(0- 2 te.l) and tlOLat.d nlermedl.8l8 IOU """'1. (So- 10 le.I).
REJECTED. For this FS. cont8mlnatt.d aoU3I are defined .,
shano.. IOU. (0-10...1) In the vado.. (unMtu,at8d) Zone.
T"erefore. Ihere I. no ground....a., 10 .xtract.
REJECTED. For !hi. FS. conteminared IOU..,.. defined IS
$hallow lOlls (0- 10 ..01) ... th. \J'8dc.. (unMlurated) tOne.
Thatelore. Iner. I. no groundwa.... 10 'XUact.
REJECTED. For this FS. contam.inated lOils IIU'. defined..
Ih.flow 8011. (0- 10 1..1) In the \t8CO.. (",nMluratad) zone.
Therelore. the,. ta no ground..a. 10 .xtract.
REJECTED. SoIl.re.lon not. probielm.
RETAINED. Would be.uaed in conjunction with oU"ler
r.m.dlall8chnoIoQIe..
RETAINED. Would be uMd In conjunction with other
remediall8chnologe..
RETAINED. Co:Jld be tiled to conlroltugilMi dual/V8por
emlnaon. during ..teniNe eanhworklng operallona. .
ilETAJNED. Would be UMd in conjunction with Ir..tmonto,
dilj».allechnolJgiu.
REJECTED. Is noleff.clNe lor tnit.Ung metals
in soJb
REJECTED. NoC elfective ror tr.atment ot malel..
REJECTED. Not .rt.c1He lor tr..tm8'ltol rretab.
REJECTED. Not8 pro..." appIk:aUon lor tho contaminants
~ \he ~U.. Conte","'."t. may deorade nto products
mol. mxic than their ptecunor..
nEJECTED. En~e..'" tr..tlnoorganic:ah..not be."
P'O'
-------
TABLE 18
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS (SOURCE CONTROL)
(continued)

PROCESS DESCRIPTION
GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
Rowy .Kiln lnclr8.aa)r
. Mulliptod.He8t\h
. fomau
FluidiDd aed
. Inc"'ll'&U)f.
.' CtcuLo1ing Bed.-
. :""., -tneneralo'r: . : :
. tllgtI-romperewf8
~. Fbdd ;..W.11 React:)r
.:::: ~nfr8r~d. Jnc:.irier~tor"
:","
~ollen Sah 'I'!cinoretor
-'.-.w."."-',"
.. P.~~-Arc::t:0rc.h.
':.,..l.o~'T.mpel8tu,.
":;Thermal Extraction-
i,~~:~:'f.,~'~s':~'"
POZ%Dian- Poniand
Cement Stabll!zatbn
Proc...'
f--_..s - Oplion orT_1Dgy
!--Ro;oc:88cI-Option arT_logy
t"",,
Solid wasil is fed into tho upper end 01 . kiln. which
rorar..., mix the wasr. wffh comOusron air 81 rt
passe, through tho klin.
I Solid waste i. f.d into the lum.co roor from the top
and PUShed through drop hol83 rtto a $erles 01
....en1cally atacked rolractoty hearths.
Wast.. are injected abOve. preheated gr8l'lular bod.
whicn Is fluidized by bubbling air through. disuibut)t
p18t8 located below Iho bed.
SlmUar to fluidized bed inc:ineration, bur the Uuld
moves at much higher velroelli... Fluidized materilll
i. recirculat.d through the feed seetion.
Waue I. dOltro'lod 1M. reoetor conlilHng 01 a tubuLAr
core 01 refrectory mowial trial emlls r.diant energy
supplied by targo elocuode, in tho j.adtot ot c.h8
ves..1.
Wasto i,conveyed through 'VI() heating module.. In the
lirst. the contaminants are combu$ted by Infrared hoat
provtdod by rows 01 olectricty- powerod .i1icon earbida
rods. The Ncond modue can be inlrered or oaSh~aled.
Wastes and air are injeclod inlO a bod 01 molten alkali
metal $8.1(1. where the conlaminant$"'o destroyod by a
combinatOn 01 incinofetion. absorplon. and cheml(:al
rooclion.
Wastes I/ft pyrolilOd by a high -Iomperoturo plalma.
An elecuic arc 1$ used 10 oonorolo tho plasma by
exclling gas 10 lis teni:o,", :..Ioto.
Heatod air Is mixod wilh excavated sod 10 physically
drive 011 (evaporatd) \IOlall~ and some semNOlatiia
cont8minants.
Contamina.d material Is Ihormally desuoyed in an
oxygen-deficient enwonmenl.
Wa$lOS and $OiJ are heeled in a container 10 an
extr.maty high temper.lute that meRs tho mix. Tho
r.aathng mas. Is thon cooWtd inD . glass-liko solid.
Waste. are mtxad WlttI a slliceous-and-aluminous
material (POZZOian) and wdh. hme-lly ash mtxture to
produua strong $OJI~ Wllh low permu.biJiry.
Wastn ara mixed wilh e $,bcoous-and-okJminous
material (pozzotan) and wllh porlland cemanttO
produce a .trOng solid Wllh low permeability.
Organic waste. are blendolj with synthetic binds,..
(many proc:e.ae. uso propriel8ty cnemLcal.). and \he
wuta/bindor material Is mixoo with limo-fly esh or Uy
8th -cemant to produc. a strong. k)w- perme.bUrry
laid.
Healad drted walUt. are mixed with an aa,phatl.
btlurr8n. par8Jf~. or potyeU'lylone matrix Chat seta int)
. 80tJd ma...
Inwd.. MY8fal proces.... in which wa"n are
lto&a18d by ~ng ...'-d '" an organic binder or re..
Separatbn and eID1g ot the 8Iba,.1ace .otia by
COft""Oonai maaorLala handing .qulprr...".
ClNnktg to r.move conl8mk'lanll by u.. of . ..am
IennY. mtxwlWalhar. or other 4ec:onlamkt.ion equipment.
60
Page
COIIIIENTS
REJECTED. Nol eIf.cUyelar rerno""'g rnalal,trom solis.
REJECTED. NOI recommeruied lor hal8ldeu. waste.
due It) low ap...ating temperature.
fiEJECTED. Nor ell.cllve 'or removing meral. trom solis.
REJECTED. Not elfect"" ror removing metal. from lOlls.
I1EJECTED. Prou.. ha. anty been t..ted on a plbt-
lI;a" aystom. Full- eca18 I.c:hnology I. nol yel .y.Uab..
Thl. proceu h.. high "'.OY c:onaamptlon rale. and
8xtenaivo exhault .mlllion CM."UP r.qutr.menll.
REJECTED. Nolelfecl""" lor ramoving metals Irom IOU..
REJECTED. Pibl-ac810 anty. H.. been used succossfully
on highly toxic: inorganic or halogenated organic wa.te.. but
no lull- s.cale detn:)natratons have been completed on
PAH - contamlneted maleriels.
REJECTED. Appllab" only to liquid organic waste. and
linoly dMded.lluldlnbii sludge..
REJECTED. Would nOI be .rtectlve In remevtng the 'our-
and I,.,.-rng PAHI.
REJECTED. Not enecatw lor trutk'lg matll..
REJECTED. Expertmental procell opUon. Plbl- Stela only.
Materials handmg wiU be requi'ad to lIIzel10n the
conlaminatad aoU. bator. pymtyll..
REJECTED. Would b. used WI c:on)unclbn with ether Ireatment
teChnologiis.
RET~NED. Would be used WI conjunctbn with other treetmenl
leChnoiogillil to an.ur.that RAO, are achleYod.
REJECTED. StiU a relatN8ty new proC.II. Not provon to
deer.... I:ha mobWly at PAHe. ContemNlad IOU. ar. primarlty
sand and cobble. wtIh 80~ organlo contaminanls. and not
primarily oroank: wa..I.
REJECTED. Method 10 only applicable to ameli quentnloe
01 nazardou. walta. that.. comp.x and dllicull " Ua.t.
REJECTED. High cool comp8l8d 10 0111., oolldllcatJon
lec:hntque8. U..atty appiild t) wry IOlubta toxic .151...
REJECTED. Woukt be uNd b oon)mclbn wJIb Ir.,rmenl
t~nokJg.IIO"8&11'8. hOrN:tg8ftaoulleed IIrHm.
REJECTED. Would be UNCI In oonjunc:tbn wttn other
r.medlal MChnokJg... oecantarnnalbn walh W8I8t woukl
have to betra.ted.

-------
TABLE 18
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS (SOURCE CONTROL)
(continued)
GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
Off,ita Tn=atrnent
In-Situ Tr..tment
PROCESS OPTION
. RCRA-Appto""d
Oftstts InCinerator
I CO-DI3potalProcn,.. I
.~df~~I.~~. ~
:'eor.m.d"~i:u1 :
". ~.". "-' .
..
PROCESS OESCRIPTION
Oestructon of contaminants by incinerato" in an ottsire
RCRA-apprcYed ccmmerciel incinerator.
SublUtfoce soils vwould be mixed with fuel (5UCh .5
putwrized coal, natUral gas,Ot wood chips) or other
waSles and used as 8 suppk!Jmental fuel source lO
produce sl.am lor. CQnventonal power cycle.
: 1 Land farming (as de$Cribed eatli.r) 81 an appropriate
0"5118Iocaticn.
Enhancement ot indigenous mlcrobiaJ activities by
injecting watlf. oxygen, and nutrient. in" tne
contaminated lOil,.
An oxidizing agent is appled t) or injected Int:l the
contamraarad mil. Wasle. are sublequently oxidized to
teu- toxic byproduct!.
Acid or base Is applied or injoc:ted ink) Iho conlftminatOd
5011 to 8dju$C.lhO pH k) neal 7 (noutll.ll).
A raduclng agent is Injected intO ahe conteminaled
soil to bwor the conlamltlAnc',oxidaton state
and render It lesa toxic or more treatable,
"'.
Suba1anc., are applield (0 the ccntamb1atod soU to
preclpilaZO metals as sulfides. phosphates, and
hydroxides. Suitable soU pH muat be maintained t)
maximize U'18 insolubililyof the precipitates.
:: . <.:: ;::~;~::: ?~ddAt~.n.
."'.~'.'.'.;': .
..~..~.,.."
Ai'I, pumped from well:; $Creened in the
contamlnal8d soil -..olume. As all'n:»lpheric ai" replaces the
removed elr and is in turn pumped out. wiaWo
contaminants are stripped from the 30il and carried k)
tr.atment by tha air 6tream,
~
Thermal
Onsite DlapoaaJ
Oft.it8 OIoPO'"
.:.'N~u~aUza1bt! :
. R.duCli>~,.
'..' .'."
'. ~-~ ~~~~~:~~,I~~ ~~ ::~:.
. So~:.~~~r E.~Ac~~.:,
)1';~~;~~1I>,('.
H
ViUlkaUon
On"",, RCRA IAndfiU
Temporary Storage
RCRA SCUd Wall.
LondfW
ReM Hazarmul
Waste LandlD
I..,.~.'""
'>~..;/;~:)-;.,:.
I- - _.d Pn>c:... Option or Technology
:.:.;:."!- - At,....., _.. Opllon.. Technology
Powdered activated carbon or another chemal agent
II mad wiU'l1:he materlallt'l place. Contaminant
adlOfblo"to agent. 01 re.cts with it. thereby
restricting mlgraten 01 the contaminant.
A ftushing IOlution (solvent or surfactant) I. applied to
the site or I. inJactad inlD the contamlt'la.d ate..
SoIbed contamin81Hs ara sotubilized or emuLlUlied. or
they chelnic811y .eact wllh the flushing sotution and
become mobile. The dls50lvedor re.ctad contamnant.
...e coUeetad through wells or an under drain aystem.
An atTay of electrodes is InHrted r.lo the subsurtace
and electricity Is appled belween \he electrodes. The
current heats the soll.nd causes the 30irs silicate. to
mart. The contamnants 810 Ilithel trappod wtU'ln the
mened ma.... it cools or aro \otOlatilized and captured
by an oft-gal treatment syasem.
The contemtn'ted soils would b. perman.,Uy disposed or
in an onaite RC RA Ian dhll.
Storage of 1'1. contaminated soils.. a tamporary me...re
n W88I8 pia.. container I. or lanka.
DlspoaaJ of Ve.ted or decontamlna.d waste in a lOUd
.a.. IandriII (a. a ap.ciaJ .asle).
Dlapo88lo1 contaminated waste... a RCRA-approY8d
hazardous waite landfill.
61
Paqe
COMMENTS
REJECTED. Pro...n technology for IN dolUuctbo 0'
org.mc contaminanls Not eftecUwa lor treallnenl of .malals.
REJECTED. The aXD'emetv 'ow fuel vaueof the
conlamina&8d IOU. and k)w remedlalbn lewl. requ..ed
lor the PAH contamnant. mike this proc... option
inelieClive.
REJECTED. Uay 1"101 be eomptal'ly effective In tr..tng the
cerclI"Jogenec PAH., Not yel comm8fclaUy avallabit.
REJECTED. Site contami\ant. prlm'city n shallow lOils
(0-2 te.l) or in laolated er... 01 6nwmadlate 10111 (5-10 'e.t).
Uey not be com,lelely aftecOw n treating tour- or five-ring
PAHs or melals.
REJECTED. Not a proven applicaton for PAH contamnated
soil. 50 me contaminantl produce degradatDn product.
mor. oxic than thei' prlCUt80rs.
REJECTED. s... 80U pH II wbhln neutral ranoa (6.0 to a.5).
1 hufolore. UN 01 thll proce.. oPt~n I, unnace....ry.
REJECTED. eU.cttven... In treatlngorgankl has not bean
ploved. Moll commonty uNd In tr.aUng heavy matals.
REJECTED. Not appUc:aba 10 the organic conlamnanta
in Ihe aubaurface 8OU.. ExperlnwU.1 proce.. opUon 101
lOlls. "oil. commonty used" treallng heavy m_tall.
REJECTED. Would not be -"ectMi n treatng the
semNolame organic: contaminantl., the mU., whk:h have
very iow vapor prllsur...
REJECTED. Not proven. especlalty with regard b
Iong-tatm ..tecUY8n...on organk: contaminants. Periodic
re.pplicatbn 01 the aabittz.atbn aoenii. requlrad.
REJECTED. Stt. contamJnanta prlmarity In shaUow lOit,
(0- 2 f..t) and In ilOwed .,ea. or Int8t'media.. IOU.
(5-10Ie.0. The collected, contaminated materaal mull bo
It..t.d or dlapoMd of.
RETAINED. Prol:8.. h.. wottted very..U In the Plbt Scale and
can potenUaUy tr.at both organk: and inorganic: contaminantl.
RETAINED. Require. 'ong-..,m operation.. maintenance.
and MCUriIy.
RETAJNED. Not a ....~t remedial rNaaure, but may
be u..d In conjunction with 0111... t8C:1\no'og"', ...ch a.
aluny bbVeattlW'll or 011811:8 Charmal u.atmnet.
RETAINED. Would be uMd In conJuncUon with otrl8t
lachnotog... Treat.d matarial ~u1d be requked to meet
the rem.cU..1 &CIbn Obledtv88 befor. II could be dlapo18d.
RETAINED. WoukSnot.reducelhel.oxlc:ltyol the
contamlnan. or the wlume of conlamlnal8d IOU.
Addbional rernedlal acUon might ultima_tv be required,

-------
TABLE 19
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
G EN ERA!.
RESPONSE
ACTION
REMEClA!.
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS 0PT10N
H
H
No AcDon
No Action
None
Sta8lt-lmpCIMd Permit
Re'ltrcUons
INitutional Control.
;~I'" NoPlo8llor1
, ...
.::::}:\:g~~:~~~.~~ ;.:.i~:~~.
COnI&Inrnenl
1f:9'~!1¥..
_Web
I~W8118
:.::~,t~j~:::~~~1;!~:[~\
1--I10....od """....Option ""T-...IDIIY
. .1- - IIojoc18d Procoa Option "" T_IDIIY
PROCESS CESCRIPT10N
SftD i, kif In iO eJ:lsling SlaU'.
AU property awl the contaminated ponM:t'l cI the
SQul,rWQuld be pUOChesod. and ground waler usage
would be r.srictod.
Co..au place reasonable limits on use and WIIhdrawal
d grOUnd water.
SCDHECt8sUicts U$8 d ccr4aminated gramd water.
ReSTrt:tions 81' incorpa81ed iJ"lo propeny deeds.
SCOHECr..uk:t'lt'e driling d nowweUsincolt'e
conlBm\M16d ~lon d the .qulet b'j requiring
drlllng perma..
..
Canmon taw and :.C3ll1Oty "homes have .~hctIV10
allocate ground wlter righi' and use.
Ccwamlrw.d .alar supply Is r.p&oced by a
notICCl'lWnlnated waler supply. OptJons Include use
d audaeeWI18t. bOC'ded wat.fl'. home treatment una.
hook-up 104 public water s~t.m. and InslaUaJ:iond
newwels.
Mow residents 10 mOlels a epartmen1s during
the remodl.ation. Pay tor lOdging and aher
oc.a-of-pocket expense$.
Mo... reltderCs 10 netN homes. Paylor mOling CO$1I,.
temporary hOuSr.g and moats. mOl'tgao. tnlyCONns.
..illy CQ"\MClions. and naN home ClO$ing cO${$.
long-linn moniiOting d the cOt'IIamlnated ground
wat.. and the treeled, dischatgOd waler.
Placement d . cap d low -permeabu.y m818'iaJ O\I8r
the area a:cupied by tho contam1na1ed grCJJnd WIll..
pkMne to minlmtze the IrlilfJaDon d aurface water.
Cap rype.lnctude: nalr.. '01. ciay. ..pt... uphallc
concnse. concrClO, loU-,yrC'M!Slic membra,. RCRA
mulloyet,ond use d chernlcolooalanl_1Izen.
I_d 0 _eal bon.. d low "'""'-~
around the perin""er d tho corumtrated ground
W81« pun. 10 mirimize tN migralion d
cCdamin8t8d grCIJnd w8.!ef beyond the boundaries d
!/IooxJ3Olng _ino1la1. llarrlet.ype.lrcludo:
8OIJ- and cern.. -bentc:Ne II""Y w&I1&. lhoed piUng.
groe.acurtaiN and riJraUno boom, and reck
grO"':"'\.
REJECTED. Pubic wator .upply already "'illzed by
local ,0Sclara.
REJECTEQ PubIC w8Io, ,uppty alteady LClllzed by
1cx:.1 rosi4enla.
RETAINED. Woutd be uud tomontor ato condtions
and u. GleeN,." d DIrer remedial technologies.
REJECTED. Copping _1Iw OnIro .... _..,Iod by
the pUn. .. not feulbil bICau88 th8 coramtnlt8j pl~e
_nd.df.... Thowrtotyd 1oncI_In!/looroa.
which "tud., ratlderc.. cRy 1IrWt.. and bua1neue. would
allO make capping dlftcua. . wcUO be n8tty mpcallb.. to
molnlaln 1110 InIogrtty d !/Io - ,..., on 0XI0nd0d period.
REJECTED. I.-lotion d a \IOItU\...... arcund!/lo
al'll"8 area oc:c~8c:I byth8 c:aumNl8d ground w8!8r
plumoll noIl_1o -- !/Ioc""",_d ground
w..... plumo _nd. dido. Tho vorIoIy d Iond
use in thI.,.., which IncbJdea,..idanc8&. cly.....t.. and
bualnnM. would 1.180 maQ 1nIIaWng. ..ucat b8nw
dJrIcut. &s8nItve r8rCUhg d &&J8iaa ",ay be ,.qu..d.
Aba u.r. .. not an ~81CU18 ccrilnlng ..,., lit U. ,ia
which a wrUl:al barrier ccuIcI be . 08d trco..
REJECTED. Nd pracll:ol d...ollw
doplh d IIw plumo. PmI8rIy_lcr_-
oppllcolbno.
REJECTED. Nd proctlcoJ ,...1Iw doplh 1Iw. roqulr-
conoamlnar'L &pormOlUl pr- option.
REJECTED. Tho COnIOmInolion 10 100- far"'''- - d
.....uloco drains. In addtlor\ hooYy"-"lo conlamlnara
auch.. mangan888 may clog th8 draina.
RETAINED. CootS bo .-din ~ will InjoctIon
woblO_h~p-
RETAINEC. Could bo _In conjuclon wlll-"-
...blO_1\1droufIc p-
REJECTED. Nil oft_f... aqul.. - tlan 20
1-. ", the 9nor. w... OI8poaaJ I'" ccrcamln800n
8JII8nd8 10 d8Pb d 81".55'....

-------
G EN ERAl
RESPONSE
ACTION
Cauirwnerc
(Cartinuod)
Remoo.al
Onsile Tr.tm..
~I
."
TABLE 19
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
(continued)
REMEDIAl
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
H Surl... Codmo" (addaIJen pond).
A .'-8I8C8 mpcxnc1ment wlh a LcJwo .Ultac. 81'88-10-
wUna r81io (nanow and deep) is UMd 10 increuo
degt8dation ection by anaercDc baclarla.
Mi::n:Dgantsm, react wilh high -,"nOlh wutes In a
clo8d W* devoid d axyger\ Hydrolysis and
term8Ulion d WUle$ produce m8Zhan8 and carbon
d-.
Ccrurninalad grcundw8let .cuId be merod wilh nuarierc$ and
IlIed Inoa aoI baa.a wl..au IIllt;robc:.woukJ Uu...roylho
c~""'" Moly luq...u IOJcJillO wah Qpplopr~ nlil.:ld~.
Paqe
63
COMMENTS
REJECTED. Thelong-tenn "ecdw,... d thiI ~ion is
unc.rain
RETAlNEO. MIOtt be UNd onsltotor .Uttac. w818r
Col8ctlor\ in conJunc:tia'I wth CICh8r AlmeeU..1
technologila.
RETAJNEC. Migtt be used onstte taCOWI' bald spea or
ramediated areas. in conjunc:1icn wlh ether rem«s1a1
technotogita.
RET AlN EO. Would be used to rocowr corumlnated
groundNater.
REJECTED. Net tft8OCtwfor aqul81'3 deeper ttan 20
,.... N. tho Elm.... W.... Diap~.to, cc:rl&minllion
Ulends (0 deplha d at"". 55 feel
REJECTED. SubllJl18C8 dralno... "'" 1It_'er
.qul.,. deeper than 3Ot88t. Althe Elmore Wute 0isp0l81
,... corumlnaticndllndltodlplhad .,_1t55188t.
Subsuaface drainl ".ge:nerallyncc C08t-«teclN8
compared with CllraCtion _lis. Insoluble corumlnarD
haavilr U8n w818r may ctog Ue drains.
REJECTED. 011.... corumirw.1'O may reqw.
...aI dn....,..ddli¥8a. WouId~dftlcuitomonicr:
Mlgl't 188d to unc:ortroUsd m'gr81lon d ccruminara
REJECTED. ~.OC8S8 i8 noI,ubb..tor low b5o&ogicat oxygen
demand (8OD < 2 mgA.). nwient-delicJent water.
REJECTED. PrOC8S8 tI ncc,ubble'OIIow blolcgcsl Ql(ygen
demond (BOD < 2 mgll), nutri8" -def1c:1ent_.
REJECTED. Proc... net lukablelOl tow blotoQical GXytIln
demond (BOD < 2 mgJl.). ......... -dellclent ........
REJECTED. PrOC8l8I8 noI: 8UltabietOllaw bk*Jgica' oxygon
demand (800 < 2 mgJ\.). rdf.,.-deflc... waI.r.
RETN.NED. 8I8C:""In"88Ing _blologlc8laxygen demend.
nwi8n - ".ic.,. W88I8 8It88mL
REJECTED. _. noI.ubblo'orlow blologlc8l ""W.n
_nil (BOD < 2 mgJl.). -... -cl8llc1ent_.
REJECTm _. noI.ubbi8'or low blologlcll ""Won
damond (BOD < 2 mgJl.). ........ -deficient _r.
REJECTED. Proc:_. noI.uil8bi8'or low blologlcll_n
_nd (BOD < 2 mgJl.). ........ --Iclent-.
REJECTED. Pr0C88 is not 8uil.abiei0l1ow b5ologal crygen
J.arnand (000 < 2 mgA.). nWianl-dafic." walaf.

-------
TABLE 19
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
(continued)
G EN ERAL
RESPONSE
AC110N
REMEDAl
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OP110N
Phase Separabon
Filrolion
(t~I~'~
N.....-
~
a-D1caJ Redl.l:tion
-
a-D1caJ -tp-
I--_ed _O~orT_"vY
...I--Rejecled _Option or T_"vY
PROCESS DESCRIP110N
Use d pl.ant a _"Inal specieltoaec\.muia.
c::ontImll'\8ntS In tteir tISSueS. Specie..,. tww~
"'nd cbsposed d in8"8PprOWdI.shton Mos
commonly used lor heavy me.' c:orcamtnlWcn.
This process combines phYllc:al tre8J:mert with
blodegradalia"'I. Powde'ed aCINated carbon is added
10 an 8ctMlIed sludge pro:eu, achMMng greater
remoo.elelicien:ies than eiUwt pro:esa aiQnI.
Rem owl d physcaUy dlalnet phase. from tht wu&8
stream bylioCatiot\ skimming. d8c:&I'I.1ng.
coagulBliof\ ILoc.clJatiol'\ a Hditn.ratof\
namo",,1 d suspended partlc... by PUling the Uquid
waste sueam through. granular a -.bri:: med..
eonwntiO"l8I treatment: method..
Mbr.ng d large VQUmos d air. gu. a 8tMm wIh thI
waste suum in 8 packed coll.mn or tITough d"used
aeration 10 uansfer votBtile organics 10 the ait.
$epararion d 3ubs18nc:e:I by boiling. Groundwa8l' 18 bcUed
and condeM8d 10 sep8l818 CIA the men YOIa1iII compawrt..
which .fallen recQ\ered and ueated..
RemO\otlI d modium- 10 high-mdecular-welgtt
sol..s 'rom sOlution by 8 semipermeab" membrane
under a low-pressure gradient
RemO'l8I d IQIN- tomedlurn-mc»ecular-welgtc
sohles from sof..mon by a semipermeab. membl"&l1l
under. hidh-pressur8 gradient.
CarbO'\ Irom :'\'\81"''815 SUCh as wood Of coall:a generally
placed Intoe lilled -bed re8el0", The liquid was-. mAm
is thon pessed It."cug" the t)l,d. and the organk: corarnlraru
are removed 'vB ed'C:WI)QOtI moct'antlms.
Process is .imlla' 10 c.,l)('W'I edsorp1iot\ wia'la resin
repbclng t'- Cert)O>" .. U'W absorb8'W.
Tho liquid waal. --- . P..Md over an ion
CDChange r..", In.'''' .. -- DOund tott8 rasin are
achangedla ~ ..-.., .....1II88Ift u..t h8Y8.
aimllarchatO' '''''',''.L_' ,.~tCC8"'lo88dto
temO\oO inorganc car.
Slabe CdIokl.-II>8I"'L.. ... '_008JI 0,.,.1,.
cenlr'ugalf~ ~ to,~... ~ .G8hOtIin8
cylindrical.......
/Ii is dissOlWlG ........ - .- ...-.d8 ~.
U..i'lorm.'" c..~- -- .......... me-
whenthaau....... .'.-.'.181 -.IIIIIIIP8811C1f'1
chamber. n. t:>~..- e'. ~-......., ...... and
emulUiedOl\o'-'- "'~..'''''-''-
TwoUqukb.. _.- '-. -....... ~ ."WCS
Uq~ thai.. ...-. '.. ...... .........IId.
ncXb"tm",_--- ... ..- ~ :""..1
~sohJ. ---- . - - -.. ~ "'--=-",01
chamlcat m..".
A c:hemlcal r..Q8"8 - ...,...." '.,; .... .... ....... 10
..... \lie pI<.
An a:ddizlno .genl(~ IDlana ""'008'" D8f--'
pennanga..... .c.) .. ."..s...... ......~
and rnb::ad with the .... -- !"tw ~..,..
818 th8n cddlzad .Ihet 10 ........- ~~. or
uamaz.ty tocamon dialrd8 ana - IIIkIIII
carrrnonty uaed to r.mow ph8fta8IL C'fIIi"". and
havy mellb Iram the wau. 8IJ88rft
A l'8du::tng age,. is mixed wlh IN ..... ureem to tower tho
Q:IddaUon.... d tte W811. and ...... ..... taDC a
mar. tratablls. ConmonJy UMd 10' '-'" metal r8moval.
W.. b I8h..f8J8d wlh oxygen 10 remo.,e bC8lttOn8l-
bClfcn hydrotysJa. This prcx:.8u tI tt'll Mand8ld
craun.. tor won8nd mangene.. tem0\4lltorn w818'.
Ii c:h8meal.gen: is mtxod wllh lhe w..... "'88m 10
larm an~" ptodUCIU\Q1 C8nbol~CN8dI,Oft1
1h8..... ltJurn by I8UtinQ. MOIl ccrnmonty uMd 10
remor. hMvy mMaIa "Ofn u. w.UD 8b8Gm.
Paqe
64
COMMENTS
REJECTED. Process is nee .uilablefor!eM b~ogic.1
demand (800 < 2 mQJlJ. nwillf'l(-oeIiciercw8l8f'.
REJECTEQ Proc_s Is not suilab18lor kM' biological
demand (800 < 2 mgJU, n~it"-Gelic... W811t.
RETAINED. Mayb. UMd in conJuncaionwith est.t
tchncHogeL
R ET...,N EO. Maybe used Inconlunc:lion with ahot
te:hno'ogilL
RETAINED. ElleotMo In ""'''''0; """.. orga-
Irem grcamdwa18r.
REJECTEn Ner lIfocMln InorganJc& IWd
to imp8emerl.
REJECTED. Nerllflc.,,'orlowecnce__d .oxlr;
subatanc..
REJECTED. Ncr: ttlici8rclor low cc:ncar.raUall d tarlc
.u:bSUI"IC8S.
RETAINED. Sleet...,or rem...1 d an t'" organic
conamir8ra 81 U. Elmare Waite Oiapou!.ita
REJECTED. o.~ d8Ia ar. inalolficierl to da~inI U.
reliabDy d tt. joIIIoce8 In tratn; ale COlUmn"'.
RETAINED. EII_lnremO\Ang meta. Iran the
gr_.
REJECTEn Ner applC&blo tot" ground_.
e......._. - "'.- -\lie gound-
water and.,. net ncoDCIIdaI ~.;.p.n.1on
REJECTED. Ncs -_.!O\IIe gr-... eontatnlnaru
whCh.... not auspend8d eoId. ar emutal.d oUt. The
conamlnarU d concem.,. d~d voasl. aganic
coramlnaru and dl:uolwd m"lL
REJECTED. Tho_yd ground_eontatnlnaru
mayraq'" - -.. Thogr_may
bcoma conllmln8a8d due to ralduatl from ttw
-- ooMIrt(.~
RETAIN EO. May be UMd u . prwusm.,. 8t8p ar to
tr..d._-
RETAINED. EJf8ctM for rtmCMI d fNnga--lran
11'-"'"
RETAINED. MlglObe_l...remOl8fd m"lIlran
groundrrw8l8f.
RETAINED. _'orremOl8fd __'ran
gr-.
11ETAINEDo. Btect_lnramcMng mealafran groundwaw.

-------
TABLE 19
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
(continued)
GENERAL
ReSPONse
"C11ON
ReMf1UI.
T£Q1HOI.OOY
PRocess OPTION
. 011... T-
.. .'nStu'~~~f;);
c::J--- _O,-..T_-
C::J--1IojocI8d -0,- ..T_-
PROCE:SS DESCRIPTION
It. ch8mCal agerl 11..:"" IOdUn r8PNN.iide1a
mi:8c:l w8:h UW --1W8m 10 Mr1> h880Qen aam.''''''
chbin8l8d~
Wuze 8Ir8&m .. reactId wt:h.... 8\ the Pf818f'C8 d
ctwnCalag81'118t high *"~ and pt8IIYn
to'ann nont8aIOOUI b~
CcnoIn-... -oo,ed by IJIIIrr8dIl1lcn.
Ccft8mirI8r< m__"'- lJII_y. changing
IN moeull', er.;y.... and ~ . cillwe
-1.$)--
Hydr_por- ....... "-"""'-
&g8fI. \88GtDCllXSa. ccnuninatU '" ~
- IN lrr8diolion.
A dteCt CwrenI. Kraas ccnaumatt" ~0CSn ~ an
tnaoLtH8 lon matrb:..,. 8daclD8 and PfiKO"" h8a¥y
me8118ndeorne ag.. rft8lalltrcrn the...,. TN pI8C~""
woutd th8n be 88P8f8&8d Iran the -18' 1IIam.
The corcamtrwl8d waat. a1I88m .. _eCl en large drying bed..
b8 voUne .. th8nNdu=ed OIllimNed ltWough ~
ca..-d by 808r "tng.
All preen.. irNoMnO combustion d U..,..
811--'
~ d «oanes in an ..,.zer uncI8t tUgh
1Imptt8lW8 ancs prel1Ute.
Ow:icSaIiOn d U. w8$l8s in . supercllcal enti'orm.-t
(31. F and21881mJ.
O8Itrucion d U. COnQmll1.l.s bYllEinor01ion8S In
d.1Ii8 RCRA-lIc8n.ocJ IUclnul'.8CW'.
I:)In&ncion d IhO C'onwtnlt\OrlIs by blodotJr.cs.ucA
phy8IcaL CII CN"nc.\ me'hod....n epprOWl&1''';'day.
0pD0tI1Dl1on d 8MO,..".,..1 ccndliar'tl by IniIcIfto
CIIrygIf\ ft&81Iru. and (If t'8C...".) mi:tOcr'ganiMll
no""""'K8 (0 enhance merClbiai degradal60n
d ItW oor8II'I""'..
All II p&8ftP8d "'olhe .qul., CO ltIip wlllilit arg8nel
from thI gn:amd ."8r.
T..ct8a .,.tlSl8l! ...'" a1>8nnt8t>18 me4u... hi N8CtI
wtIh 01 trapa ccnamltl8nc. .. CCII'Ufn8n8l8d ground ...
'lcM8~theU.ntl\
An arilldng... is 6n,oG8d inlo the ground"'.
..... 0idizIN1h8 corum..... toc.mon dk80e
-_.
-" 110. It ............... .- _to-
.. pH to- 7 (IINraO.
.. ood1IIIno _It"""" _1118"""" to -...
_.____a__..
-_It.
A odII!IIlt........ ............,.. to-.
...... d aoaram... kto8 IIrgIcIwDIr:aI
""""'"",-\d _. -...--It_-
------
-,d__toon_-
-....".

~d__Dy~""-,,
--
IIioch8rgId __Dy_-1rIo
~-f_-
Paae
65
co....an.
REJECTED. ThiI prCX8t it....,.y UMd to hi' PCB&.
NOIepplicabie to;rauncI-- ClDfUlftWWU d conwn.
REJE~o. Nd appli:.8D881O COf88fft"'" d carart\.
REJECTeD. HIS 8I.....,..1r8IIing IN"gone
COI'8mNfta It Ekncn W_~""
RETAINED. BI8CIMIlarr8ftMMtd tNwo8I888C1ganicS
'ram orauna-a-. UMaalano anybRtOty.~
"'\18 to be f8m0il8CS Mere mil pr0C888.
REJECTED. Hd~~'orl8fftCMld ~tfcm
0101""".
REJECTEO. Hdpt8ClCald..tOlt8v0Um8c1 grcund-
",oa. 19Q"'1ng Ir8Uft8t. ... addbot\ Pf8C1p~k)n In
Gte.- UCIIMd8 fM8ft"" MeCiGl'lldon Df " ire,.. .....Uy.
REJECTED. He! ptICtC.aJ h,' cIb.M. 8cp0u8 wU18
au.....
AEJECTEO. Call d Khit""C!and malr88tnt'1g .....d
-.nJ)8f'8l'''' and CM'88&A:8 tor dDu18 gr~
wouti De ~."'-ccmpar.d 10 ~1On8I phyKal
............
REJECTfo. Cool d "'""""'9''''' malrt&lMg
.uperCft~ condltona Iei' cU&uIe ariOUftOlw.... wOUtd
be aceai\lll CClftP8f8d 10 CCI'MI"iw8aI physi:al1r8an8r1.
nrJECTEQ N'" pl8Ctal tel' high voUne. dJl\M 8qutCUI
WU... "'-"'8.
REJECTED. Nd ptKlUllar hIgh~. dlule.
aqUMUe .... "88m. wt8n -- u...... .. . v8bt8
~....
R£lECTEIl HOI pqcICII'" "'g.a,,","....
_1I1IIo__.~- Typlol"
-,......- orgoN:o.
R£lECTEIl DopdId___"""_'"
np_dftlcut
R£lECTEIl H..-",'_d "'_d
ltenct'll'8Qw.d.
RE.lECT£I1 -----""
---....-- --
d..._dlllo__a_1I8
dfticul to.....""" ..... b8IM8n Its
-_.""~.
R£lECTEIl ""----10Il1o""'--- III
...--. 1II&pHlt-...7, ""_10--
R£lECTEIl __111'-''''''- - ...
-~ -~- ...-......
-
R£lECTEIl ""----10Il1o"""'-- II>
".--.
RE.IECTEI1 No_- _Dody_1o II
u. -- QIopa8I-
RETNHfI). 1llgll1Io_"''''''---
---
RETNHED. 1llgll1Io.~-" ......
~Oft"'''''d .....,_.

-------
TABLE 19
INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
(continued)
GENERAL
RESPOI
-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 67
and South Carolina Ambient Water Quality Criteria for surface
waters.
Separate remedial alternatives were not developed for surface
water. It is anticipated that remediation of the surficial
aquifer will eliminate or reduce the concentrations of VOCs
entering Wards Creek.
7.1
Source Control Remedial Alternatives
The technologies considered potentially applicable to soil
contamination (Table 18) were further evaluated on the
effectiveness and implementability criteria. Table 20 lists
those which passed this final screening, and outlines the
. technology components of each of six remedial alternatives
proposed for soil remediation.
The six alternatives are:
Alternative SS1:
Alternative SS2:
Alternative SS3:
Alternative SS4:
Alternative SS5:
Alternative SSG:
No Action
Soil-Synthetic Membrane Cap
Soil Stabilization
Soil Washing, Stabilization,
Disposal
In-Situ Vitrification
Offsite Disposal
and Offsite
Each of the alternatives is discussed below. All source control
alternatives except Alternative SSl, No Action, will meet the
remediation goals presented in Section 9.1 of this ROD.
"O&M costs" refer to the costs of operating and maintaining the
treatment described in the alternative, for an assumed period of
30 years. All of the Alternatives except SS1 (No Action) and SS6
(Offsite Disposal) have anticipated O&M costs. Such costs would
include, primarily, periodic inspections of the Site, except in
the case of Alternative SS2 (Soil~Synthetic Membrane Cap), for
which annual O&M costs will include Site mowing and maintenance
of a security fence. O&M costs were calculated using a five
percent discount rate per year.

All alternatives except SS1, No Action, and SS2, Soil-Synthetic
Membrane Cap, include verification soil sampling to insure that
all soil contaminated at concentrations exceeding the remediation
goals is removed for treatment or disposal. Additionally, all
alternatives except Alternatives SS5 (In-Situ Vitrification) and
SSG (Offsite Disposal) include six Five Year Reviews to be
conducted during the assumed 30-year O&M period. The cost,
$41,700, is included with the capital costs but was calculated
using the same five percent discount factor as O&M costs.

-------
TABLE 20
COMPONENTS OF SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
General Technology Process Ama   ALTERNAllVES  
Response  Option Impacted SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6
Action         
No Action No Action None Entire Sits X     
Institutional Site Access and Fencing 5elected  X    
Controls Land Use  Am as      
 Restrictions Land Use Restrlcllons Contaminated  X    
   5011      
 Environmental Air, Soli, and Surface Contaminated  X X X X X
 Monitoring Water Monitoring 5011      
Contslnmsnt Capping Soli-Synthetic Membrane Contaminated  X    
  Cap 5011      
 Surface Controls Surface Water Contemlnated  X    
  Dive rslon/Collectlon System 5011      
  Revegetation Contemlnated  X X X X X
   5011      
 Dusl/Vapor Waler Contaminated   X X  X
 Suppression  5011      
  Membranes/Tarps Contaminated   X X  
   5011      
Removal Excavation Contaminated 5011 Contaminated   X X  X
   5011      
 Chemical Soli Washing Contaminated    X  
Onslte   Soli      
Treatmsnt Physical/Chemical pozzolan/Portland Cement Contaminated   X X  
  Solis Stabilization 5011      
In-Situ Thermal Vitrification Contaminated     X 
Treatment   Soli      
OnSlte Disposal Temporary Storage Coptamlnated   X X  
Disposal   Soli      
Oll5lte Disposal Approved RCRA Solid Contaminated    X  
Dlsposel  Waste Landfill 5011      
 Disposal Approved RCRA Hazardous Contamlneted      X
  Waste Landfill Soli      
Aile rnatlve 551 '" No Action
AlIsrnatlve 552 .. Soils - Synthetic Membrane Cap
AlierneUvlI 883 - pozzolonlPortiond Cemont Solis Stabilization
Allernatlve SS4 '" Soils wash and stabilize onslte, landlill oll5lte
Alternative 5S5 '" In-situ vltrmcatlon
Allernatlve SSs - Excavote, landfill 0"1110
tt;I
......
S
o
11
(I)
~
PI~
!II (I)
rtO
(I) 0
11
Co.
....
tII 0
"OH-I
o
tilt'
'tIPI(I)
PI ...... 0
....
(I) en tII
.... ....
cnrto
co(l)=,

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
paae 69
Certain major ARARs are applicable to each source control
alternative. Alternative SS2 would not comply with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) landfill closure
requirements, in 40 CPR Part 264 and in the South Carolina
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (SCHWMR), Reg. 61-79.264,
which require removal of contamination "to the maximum extent
possible." Alternatives SS3, SS4, SS5 and SS6 would, assuming
successful implementation, comply with the following major
applicable ARARs. All of these alternatives involve materials
handling and potential generation of particulates, and/or VOC
emissions from treatment, and thus, must comply with the South
Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) which implement the
South Carolina Pollution Control Act, and the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean
Air Act. Alternatives SS4 and SS6 include landfill disposal of
hazardous wastes and, therefore, could be required to comply with
RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs, 40 CPR Part 268, SCHWMR
61-79.268) if the soils are shown to be hazardous wastes subject
to land disposal requirements (40 CFR Part 261, SCHWMR
61-79.261). Finally, u.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
EPA (40 CFR Part 262), and SCDHEC (SCHWMR 61-79.262) regulations.
governing the transportation of hazardous materials would also
apply to alternatives SS4 and SS6 if the soils prove to be
hazardous waste.
As detailed in Section 5.2.1, the estimated volume of
contaminated soil requiring remediation is 650 cubic yards.
Figure 11 delineates the area of contaminated soil.
7.1.1
Alternative SS1: No Action
CERCLA requires that EPA consider a -No Action" alternative to
serve as a basis against which other alternatives can be
compared. Under this alternative, no actions are taken and no
funds eXPended for control or cleanup of contamination associated
with the contaminated soil. Becauae contaminants would be left
on-site under this alternative, a review is required every five
years in accordance with CERCLA. This constitutes the only cost
involved and is considered an O~M coat.
Under this alternative, Site conditions would remain unchanged.
Thus, no ARARs would be achieved under this alternative.
Contaminated soil at the surface would continue to present an
unnacceptable human health risk now, and in the future.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
o
S41.700
$41,700

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 70
7.1.2
Alternative SS2: Soil-Synthetic Membrane Cap
This alternative would include the construction of a soil-
synthetic membrane cap over the contaminated area, revegetation,
and surface drainage controls. In addition, this alternative
would include the use of institutional controls to prevent direct
contact and incidental ingestion of contaminated soil by the
general public. To reduce the opportunity for exposure, a six-
foot security fence would be installed around the contaminated
area, and warning signs would be displayed on the fences to alert
the public of potential hazards. Future uses of the property
would be limited by applying deed restrictions. State and local
agencies would be responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of these restrictions. Periodic air, soil and
surface water monitoring would also be continued onsite to insure
compliance with RAOs.

The soil-membrane cap would consist of a synthetic liner
installed over the contaminated soil area, a drainage layer, and
a geotextile fabric liner placed over the drainage layer to
prevent clogging. Finally, the geotextile fabric would be
covered by a two-foot soil and topsoil cover. The soil and
drainage layers protect the liner layer from heat and other
environmental effects. The topsoil layer of the cap would be
graded to a gentle slope designed to match current S~te
topography. Some grading of the contaminated soil may be
required to achieve such slopes. A vegetative cover of native
grass would be established to minimize cap erosion. Surface
drainage channels would be constructed around the perimeter of
the cap to collect surface runoff and water from the drainage
layer. The collected water would be discharged to an offsite
storm water collection point.
Since the contaminated soils would not be treated, judging
alternative's effectiveness would include monitoring Site
groundwater. Therefore, the alternative includes periodic
groundwater monitoring for an assumed period of 30 years.
Periodic maintenance of the soil-membrane cap and surface
drainage systems would also be required during the 30-year
period.

Design of the cap is estimated to require two to three months.
Construction would be complete in approximately 2 months.
this
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$135,000
73.800
$208,800

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore. Waste Disposal Site
Page 71
7.1.3
Alternative SS3: Soil Stabilization
Soil stabilization is a process involving the addition of
Portland cement, chemical binders, and water to the excavated
contaminated soil. The soils and binders are then thoroughly
mixed with machines typically used for concrete mixing, or they
could be mixed in place with backhoe equipment. After mixing is
complete, the soils are then backfilled into the original
excavation area and allowed to cure and harden. The curing
reaction produces a dense, strong, low-permeability block,
usually referred to as a "monolith." The monolith would then be
covered with one foot of clean native soil. Because the process
increases the volume of treated soil, the backfilled area would
be graded to provide proper drainage. A vegetative stand would
then be established over the treated area. Finally, Site access
would be restricted by fencing selected areas.
This alternative, and all of the soil remediation alternatives
below, would require that appropriate and carefully planned
materials handling procedures be used during the excavation and
handling of soil. For this alternative, such measures would
likely include the following. First, air monitoring during
excavation may necessitate that workers use Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA) Level C protective clothing and
masks. Water would be used to minimize dust emiss~ons during
soil excavation, transport, and handling. Stockpiled soils and
debris would be covered by tarps or plastic sheeting to minimize
dust emissions and runoff. Finally, during the curing process,
heat generation caused by chemical reactions may cause emission
of VOCs to the air. If this occurs, the curing area might
require use of a ventilation and carbon adsorption system to
capture emissions.
The initial excavation of contaminated soil would include all
soil containing contaminants at levels greater than the soil
remediation goals. Treated soils would be considered to achieve
remedial action objectives if they do not adversely affect
groundwater, as determined through testing by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP). However, using
transport modeling, a more appropriate standard than the TCLP may
be developed in the remedial design phase.

Bench-scale treatability testing would be necessary at the start
of remedial design to verify that the remediation goals could be
achieved. During implementation, which would require
approximately 9 to 12 months, surface water runoff and air
emissions would also be monitored to ensure that the RAOs were
being met.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 72
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$234,600
7.800
$242,400
7.1.4 Alternative 554: Soil Washina. Stabilization. and Offsite
Disposal
Alternative 554 involves excavating the contaminated soils,
screening and separation of large debris, soil washing the
. contaminated soil, stabilizing the remaining highly-contaminated
soil fraction, and transporting the stabilized soils to a RCRA
solid waste landfill. After soil washing, the treated soil
(approx~ately 90 percent of the original volume) would be
backfilled onsite after testing to verify that remediation goals
have been met.
Soil washing involves placing screened and sized contaminated
soils into a high energy contacting and mixing vessel where the
soils are scrubbed with a washing fluid. The sand and coarser
material in the soil usually requires only this primary washing
step, but can be rewashed, if necessary. The more highly-
contaminated clay and silt fractions are hydraulically separated
and sent to a special washer module for more intensive washing.
The more aggressive washing in this stage removes the highly
adsorbed contaminants. After this step, all particie~ larger
than a certain size (approximately 0.074 cm) are rinsed,
dewatered, and combined with the coarse material from the initial
washing step, stockpiled, tested against the remediation goals,
and eventually backfilled. The remaining fines are then
dewatered and removed. Depending on the specific soil, this
remaining highly-contaminated fraction is generally 10 to 15
percent of the initial volume of contaminated soils. These
solids would then be stabilized, by the process described above
under Alternative 553. Stabilization could occur onsite or
offsite. After curing/hardening, the stabilized soil would be
tested for leachability utilizing TCLP, and then disposed of at
a RCRA hazardous waste landfill or RCRA non-hazardous solid waste
landfill according to the results.
Prior to being washed, the contaminated soil would be excavated
and undergo solids separation and sizing. Techniques could
include screens, shredders, and grinders for removal of large
stones and debris so that they could be appropriately treated.
Such debris could be washed in a separate mixer, or be
decontaminated by high-pressure steam washing.

In addition to the activities described above, Site access would
be restricted by fencing selected areas until remedial activities
were completed. Materials handling procedures would be as
described above for Alternative 553, including the use of soil

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 73
moisture to min~ize dust emissions during soil excavation,
transport, and handling; and tarps or plastic sheeting over
stockpiled soil to min~ize dust emissions and runoff. Both soil
washing and stabilization could potentially generate VOC
emissions, so that systems for emissions capture and treatment
might be necessary. Surface water runoff and treated debris
would also be monitored to ensure that the RAOs were being met.

After treatment activities have been completed, clean native fill
material would be placed in the excavation. The entire Site
would then be graded to provide proper drainage, and a natural
vegetation stand would be established to min~ize erosion.
Implementation would take approx~ately 9 to 12 months.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$230,200
7,800
$238,000
7.1.5
Alternative SS5: In-Situ Vitrification
In-situ vitrification (ISV) is a process whereby contaminated
soils are melted in place, binding the contaminants in a glassy,
solid matrix. Melting is produced by a high-voltage electric
current passed between electrodes placed into the soil. Melt
temperatures in the range of 16000 C to 20000 C destroy organic
substances in the soil and produce gases which migrate upwards to
the surface. The gases would be trapped by use of a hood over
the treatment area, and then routed through an air emissions
treatment system. Inorganic contaminants remain trapped within
the glass matrix formed by the melt. The solid mass created
after the melt cools is extremely resistant to leaching and more
durable than concrete.
The I5V process would cause a 10 to 20 percent reduction in the
soil volume being treated, therefore limited backfilling of clean
soil would be needed to fill this void. Regrading to support
revegetation would be required to prevent erosion and reduce
infiltration. Since this alternative involves a monolith,
s~ilar to that described in Alternatives 553 and S54, verifying
that this alternative meets the remedial action objectives would
involve leachability testing using the TCLP, or a more
appropriate standard if one is developed in the remedial design
phase.

ISV is an innovative technology that has been proven effective in
treating both organically-contaminated and inorganically-
contaminated soil. Operational-scale units are available, but
have not yet been utilized on a full scale basis at a Superfund
site. Therefore, before full scale ~plementation of ISV,
samples would be collected for bench scale treatability studies,

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 74

to verify that the technology will achieve the remedial action
objectives. Implementation of the alternative is estimated to
require 9 to 12 months.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$808,700
7,800
$816,500
7.1.6
Alternative 556: Offsite Disposal
Alternative SS6 consists of the excavation of all contaminated
soil, followed by final disposal, and treatment, if required, at
a regulated RCRA hazardous waste landfill.
Contaminated soil in the affected area would be excavated and
transported by truck to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) hazardous waste landfill. Following excavation, clean
native fill material would be placed in the excavated area. The
entire Site would then be graded to provide proper drainage, and
a natural vegetation stand would be established to minimize
erosion.
Soil samples from the RI borehole cuttings were tested using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP). The results
of those tests suggest that there are no hazardous wastes, as
defined by RCRA, remaining onsite. However, certain of the more
highly contaminated soils may test as hazardous by TCLP.
Therefore, under this alternative it is assumed that the soils
are hazardous and thus, will require treatment at the hazardous
waste landfill facility before disposal. Typically, the
treatment used for metals-contaminated soils is stabilization.
In addition to the activities described above, Site access would
temporarily be restricted by fencing selected areas until
remedial activities were completed. Materials handling
procedures would, as previously deacribed for Alternatives SS3
and SS4, include the use of soil 80iature to minimize dust
emissions during soil excavation, transport, and handling; air
monitoring during soils handling; and use of the appropriate OSHA
personal protection equipment. Excavation work would be staged
and coordinated with backfill/grading/seeding activities to
minimize dust production and surface runoff.
Total Capital Costs:
'Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$305,800
o
$305,800

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 75
7.2
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Technologies considered potentially applicable to groundwater
contamination (Table 19, Section 7.0 above) were further
evaluated on effectiveness and ~plementability. Table 21 lists
those which passed this final screening, and outlines the
technology components of each of the five remedial alternatives
proposed for groundwater remediation.
The remedial alternatives are listed. below. The last three
groundwater alternatives are sets ("A" and "B"), indicating
choices for specific options, so that, for example, Alternative
4A and 4B may differ only in which option is used for discharging
treated groundwater.
Alternative GW1: No Action
Alternative GW2: Groundwater Use Restrictions and Monitoring
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B: Groundwater Containment,
Treatment, Surface Water or POTW Discharge
Alternatives GW4A and GW4B: Groundwater Extraction, Physical
Treatment, Bioremediation, Surface Water or POTW Discharge
Alternatives GW5A and GW5B: Groundwater Extraction, Physical
Treatment, Air/Gas/Steam Stripping, Surface Water or POTW
Discharge
Descriptions of the alternatives are presented in the following
subsections. Costs are described in the same manner as above for
soil remediation. As with the soil alternatives, a 30-year O&M
period is assumed, except as described for alternatives GW3A and
GW3B.
The components of Alternative GW2, institutional controls and
groundwater monitoring, are ~plied for all alternatives except
GW1, the "no action" alternative. Five Year Review costs are
included only in Alternative GW1 (No Action); it is assumed that
these would be included in the selected soil remediation
alternative.
Certain major ARABs are applicable, or relevant and appropriate,
to each of the groundwater remedial alternatives. Site
groundwater is classified by South Carolina as Class GB (SC Water
Classifications and Standards, Regulation 61-68), and by EPA as
Class lIB (Guidelines for Ground Water Use and Classification,
EPA Ground Water Protection Strategy, US EPA 1986). Alternatives
GW1 and GW2 would not meet the relevant and appropriate ARARs
concerning groundwater as a potable water source, the National
Pr~ and Secondary Drinking Water Standards, promulgated in 40
CFR Parts 141-143, and the State of South Carolina Pr~ary
Drinking Water Regulations, SC Reg. 61-58, bacause Site
groundwater violates numerous MCLs specified in these

-------
TABLE 15
COMPONENTS OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
General Technology Process Area    AI. TERNATIVES   
Response  Option Impacted GW1 GW2 GW3A GW3B GW4A GW4B GW5A GW5B
Action           
No Actbn No Actbn None Entire Site X       
Institutbnal Groundwater State Imposed Permit Contaminated  X X X X X X X
Controls Use Restretbns Reslrlctbns Groundwaler        
 Envllonmental Groundwater Contaminated  X X X X X X X
 Month ring  Monlhring Groundwaler        
Containment Gradient Control Extraclbn Conlaminated   X X    
  Wells Groundwater        
           -~--
  Inloctbn Wells Contaminated   X X    
   Groundwaler        
           --
Rerroval Extraclbn Extraclbn Wells Contaminated     X X X X
   Groundwater        
Altarnatlve GW1 = No AClbn
Altarnatlve GW2 = Groundwater Use Restretbns and Monlbrlng
Alternative GW3A = Groundwater O:>ntalnmenVSu~ace Water Discharge
A/lernatlve GW3B = Groundwater ContalnmentjPOTW DIscharge
Alternative GW4A = Extraclbn, Neulrallzalbn,Aeration, Chernical Reduclbn,
Chemical Precipitation, Phase Separatbn, Flltratbn
Aboveground Bbremediatbn, Surface Water DIscharge
Allernative GW4B = Extraclbn, NeulraDzalbn, Aeralbn, Chemeal Reduclbn,
Chemical Preclplation, Phase Separatbn, F IItratbn
Aboveground Bbremedlalbn, POTW Discharge
A/lernative GWSA = EXlraclbn, Neulrallzalbn, Aeration, Chemical Reduclbn,
ChemIcal PrecIpitation, Phase Separalbn, F iIIratbn
Air/Gas/Steam Slrlpplng, Su~ace Waler Discharge
Altarnative GW5B = Extractbn, NeutraDzalbn, Aeratbn, Chemeal Reduclbn,
Chemical Preclptation, Phase Separatbn, Flltratbn,
Air/Gas/Steam Stripping, POM Discharge
..
tz:I
~
o
/1
(t)
~
~
!II
rt
(t)
t::I
"".
!II
ttj
o
!II~
~ (t)
1-'0
o
00/1
~a.
ttj
(t) 0
/1 HI
HI
~t::I
!Q:;:S(t)
~ a. 0
"".
(t) 00 !II
"". "".
-...Jrto
0\(t)::S

-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
COMPONENTS OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
General Technaogy Process Area    AL TERNATIVES   
Response  Option Impacled GWI GW2 GW3A GW3B GW4A GW4B GWSA GW5B
Action           
Onslte Bbbgeal Submerged F bled Film Contaminated     X X  
Trealment  Reacbr Groundwaler        
 Chemeal Neutrallzatbn Contaminated   X X X X X X
   Groundwater        
  Chembel Reduc1bn Contamlnaled   X X X X X X
   Groundwater        
  Aeratbn Contaminated   X X X X X X
   Groundwaler        
  Chemeal Preclpltatbn Contaminated   X X X X X X
   Groundwater        
 Physical Phase Separatbn Conlaminaled   X X X X X X
   Groundwater        
  Filtration Contaminated   X X X X X X
   Groundwalor        
  Air/Gas/Stem Stripping Conlaminated       X X
   Groundwater        
  Carton Adoorptbn Contaminated   X X X X X X
   Groundwater        
Offslte Discharge POTW Discharge Trealed    X  X  X
Discharge   Groundwater        
  Sudace Waler Discharge Treated   X  X  X 
   Groundwater        
Alternative GW1 = No Aclbn
Alternative GW2 = Groundwater Use Restrelbns end M:>nlbrlng
Alternative GW3A = Groundwaler OJnlainmenVSudace Water Discharge
Alternative GW3B = GlOundwater ContalnmenI/POTW Discharge
Allernative GW4A = Extraclbn, Neutralizatbn,Aeration, Chemical Reduclbn,
Chemical Precipitation, Phase Separalbn, F iltralon
Atoveground Bbremedlatbn, Sur1aceWater Discharge
Allernative GW4B = Extractbn, Neutralizatbn, Aeratbn, Chemeal Reduclbn,
Chemical Preclpllation, Phase Separatbn, F illraton
Aooveground Bbremediatbn, POM Discharge
Alternative GWSA = EXlractbn, Neulralizatbn,Aeration, Chemical Reduclbn,
Chemical Precipitation, Phase Separalon. Fillralbn
Air/Gas/Steam Stripping, Sur1ace Water Discharge
Alternative GW5B = Exlractbn, Neutralizatbn, Aeratbn. Chemcal I1crluclbn,
Chemical Precipitation, Phase Scparaton, F illralbn
Air/Gas/Sleam Stripping, POM Discharge
pj
W
11
It)
~
PI
en
rt
It)
o
....
en
'0
o
en:;c
PI It)
1-'0
o
C/)11
Pc.
'0
It) 0
11......
H\
PO
tU~ro
PlC.O
....
It) C/) en
.... ....
-...Jrto
-...J1t)~

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 78

regulations. Also, the CERCLA preference for treatment to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants wherever possible
would not be satisfied by these alternatives.
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B would not meet the CERCLA preference
for treatment. Assuming successful implementation, however, they
would meet the relevant and appropriate drinking water standards
specified above, albeit at a very slow rate. The remaining
alternatives, GW4A, GW4B, GW5A and GW5B, would achieve these
standards, and would also meet the CERCLA preference for
treatment. Alternatives GW3A, GW3B, GW4A, GW4B, GW5A, and GW5B
would be subject to the following major applicable ARARs: South
Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards (SC Regulation 62.5),
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs, 40 CFR Part 61), Clean Water Act Discharge Limitations
(40 CFR S 403.5), and the Clean Water Act Pretreatment Standards
(40 CFR Parts 122, 125, 129, 133, and 136). The treatment system
related to these alternatives may produce a sludge that may be
subject to the identification (40 CFR Part 261, SCHWMR 61-
79.261), transportation (40 CFR Part 262, SCHWMR 61-79.262),
manifestation (40 CFR Part 263, SCHWMR 61-79.263), and land
disposal restriction (40 CFR Part 268, SCHWMR 61-79.268)
requirements of RCRA, if the resulting sludge is determined to be
a RCRA hazardous waste.
Figure 12 on page 37 of this ROD shows the areal extent of
groundwater contamination. As noted in Section 5.2.3, the
estimated volume of contaminated groundwater is 66.9 million
gallons. .
7.2.1
Alternative GW1: No Action
Under the no action alternative, the Site is left "as is" and no
funds are expended for monitoring, control, or cleanup of the
contaminated groundwater. Risks to persons living on and near
the Site will remain. Also, contaminants will continue to
discharge from the surficial aquifer to Wards Creek, at levels
which may exceed Federal and/or State environmental standards.
Because hazardous contaminants would remain onsite, a Five Year
Review would be required under CERCLA.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
o
$41. 700
$41,700
7.2.2 Alternative GW2: Groundwater Use Restrictions and
Monitorina
Under this alternative, institutional controls would be
implemented to restrict the withdrawal and use of groundwater

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 79
from the contaminated plume. A second component of this .
alternative would be monitoring of Site groundwater conditions.

The institutional controls to be used are deed restrictions and
well permit restrictions. Deed restrictions prevent future use
of the aquifer for purposes such as potable and industrial water
supply, irrigation, and washing. Permit restrictions issued by
the State of South Carolina would restrict all well drilling
permits issued for new wells on properties that may draw water
from the contaminated groundwater plume. These restrictions
would be written into the property deeds to inform future
property owners of the possibility of contaminated groundwater
beneath the property. .
Groundwater monitoring would involve collection and analysis of
samples from Site monitor wells at regular intervals, to allow
tracking of contaminant concentrations and to monitor the speed,
direction, and extent of contaminant migration. Institutional
controls are estimated to require 9 to 12 months to implement.
Groundwater monitoring should take less than one month to
initiate.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$55,100
373.500
$428,600
7.2.3 Alternatives GW3A and GW3B: Groundwater Containment.
Treatment. Surface Water or POTW Discharae
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B involve installation of extraction
(pumping) wells to capture groundwater at the leading edge of the
groundwater contaminant plume to stop its migration offsite.
Also, injection wells could possibly be used to change the
groundwater flow patterns and effectively "push" the plume into
the area influenced by the extraction wells, thereby containing
it. The exact well placement and extraction/injection volumes
needed to maintain the containment conditions would be developed
in the remedial design. In the FS, it was estimated that three
wells would be required. A portion of the extracted water would
be discharged to Wards Creek; therefore, it would be necessary to
meet the appropriate treatment standards for permitted surface
water discharge under the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, NPDES). To achieve this, the
extracted groundwater would first be pumped through a treatment
system. Because of the necessity for treating the groundwater
before any tyPe of final discharge, this alternative is not a
true "containment" scheme, which typically would not include a
treatment provision.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
paae 80
Groundwater treatment would consist of an aeration pretreatment
step, a metals treatment step, and an organic contaminant
polishing step. Aeration removes manganese and iron; to remove
the other metal contaminants of concern, chemical reduction,
chemical precipitation, phase separation, and filtration would be
employed. The sludges from these physical processes are
generally hazardous wastes because they are contaminated with
heavy metals. These sludges would require disposal offsite at a
RCRA hazardous waste landfill. Granular activated carbon
adsorption would be used as the organic contaminant polishing
step. In this step, two similarly sized carbon units would be
placed in series. Once the lead unit approaches exhaustion, the
backup unit would be switched over to the lead position, while
the lead unit is emptied of its spent carbon, refilled with
virgin or reactivated carbon, and used as the backup unit. The
spent carbon would also be shipped offsite to a RCRA hazardous
waste landfill for disposal, or if feasible, reactivated for
reuse.
The final disposition of the treated water differs between the
two alternatives. Under Alternative GW3A, the portion of the
treated water not discharged to Wards Creek would be reinjected,
or, if reinjection is not acceptable, to the City of Greer
Publicly OWned Treatment Works (POTW).
Under Alternative GW3B, the treated groundwater would be
discharged to the City of Greer Publicly OWned Treatment Works
(POTW), rather than being discharged to Wards Creek or
reinjected. Depending on the industrial pretreatment standards
required by the City, this alternative may allow certain
treatment steps to be omitted from the onsite treatment system.
The system's effluent would be monitored to ensure compliance
with the City's industrial pretreatment standards and any other
requirements established by SCDHEC.
In addition to the extraction wells and treatment processes
described above, Alternatives GW3A and GW3B would include
implementation of all of the institutional controls and
groundwater monitoring described in Alternative GW2, thereby
monitoring the effectiveness of the alternative and limiting the
current and future use of groundwater until clean-up goals are
achieved. Given the relatively slow horizontal movement of Site
groundwater, either alternative would take considerably longer to
reach the remediation goals because of the time necessary for the
contaminant plume to reach the extraction wells. Therefore,
based on estimates of groundwater movement and the area
contaminated, an O&M period of 75 years was assumed.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 81
GW3A:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$984,500
2.225.200
$3,209,700
GW3B:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$990,600
1. 985.500
$2,976,100
7.2.4 Alternatives GW4A and GW4B: Groundwater Extraction.
Physical Treatment. Bioremediation. Surface Water or POTW
Discharae
Alternatives GW4A and GW4B involve placing extraction wells
throughout the contaminant plume to actively remediate the
aquifer. This would also prevent further migration of the
contaminant plume. It would involve installing more extraction
wells, removing water from the aquifer at a higher rate, and
treating more groundwater than Alternatives GW3A and GW3B. The
groundwater would be treated to remove inorganic and organic
contaminants. In addition to groundwater treatment,
institutional controls would be implemented to limit current and
future use of groundwater until cleanup goals are achieved, and
groundwater monitoring would be performed to monitor the
effectiveness of the alternative in achieving the remediation
goals.
Preliminary groundwater modeling indicates that six wells would
be needed to recover the contaminant plume at a likely total
yield of approximately 30 gallons per minute (gpm). Such a
. scheme would remove one pore volume of water from the affected
area every 4.2 years; however, successful remediation would
likely take longer. These planning estimates apply to this
alternative and to Alternatives GW5A and GW5B.
The primary steps in the groundwater treatment process would be
the same as described for Alternatives GW3A and GW3B: an aeration
pre-treatment step, a metals treatment step and an organic
contaminant polishing step. The organic treatment step would
employ bioremediation, a controlled natural process in which
microbes (such as bacteria) consume organic substances.

In general, bioremediation is a common treatment method widely
used at conventional wastewater treatment plants. In this case,
submerged fixed-film reactors (SFFRs) would be used to provide
organic contaminant removal. At some sites, systems using SFFRs
have been shown to effectively treat low-concentration waste
streams, such as the groundwater found at the E~ore Waste
Disposal Site. However, pilot scale treatability studies would
be required to properly design the treatment facility.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 82
The system consists of vessels or reactors filled with a
high-surface-area medium on which bacterial colonies are grown
using an artificial stock solution. Once a sufficient film has
been established, the stock solution is replaced with the
contaminated groundwater. The groundwater does not contain
sufficient nutrients and carbon to sustain the volume of film in
the reactor, and consequently the film begins to decay. However,
in an effort to sustain itself, the film scavenges the
groundwater for nutrients and carbon sources. This scavenging
action removes and degrades organic contaminants. Eventually,
the film decays and the reactor must be removed from service so
that new film can be established using the stock solution; in its
place, another reactor is then put in line, as the reactors are
rotated on-line and off-line. SFFRs generally produce a
nonhazardous, organic sludge. This sludge would be initially
sampled to confirm that it was, in fact, nonhazardous. The
sample results would then be used to determine the proper,
offsite disposal method for it. Periodic retesting of the sludge
would be necessary.
~ternative GW4A includes discharge of the treated water to Wards.
Creek. The appropriate NPDES permit pursuant to the Clean Water
Act would be required for this discharge. Under ~ternative
GW4B, the treated groundwater would be discharged to the City of
Greer Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), rather than being
discharged to Wards Creek. As described above for ~ternative
GW3B, depending on the industrial pretreatment standards required
by the City, this alternative may allow certain treatment steps
to be omitted from the onsite treatment system. The system's
effluent would be monitored to assure compliance with Greer
industrial pretreatment standards and any other requirements
established by SCDHEC.
GW4A:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$1,122,200
1. 800,000
$2,922,200

$1,128,200
1.611,000
$2,739,200
GW4B:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
7.2.5 ~ternatives GW5A and GW5B: Groundwater Extraction,
Physical Treatment, Air/Gas/Steam StriPDina. Surface Water or
POTW Discharae

~ternatives GW5A and GW5B would use the same extraction and
treatment steps described above for ~ternatives GW4A and GW4B.
The primary steps in the treatment system would be an aeration
pre-treatment step, a metals treatment step, and an organic
contaminant treatment step. The organic treatment would consist

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
. Page 83
of air, gas, or steam stripping. After treatment, the
groundwater would be discharged to either Wards Creek via an
NPDES permit under ~ternative GW5A, or to the Greer POTW via an
industrial pretreatment permit under Alternative GW5B. As with
the preceding alternatives, institutional controls and
groundwater monitoring would also be implemented.
A stripping unit would provide primary organic removal. An air,
gas, or steam stripping unit works by fostering a controlled
evaporation or "stripping" process. The unit has a "tower" or
vertical cylinder, filled with a packing media which provides a
large surface area for contact between the water and air. The
water to be treated is pumped to the top of the tower and
cascades downward through the packing media. Air is blown
upwards through the bottom of the tower and exits at the top.
The ratio of air to water is 50:1 or higher. The high volume of
air passing over the thin film of water on the packing evaporates
(strips) the volatile organic contaminants from the water. In
the process, contaminants are transferred from water to air. The
off-gases produced may have to be treated using gas phase carbon
adsorption before they are released to the atmosphere. Steam
stripping operates on much the same principal as air stripping,
but uses steam instead of air as its vapor-phase carrier.
To be fully effective, the influent water must be BS clear as
possible. Therefore, filtration to remove turbidity, in addition
to the aeration step to remove iron and manganese, would be
necessary. Bench-scale testing would be conducted during
remedial design to determine which stripping process should be
used, as well as to verify that the process can meet the
remediation goals for the organic contaminants.
GW5A:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
GW5B:
Total Capital Costs:
Total O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$1,017,600
1. 683,200
$2,700,800

$1,023,300
1. 494,200
$2,739,200
8.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives for soil and groundwater remediation were
evaluated based on the nine criteria set forth in the NCP (40 CFR
S 300.430(e)(9». In the sections which follow, brief summaries
of how the alternatives were judged against these criteria are
presented. Additionally, the sections are prefaced by brief
descriptions of the criteria.

-------
~-
I
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 84
8.1
Source Control Remedial Alternatives
For ease of reference, the five soil (source control) remedial
alternatives considered are listed below in Table 22.
I TABLE 22 SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES I
    Alternative Cost 
 SS1 No Action $41,700 
 SS2 Soil-Synthetic Membrane Cap $208,800 
 SS3 Soil Stabilization $242,400 
 SS4 Soil Washing, Stabilization, $238,000 
  Offsite Disposal  
 SS5 In-Situ Vitrification $816,500 
 SS6 Offsite Disposal $305,800 
8.1.1
Threshold Criteria
Two threshold criteria must be achieved by a remedial alternative
before it can be selected.
1. Overall Drotection of human health and the environment
addresses whether the alternative will adequately protect human
health and the environment froa the risks posed by the Site.
Included in judgement by this criterion is an assessment of how
and whether the risks will be properly eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, en9ineering controls, and/or
institutional controls.
Among the soil alternatives, SSl would not achieve protection of
human health and the environment. Risks identified in the
Baseline Risk Assessment would continue to exist. Alternative
SS2 would produce limited protection by preventing human contact
with the contaminated soil, and, by reducing infiltration
(rainfall) through the vadose zone, the amount of leaching to
groundwater would be reduced. Of the remaining alternatives,
Alternative SS5 would achieve the highest degree of protection.
Alternatives SS3, SS4 and SS6 were all judged even; all should be
able to successfuly achieve protection.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 85
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
reQUirements (ARARs) addresses whether an alternative will meet
all of the requirements of Federal and State environmental laws
and regulations, as well as other laws, and/or justifies a waiver
from an ARAR. The specific ARARs which will govern the selected
remedy are listed and described in Section 9.0, Selected Remedy.

In evaluating compliance with ARARs, it is ~portant to note that
TCLP tests of borehole cuttings to date have not indicated that
hazardous wastes, as defined under RCRA and the SCHWMR, are
present. However, should the contaminated soils fail TCLP, then
40 CFR Parts 261, 262, 263, and the corresponding parts under the
SCHWMR, will apply. Also, if the contaminated soils fail TCLP,
most likely, the land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part 268
and SCHWMR 61-79.268 will apply. However, if EP toxicity tests
are performed and the contaminated soils do not exceed EP
toxicity l~its, then the land disposal restrictions cited above
will not apply, even though the contaminated soils fail TCLP.
Alternative SSl would not comply with the ARARs or the Site-
specific RAOs developed for this Site, because groundwater
contamination that currently violates ARARs would not be
addressed. Alternative 552 would not comply with the RCRA
landfill closure regulations in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 5CHWMR 61-
79.264 requiring removal of contamination "to the maximum extent
possible." Alternatives 553, 554, 555 and 556 would, assuming
successful implementation, comply with ARARs.
8.1.2
Primary Balancing Criteria
Five criteria were used to weigh the strengths and weaknesses
among alternatives, and to develop the decision to select one of
the alternatives. Assuming satisfaction of the threshold
criteria, these are the main considerations in selecting an
alternative as the remedy.

1. Lona term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of the alternative to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over t~e, once the remediation goals
have been met.
Alternative 551 would not meet this criterion. Alternatives 553,
554, 555, and 556 would achieve and maintain a high degree of
effectiveness and permanence, although for 554, a treatability
study would be required to verify this. Alternative 552 would,
if the cap is maintained properly, maintain some degree of
effectiveness. If implemented successfully, Alternative 555
would achieve the highest degree of effectiveness and permanence.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 86
2. Reduction of toxicity. mobility. or volume addresses the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that an
alternative may employ. The 1986 amendment to CERCLA, the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), directs
that, when possible, EPA should choose a treatment process that
permanently reduces the level of toxicity of site contaminants,
el~inates or reduces their migration away from the site, and/or
reduces their volume on a site.
Alternative SSl would not meet this criterion since no treatment
would occur. Alternative S52 would achieve some reduction in the
mobility of contaminants, but would not reduce either the
toxicity or volume. The remaining alternatives, 553, 554, 5S5,
and 556, achieve varying degrees of toxicity/mobility/volume
reduction, and were rated essentially equivalent on this
criterion.
Alternatives S53, 554, and SS5 would reduce the mobility and
volume of contamination, although in the case of 553, the volume
of contamination reduced would be offset by the overall larger
size of the monolith created, as compared to the original volume
of contaminated soil. However, the inherent toxicity of the
contaminants is not eliminated through the immobilization
achieved by stabilization (Alternatives 553 and 5S4~ or
vitrification (Alternative SS5).
Alternative 556 would reduce the mobility, and may reduce the
toxicity or volume, of the contaminants through treatment of the
contaminated soil at a RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility
since treatment may be required to comply with LDRs. The
reduction achieved will depend on the specific treatment used at
the RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility.

3. Short-term effectiveness refers to the length of time needed
to achieve protection, and the potential for adverse effects to
human health or the environment posed by implementation of the
remedy, until the remediation 90als are achieved.
Excluding Alternative 551, which achieves no protection, the
alternatives were rated evenly on this criterion. All
alternatives can be completed within 3 to 12 months.
Alternatives 553, 554, and 556 have some potential for short-term
impacts on nearby residents and the community, due to the
necessary soil excavation and soil handling procedures. However,
, the excavation phase of work is very brief and is followed
immediately by treatment (553, 554) or offsite transport (556).
Alternatives 553 and 554 could involve some very short-term
stockpiling of soils onsite. Alternatives 554, and 555 include
the use of air emissions controls to capture VOCs if they are
produced. For Alternatives 554 and 556, remediation includes

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 87

truck transport of contaminated material offsite. However, these
concerns can be successfully addressed through careful and well-
planned abatement measures during implementation.
4. Implementabilitv considers the technical and administrative
feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of
materials and services necessary for implementation.
Implementation is not a concern for Alternative 551, since no
actions would be implemented. Alternatives 553 and 556 were
judged to be the most easily implemented, followed closely by
Alternative 552.
Between Alternatives 553 and 556, Alternative 556 was judged by
EPA to be superior. Given the relatively small volume of
contaminated soil (650 cubic yards), it is the most feasible
option. Excavation, soil testing, and transport of contaminated
soil to a RCRA hazardous waste landfill is a fairly
straightforward and routine operation. Unlike Alternative 553,
treatability testing would not be necessary, and long-term
monitoring would not be required since no treated wastes would
remain onsite.
The remaining alternatives were rated slightly lower than
Alternative 552 on this criterion. Alternative 554 employs two
technologies and would require two treatability studies, and
Alternative 555 has not been used full-scale at a Superfund site
and would also require treatability testing.

Cost includes both the capital (investment) costs to implement an
alternative, plus the long-term O&M expenditures applied over a
projected period of operation. The total present worth cost for
each of the six alternatives is presented in Table 22.
8.1.3
Modifvina Criteria
State acceptance and community acceptance are two additional
criteria that are considered in selecting a remedy, once public
comment has been received on the Proposed Plan.

1. State acceDtance: The State of South Carolina concurs with
this remedy. South Carolina's letter of concurrence is provided
in Appendix B to this ROD.
2. Community acceDtance was indicated by the verbal comments
received at the Elmore Waste Disposal Site Proposed Plan public
meeting, held on January 14, 1993. The public comment period
opened on December 30, 1992, and was to close on January 28,
1993. However, a request for extension was received on January
28, 1993, and the period was extended through February 27, 1993.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 88
Written comments received concerning the Elmore Waste Disposal
Site, and those comments expressed at the public meeting, are
addressed in the Responsiveness Summary attached as Appendix A to
this ROD.
8.2
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
For ease of reference, the eight groundwater remedial
alternatives are listed below in Table 23. The subsections
Section 8.1 above provide brief descriptions of each of the
nine criteria used to judge remedial alternatives.
under
NCP
I TABLE 23 GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES I
  Alternative   Cost 
 GW1 No Action      $41,700 
 GW2 Groundwater Use Restrictions $428,600 
  and Monitoring      
 GW3A Groundwater Containment,   $3,209,700 
  Treatment, Surface Water Discharge  
 GW3B Groundwater Containment,   $2,976,100 
  Treatment, POTW Discharge  
 GW4A Groundwater Extraction, Treatment $2,922,200 
  (Bioremediation), Surface Water  
  Discharge       
 GW4B Groundwater Extraction, Treatment $2,739,200 
  (Bioremediation), POTW Discharge  
 GW5A Groundwater Extraction, Treatment $2,700,800 
  (Air/Gas/Steam Stripping),Surface  
  Water Discharge      
 GW5B Groundwater Extraction, Treatment $2,517,500 
  (Air/Gas/Steam Stripping), POTW  
  Discharge       
8.2.1
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Drotection of human health and
Alternative GW1 fails this criterion since
any of the risks posed by the Elmore Waste
Alternative GW2 would provide some limited
the environment:
it does not address
Disposal Site.
protection to human

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 89

health by restricting aquifer usage; however, the potential
threat to Wards Creek from the surficial aquifer VOCs would
remain.
Alternatives GW4A, GW4B, GWSA and GWSB provide the greatest
protection to human health and the environment. Each of these
alternatives is designed to actively remediate the surface and
intermediate zones of the aquifer through capture and treatment
of the contaminated groundwater plume.
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B would achieve a moderate degree of
protection. Further migration of the groundwater contaminants
would be prevented, and groundwater extracted at the leading
plume edge would be treated prior to reinjection or surface
water/POTW discharge. Institutional controls would also restrict
aquifer usage.
2. Comoliance with ARARs: Alternatives GW1 and GW2 would not
comply with ARARs concerning groundwater as a drinking water
source, because no actions would be taken to remediate the
groundwater. Because of the passive nature of the proposed.
groundwater extraction scheme (from the leading plume edge only),
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B would achieve these ARARs only at a
very slow rate. Therefore, they were rated poorly Qn this
criterion. .
Alternatives GW4A, GW4B, GWSA and GWSB would, assuming successful
implementation, achieve the highest degree of compliance with
ARARs.Each of these alternatives involves a more aggressive
extraction scheme which would recover and treat more groundwater
faster. Thus these alternatives were rated as best satisfying
the ARARs.
8.2.2
Primary Balancina Criteria
1. Lona-term effectiveness and oermanence: Alternative GW1 does
not meet this criterion, since no actions would be taken to
mitigate the human health risks identified in the Baseline Risk
Assessment. Alternative GW2 relies on institutional controls to
restrict aquifer usage. The reliability of such controls is
uncertain, since it is difficult to project how well they will be
implemented, thus the long-term effectiveness of Alternative GW2
is questionable.
All remaining alternatives would achieve a higher degree of
term effectiveness than the two described above. However,
Alternatives GW3A and GW3B require longer to achieve the
remediation goals; the potential for problems affecting
performance to occur would be higher, since the alternative
long-
would

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 90
be in operation longer. Therefore, Alternatives GW4A, GW4B, GW5A
and GWSB were rated highest on this criterion.

2. Reduction of toxicity. mobility or volume: Alternatives GWl
and GW2 would have no effect on the toxicity or mobility of the
Site contaminants. However, implementing either alternative
would allow the volume of contaminated groundwater to increase.
The remaining alternatives would successfully achieve this
criterion by capturing the contaminated groundwater and treating
it to remove or reduce contamination. However, Alternatives GW3A
and GW3B will achieve these reductions at a slower rate than
Aternatives GW4A, GW4B, GWSA and GW5B.
3. Short-term effectiveness: Alternative GWl cannot be
evaluated on this criterion since no protection of human health
or the environment would be achieved. AI ternati ve GW2 would
require only a short period to initiate the monitoring portion of
the action, but the length of time needed to assign the deed
restrictions for limiting aquifer usage is uncertain.
Each of the remaining alternatives could be employed without
undue risk of adverse effects to the community or environment.
Since Alternatives GW3A and GW3B ~equire longer to achieve the
remediation goals, the period of time until protection is
achieved would be longer. Other than this difference, all of the
remaining alternatives were rated evenly on this criterion.

4. ImDlementabilitv: Implementation is not a concern for
Alternative GWl, since no actions would be implemented.
Groundwater monitoring under Alternative GW2 would be
straightforward and easily implemented, but as noted above, the
deed restrictions could prove more difficult.
All of the remaining alternatives are implementable, but
Alternatives GW5A and GW5B were judged less difficult to
implement than Alternatives GW4A and GW4B. This judgement was
based on Agency experience with both air/gas/steam stripping and
bioremediation, the two technologies considered for organic
contaminant removal.
5. Cost includes both the capital (investment) costs to
implement an alternative, plus the long-term O&M expenditures
applied over a projected period of operation. The total present
worth cost for each of the five alternatives is presented in
Table 23.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 91
8.2.3
Modifvina Criteria
1. State acceptance: As noted above under section 8.1.3, the
State of South Carolina concurs with this remedy. The State of
South Carolina's letter of concurrence is provided in Appendix B
of this ROD.
2. Community acceptance: As noted above, the community has
provided comments on the Elmore Waste Disposal Site Proposed
Plan. These comments, and EPA's response to them, are contained
in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A to this ROD.
9.0
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP,
the detailed analysis of alternatives and public and state
comments, EPA has selected a remedy that addresses soil and
groundwater contamination at this Site. At the completion of
this remedy, the risk remaining at this Site will be within EPA's
acceptable risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6, which is considered
protective of human health and the environment.
The selected remedy for this Site is:
Source Control:
Alternative SS6, Offsite Disposal
Groundwater Remediation:
Alternative GWSB, Groundwater
Extraction, Physical Treatment,
Air/Gas/Steam Stripping, POTW
Discharge
The estimated total present worth cost of the remedy is
$2,823,300.
,
9.1
Source Control
This remedy component consists of excavation of contaminated
soil, verification sampling, and transport of the soil to a
permitted RCRA hazardous waste landfill. The following
subsections describe this remedy component in detail, provide the
criteria (ARARs and TBC material) which shall apply, and
establish the performance standards for implementation.

Por purposes of describing this portion of the remedy and
specifying the requirements which shall apply to it, it is
assumed that some or all of the contaminated soils to be
addressed will be shown by laboratory analysis to be RCRA
hazardous wastes. TCLP tests of cuttings to date have not
indicated that hazardous wastes, as defined under RCRA, are
present.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
paae 92
9.1.1
DescriPtion
Onsite work shall be performed in accordance with the OSHA health
and safety standards applicable to remedial activities. Proper
materials handling procedures shall be used during the excavation
and handling of soil. Such measures may include the use of water
to min~ize dust emissions during soil excavation, transport, and
handling: and the use of tarps or plastic sheeting placed over
temporary soil stockpiles to min~ize dust emissions and runoff.
Soil in the area of soil contamination (Figure 11) shall be
excavated until the remaining soil achieves the concentrations
established as performance standards as described in Section 9.3
of this ROD. Subsurface soils which violate the performance
standards at and below 2 feet below land surface shall be
excavated until until the remaining soil achieves the performance
standards or the water table is encountered.
Prior to excavation, soil sampling sufficient to confirm the
areal extent of soil which exceeds these criteria, shall be
conducted, at the southern and western boundaries of the area
shown in Figure 11, page 29 of this ROD. Verification sampling
shall be employed to ensure that all soil that is contaminated at
levels exceeding the performance standards is remov~d.
The excavated soil shall be transported to a permitted RCRA
hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle C) landfill facility for disposal,
preceded by treatment, if required. A RCRA Subtitle C facility
is deemed appropriate because of the health risks posed by direct
contact with the soils.
Transport shall be accomplished in compliance with DOT
regulations governing transportation of hazardous materials.
Excavation work shall be staged and coordinated with
backfill/grading/seeding activities to minimize dust production
and surface water runoff. The onsite excavation shall be
backfilled with clean soil, properly recompacted, and the land
surface regraded to the preexisting natural slope. A vegetative
cover will be established to min~ize undue surface water runoff
and minimize erosion.
9.1.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(~)
ARARs originate from applicable requirements, intended to
definitely and specifically apply to a remedial action; or
relevant and aporopriate requirements, which, while not intended
to apply to the specific situation in question, EPA judges to be
applicable to a remedial action. In addition, when establishing

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 93
criteria for ensuring the proper implementation of a remedial
action, EPA may develop requirements from other guidance
documents or criteria, sources often referred to as "To Be
Considered" material (TBCs).
Applicable Reauirements. Soil remediation shall comply with all
applicable portions of the following Federal and State of South
Carolina regulations:
49 CFR Parts 107, 171-179, promulgated under the authority of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Regulates the labelling,
packaging, placarding, and transport of hazardous materials
offsite.
40 CFR Parts 261, 262 (Subparts A-D), 263, and 268, promulgated
under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. These regulations govern the identification,
transportation, manifestation, and land disposal restriction
requirements of hazardous wastes. If the contaminated soils fail
TCLP, most likely, the land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part
268 will apply. However, if EP toxicity tests are performed and.
the contaminated soils do not exceed EP toxicity limits, then the
land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part 268 will not apply,
even though the contaminated soils fail TCLP. In the event that
the Site soils requiring remediation do not test hazardous (i.e.,
do not fail TCLP) , the regulations listed here will be considered
relevant and appropriate rather than applicable.
SCHWMR 61-79.124, .261, .262, .263 and .268, South Carolina
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, promulgated pursuant to
the Hazardous Waste Management Act, SC Code of Laws, 1976, as
amended. Establishes criteria for identifying and handling
hazardous wastes, as well as land disposal restrictions. These
regulations will also become relevant and appropriate in the
event that the soils requiring remediation do not prove to be
hazardous, as described in the above paragraph.
Relevant and Appropriate Reauirements. The following regulations
are "relevant and appropriate" to source control actions (soil
remediation) at the Elmore Waste Disposal Site. Applicabilty of
these air quality control regulations is due to the potential for
release of harmful particulates (metals) or VOCs during soil
excavation and handling activities.
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, promulgated under the authority of the
Clean Air Act. Included are the National Emissions Standards .for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Ambient air quality
standards and standards for emissions to the atmosphere fall
under these regulations.

-------
I :
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Page 94

SC Reg. 61-62, South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations
and Standards, promulgated pursuant to the S.C. Pollution Control
Act, SC Code of Laws, 1976, as amended. Establishes l~its for
emissions of hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter, and
establishes acceptable ambient air quality standards within South
Carolina. .
"To Be Considered" and Other Guidance.
Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site
Response Actions, OSWER Directive 9834.11, November 1987. This
directive, often referred to as "the off-site policy," requires
EPA personnel to take certain measures before CERCLA wastes are
sent to any facility for treatment, storage, or disposal. EPA
personnel must verify that the facility to be used is operating
in compliance with S 3004 and S 3005 of RCRA, as well as all
other federal and state regulations and requirements. Also, the
permit under which the facility operates must be checked to
ensure that it authorizes (1) the acceptance of the type of
wastes to be sent, and (2) the type of treatment to be performed
on the wastes.
40 CFR Part 50, promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air
Act. This regulation includes the National Ambient .Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and establishes a national baseline of ambient
air quality levels. The state regulation which ~plements this
regulation, South Carolina Reg. 62-61, is applicable to the
source control portion of the remedy.

Various TBC materials were utilized in the Baseline Risk
Assessment and in the Feasibility Study. Because cleanup
standards were established based on these documents, they are
considered TBC.
In the Baseline Risk Assessment, TBC material included
information concerning toxicity of, and exposure to, Site
contaminants. TBC material included the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables (HEAST), and other EPA guidance as specified in the
Baseline Risk Assessment.
In the FS, soil concentrations protective of human health and the
environment were calculated based on the Site-specific risk
calculations from the Baseline Risk Assessment, using TBC
information as described above. These levels are established as
performance standards in the following section. There are no
established federal or state standards for acceptable levels of
Elmore Waste Disposal Site contaminants in surface or subsurface
soils.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 95

The protective levels for surface/shallow subsurface soils (0-2
feet) were established for two of the contaminants, arsenic and
beryllium, based on Baseline Risk Assessment calculations. For
both of these the 10-5 risk value was used. The protective level
for lead (Pb) is equivalent to the EPA Region IV Level of Concern
of 500 mg/kg for surface soils (0-2 feet). This criterion is
also designated TBC.
Subsurface soil protective levels for the remaining seven
contaminants were based on the results of a leaching model using
Site-specific information, conducted in the FS. No RI subsurface
soil samples violated these standards; however, they were
established as a contingency to allow the remedial action to
proceed in the event subsurface contaminant concentrations
exceeding these standards are encountered.
Other reauirements. Remedial design often includes the discovery
and use of unforeseeable, but necessary, requirements, which
result from the planning and investigation inherent in the design
process itself. Therefore, during design of the source control
component of the selected remedy, EPA may, through a formal ROD
modification process such as an Explanation of Significant
Differences or a ROD Amendment, elect to designate further ARARs
which apply, or are relevant and appropriate, to th~s portion of
the remedy.
9.1.3
Performance Standards
The standards outlined in this section comprise the performance
standards defining successful implementation of this portion of
the remedy.

Excavation. The following soil remediation goals (Table 24) are
established as performance standards. The performance standards
shall control the excavation procedure described above in Section
9.1.1. Additionally, all onsite excavation work shall comply
with 29 CFR S 1910.120, the OSHA health and safety requirements
applicable to remedial activities.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 96
T~LE 24
SOURCE CONTROL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Contaminant
Maximum
Concentration
Detected (mg/kg)
Remediation
Goal
(mg/kg)
Source
Surface Contact (0-2 ft):
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
37
4.1
1900
10
4.0
500
A
A
B
Subsurface (Leaching):
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Manganese
Vanadium
37 300 C
4.1 9 C
2.3 4 C
81 800 C
39 400 C
870 10000 C
140 600 C
 - 
SOURCES OF REMEDIATION GOALS
A - Health-Based Remediation Goal
B - EPA Region IV Health-Based Level of
C - Leachability-Based Remediation Goal
Concern
Transport of contaminated soil. Transportation shall be
accomplished in compliance with the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (49 CFR S 107, 171-179).
Disposal of contaminated soil. Disposal of contaminated Site
soil shall comply with the applicable, or relevant and
appropriate, RCRA regulations (40 CFR Parts 261, 262 (Subparts A-
D), 263, and 268). The determination of applicability, versus
relevant and appropriate, is described on page 93, Section 9.1.2,
under "applicable requirements," where the above regulations are
cited. In any circumstance, the disposal of contaminated soils
shall be done at a RCRA Subtitle C treatment, storage, and
disposal facility.
9.2
Groundwater Remediation
The groundwater component of the remedy includes extraction of
contaminated groundwater from the surface shallow and

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 97
intermediate portions of the aquifer; physical treatment to
remove inorganic contaminants; air/gas/steam stripping to remove
organic contaminants; and discharge of the treated water to a
local Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
9.2.1
Description
This remedy component consists of the design, construction and
operation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system, and
development and implementation of a Site monitoring plan to
monitor the system's performance. The groundwater treatment
specified below shall be continued until the performance
standards listed in Section 9.2.3 are achieved at all of the
extraction and monitoring wells on or associated with the Site.
The point of compliance for this action shall be the entire Site.
Extraction wells shall be used for hydraulic capture of
contaminated groundwater from the surface and intermediate
aquifers, following confirmation of the extent of contamination
(Section 9.3 below). Preliminary modelling in the FS anticipated
the need for six extraction wells. Actual numbers and placement
of extraction wells shall be determined in the remedial design.
The extracted groundwater will be treated.using physical and
chemical processes to remove inorganic contaminants. Aeration,
chemical reduction, and chemical precipitation in combination
with phase separation and filtration will be used to remove
metals from groundwater. Aeration would be used to remove
manganese from the groundwater, by oxidizing manganese from Mn+2
to its more easily precipitable form, Mn+4. The next process,
chemical reduction, utilizes reducing agents to reduce the
valence state of the metal contaminants to more easily
precipitable forms. Chemical precipitation, the next step, is
achieved by adjusting the pH of the groundwater to the optimum
value for precipitation: metal contaminants become less soluble
and are precipitated out of the -groundwater as solid particles.

Metal removal is then completed using phase separation and
filtration. Phase separation processes typically add polymer to
the water to force metal precipitates to clump together or form a
floc. Then, a sedimentation process is used to settle out the
large floc particles. Finally, the supernatant is filtered to
remove any other suspended particles not removed by the
sedimentation process. The settled floc particles and the
particles removed by the filter are typically transferred to a
solids holding tank. Solids from the holding tank are then
dewatered via filter press; the liquids are usually pumped back
to the head of the treatment system. Dewatered solids will be
collected and stored onsite until disposal. These solids will
require management as a hazardous waste, and disposal in a

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 98

RCRA-regulated landfill. These actions shall comply with the
ARARs described in the following section (Section 9.2.2).
After metals removal, the groundwater will be passed through an
air-, gas-, or steam stripping unit to remove or reduce the
concentrations of VOCs. The final treatment step shall route the
water through an activated carbon "polishing" unit, to remove any
VOCs not stripped out and to provide secondary, back-up
capability to the stripping unit. Operation of the stripping
unit shall comply with the ARARs described in Section 9.2.2.
Following treatment, the groundwater shall be discharged to an
industrial sewer or other appurtenance of the local Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works, owned and operated by the City of Greer,
South Carolina. Discharge to this system shall comply with all
applicable City of Greer industrial pretreatment requirements, as
well as any other effluent limits established by EPA.

Remedial design shall include the design of the treatment system
described above, as well as the necessary pipelines, electrical.
lines, pump systems, treatment equipment, treatment facility, and
other appurtenances as required.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groun9water to its
beneficial use as a drinking water source. Based on the
information collected during the RI and on a careful analysis of
all remedial alternatives, EPA and the State of South Carolina
believe that the selected groundwater remedy will achieve this
goal. However, the remedy's ability to achieve the remediation
goals at all points throughout the area of the plume cannot be
determined until the extraction system has been implemented,
modified as necessary, and plume response monitored over time.
If the selected remedy cannot meet the specified remediation
goals, at any or all of the monitoring points during
implementation, the contingency measures and goals described in
this section may replace the selected remedy and goals for
certain portions of the plume. Such contingency measures will,
as a minimum, prevent further migration of the plume and include
a combination of containment technologies and institutional
controls. These measures are considered to be protective of
human health and the environment, and are technically practicable
under the corresponding circumstances.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
estimated period, during which the system's performance will be
carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted
by the performance data collected during operation. Modification
may include any or all of the following:

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 99
*
at individual wells where cleanup goals have been
attained, pumping may be discontinued;
*
alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
*
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and
encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into
groundwater; and
*
installation of additional extraction wells to facilitate
or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume.
To insure that cleanup goals continue to be maintained, the
aquifer will be monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased
on a regular periodic basis, following discontinuation of
groundwater extraction. The intervals between groundwater
sampling/analysis events will be established in the Remedial
Action Work Plan.
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and
the system performance data, that certain portions of the aquifer
cannot be restored to their beneficial use, all of the following
measures involving long-term management may occur,_ior an
indefinite period of time, as a modification of the existing
system:
*
engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long-
term gradient control provided by low level pumping, as
containment measures;
*
chemical-specific ARARs will be waived for the cleanup of
those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;
*
institutional controls will be provided/maintained to
restrict access to those portions of the aquifer that
remain above remediation goals;
*
continued monitoring of specified wells; and

periodic re-evaluation of remedial technologies for
groundwater restoration.
*
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made
during a periodic review of the remedial action (Five Year
Review), which will occur at five year intervals in accordance
with CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. S 9621(c).

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 100
9.2.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reauirements
lARARs)
Applicable Reauirements. Groundwater remediation shall comply
with all applicable portions of the following federal and State
of South Carolina regulations:
40 CFR Parts 261, 262 (Subparts A-D), 263, and 268, promulgated
under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. These regulations govern the identification,
transportation, manifestation, and land disposal restriction
requirements of hazardous wastes, and would be applicable to the
sludges which may be produced as a result of chemical treatment
of groundwater, and to spent carbon generated by the carbon
polishing unit. For either of these materials, if the material
fails TCLP, most likely, the land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR
Part 268 will apply. However, if EP toxicity tests are performed
and the material does not exceed EP toxicity limits, then the
land disposal restrictions in 40 CFR Part 268 will not apply,
even though the material fails TCLP. In the event that either
material does not test hazardous (i. e., does not fail TCLP), the.
regulations listed here will be considered relevant and
appropriate rather than applicable, for that material.

SC Reg. 61-79.124, .261, .262, .263 and .268, South Carolina
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, promulgated pursuant to
the Hazardous Waste Management Act, SC Code of Laws, 1976, as
amended. Establishes criteria for identifying and handling
hazardous wastes, as well as land disposal restrictions.
Applicable as described above.
49 CFR Part 107, 171-179, promulgated under the authority of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Regulates the labelling,
packaging, placarding, and transport of hazardous materials
offsite.
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, promulgated under the authority of the
Clean Air Act. Included are the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Standards for emissions to
the atmosphere fall under these regulations. Applicable to the
air, gas or steam stripping unit to be used for groundwater
treatment.
SC Reg. 61-62, South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations
and Standards, promulgated pursuant to the Pollution Control Act,
SC Code of Laws, 1976, as amended. Establishes limits for
emissions of hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter, and
establishes acceptable ambient air quality standards within South
Carolina. This regulation is applicable in the same manner as
the federal regulation cited above.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 101
40 CFR Part 122, 125, 129, 133 and 136, CWA Discharge Limitations
(CWA ~ 301), promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water
Act. Applicable to any point discharges of wastewaters to waters
of the United States. Applicable to discharge of treated waters.
40 CFR ~ 403.5, CWA Pretreatment Standards (CWA ~ 307),
promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act.
Regulates discharges of water to POTWs.
SC Reg. 61-68, South Carolina Water Classifications and
Standards, promulgated pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, SC
Code of Laws, 1976, as amended. These regulations establish
classifications for water use, and set numerical standards for
protecting state waters.
SC Reg. 61-71, South Carolina Well Standards and Regulations,
promulgated under to the Safe Drinking Water Act, SC Code of
Laws, 1976, as amended. Standards for well construction,
location and abandonment are established for remedial work at
environmental or hazardous waste sites.
Relevant and Appropriate Reauirements. The followi~g regulations
are relevant to groundwater remediation at the Elmore Waste
Disposal Site.
40 CFR Part 131, Ambient Water Quality Criteria (CWA S 304),
promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Sets
numerical criteria for ambient water quality based on toxicity to
aquatic organisms and human health.

40 CFR Parts 141-143, National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards, promulgated under the authority of the Clean
Water Act. These regulations e8tablish acceptable maximum levels
of numerous substances in public drinking water supplies, whether
publicly owned or from ofther sources such as groundwater.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals (MCLGs) are specifically identified in the NCP as remedial
action objectives for ground waters that are current or potential
sources of drinking water supply (NCP 40 CFR S 300.430(a)(1)(ii)
(F). Therefore, MCLs and MCLGs are relevant and appropriate as
criteria for groundwater remediation at this Site.
SC Reg. 61-58, South Carolina Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
promulgated pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, SC Code of
Laws, 1976, as amended. These regulations are similar to the
federal regulations described above, and are relevant and
appropriate as remediation criteria for the same reasons set
forth above.

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 102
"To Be Considered" and Other Guidance. As noted above in Section
9.1.2, TBC criteria were utilized and/or established in the
Baseline Risk Assessment and in the Feasibility Study.
Groundwater cleanup standards were established based on these
documents and both are thus considered TBC.
In the Baseline Risk Assessment, TBC material used included
information concerning toxicity of, and exposure to, Site
contaminants. Sources of such data included the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables (BEAST), and EPA guidance as specified in the Risk
Assessment.
In the FS, groundwater concentrations protective of human health
and the environment were calculated based on the Site-specific
risk calculations from the Baseline Risk Assessment. Certain of
these levels were established as remediation goals in cases where
there is no MCL for a particular contaminant. Specific
contaminants for which health-based goals were established were
vanadium and manganese. The groundwater remediation goals are
established as performance standards in the Section 9.2.3.

Groundwater remediation goals were established for carbon
tetrachloride and 1,1,2-trichloroethane although no ~I samples
violated these standards. They were established as a contingency
since they were detected and could be present at levels above the
remediation goals.
Other TBC material includes the following:
Guidelines for Ground Water Use and Classification, EPA Ground
Water Protection Strategy, u.S. EPA, 1986. This document
outlines EPA's policy of considering a site's groundwater
classification in evaluating possible remedial response actions.
As described under Section 1.4, the groundwater at the Site is
classified by EPA as Class lIB and by South Carolina as Class GB
groundwater, indicating its potential as a source of drinking
water.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminmistration (NOAA) ER-L/ER-M
Values. These guidelines were developed as screening criteria
for sediment contamination in surface water bodies, and are based
on toxicity to aquatic life.
40 CFR Part 50, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act. This
regulation includes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), and establishes a national baseline of ambient air
quality levels. The state regulation which implements this

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 103
regulation, South Carolina Reg. 62-61, is applicable to the
groundwater portion of the remedy.
Clean Air Act, S 501 and 502, 1990 CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C.
S 7661 and S 7661(a). The amendments will require that all
"major sources" and certain other sources regulated under the CAA
to obtain operating permits. Although CERCLA S I21(e) exempts
this remedy from requiring such a permit, air/gas/steam stripping
at this Site may have to comply with any substantive standards
associated with such permits. Regulations have been proposed,
but not promulgated, for the operating permit program.
Other requirements. As described above in Section 9.1.2,
remedial design often includes the discovery and use of
unforeseeable but necessary requirements. Therefore, during
design of the groundwater component of the selected remedy, EPA
may, through a formal ROD modification process such as an
Explanation of Significant Differences or a ROD Amendment, elect
to designate further ARARs which apply, or are relevant and
appropriate, to groundwater remediation at this Site.
-.
9.2.3
Performance Standards
The standards outlined in this section comprise the performance
standards defining successful implementation of this portion of
the remedy.
Groundwater treatment. The groundwater remediation goals in
Table 25 below shall be the performance standards for groundwater
treatment.
~.
The Proposed Plan incorrectly identified two MCLs, those for
beryllium and cis-I,2-dichloroethene (DCE). The correct MCL for
beryllium is 4 ug/l and for cis-I,2-DCE, 70 ug/l.

-------
I~-
:t
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 104
TABLE 25
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Contaminant
Maximum
Concentration
Detected (ug/l)
Remediation
Goal
(ug/l)
Source
volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1,1, I-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
48
2
140
32
4,000
12,000
310
2
69
5
5
70
5
5
5
200
5
2
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
Inorqanic Contaminants
Beryllium
Cadmium
Lead
Manganese
Chromium
Nickel
Vanadium
51
6
270
9100
300
230
810
4
5 -
15
3000
100
100
200
A
A
C
D
A
A
D
SOURCES OF REMEDIATION GOALS
A - MCL
B - Proposed state of south carolina MCL
C - EPA Action Level
D - Health-Based Remediation Goal (81 < 1.0)
Discharqe. Discharge of treated groundwater to the POTW shall
comply with all applicable City of Greer industrial pretreatment
standards, as well as any other effluent standards or limits
established by EPA.
9.3
Confirm Extent of Groundwater Contamination
Upon initiation of the remedial design, sufficient additional
groundwater and surface water data shall be collected to achieve
the following objectives:

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 105
A.
Verify the presence or absence of a contributing source of
VOCs east of the Elmore Site.
B.
Confirm the absence of a contributing source of VOCs and/or
other contaminants in the groundwater underlying the former
dump area (primarily Sunnyside Circle subdivision).
Confirm the areal extent of groundwater contamination in the
surface aquifer, and the areal (horizontal) and the vertical
extent of contamination in the intermediate aquifer offsite
(north of the Elmore Waste Disposal Site).

Attainment of these objectives must be accomplished during the
first portion of remedial design, so that design of the
extraction and treatment system has, as its basis, an accurate
conceptual model of Site conditions. Confirmation of the extent
of contamination will also require collection of further
information and data for characterizing the specific hydrogeology
of the Site, and will include aquifer testing and modelling as
appropriate.
C.
9.4
Monitor Site Groundwater and Surface Water
Beginning with initiation of the remedial design, g~oundwater and
surface water samples shall be collected and analyzed on a
regular quarterly schedule. Analytical parameters for
groundwater and surface water samples will include the known
Elmore Waste Disposal Site contaminants of concern: VOCs and
metals. The specific wells to be sampled and methodology for
offsite sample collection will be determined during design.
Surface water samples will be collected, as a minimum, from Wards
Creek at one upstream location and one downstream location as
necessary to monitor the contamination. The analytical data
generated from the quarterly sampling events will be used to
track the concentrations and movement of groundwater contaminants
until a long-term Site monitoring plan is implemented in the
remedial action phase.
10.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy for this Site meets the statutory
requirements set forth at Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c.
S 9621(b)(1). This section states that the remedy must protect
human health and the environment; meet ARARs (unless waived); be
cost-effective; use permanent solutions, and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and finally, wherever feasible,
employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paae 106
the contaminants. The following sections discuss how the remedy
fulfills these requirements.

Protection of human health and the environment: The selected
soil remedy will remove the human health risks from dermal
contact, incidental ingestion, or ingestion from gardening of
contaminated Site soils. The groundwater remediation system
will extract and treat contaminated groundwater, thereby reducing
and eventually removing the future risks to human health which
could result from ingestion of or contact with groundwater, and
the environmental risks which could result from continued
discharge of contaminants to Wards Creek.
Compliance with ARARs: The selected remedy will meet ARARs,
which are listed in Sections 9.1.2 and 9.2.2 of this ROD.
Cost effectiveness: The selected soil remedy component is cost
effective: while the cost is greater than three of the four other
alternatives (excluding no action), a greater benefit is achieved
by the elimination of the O&M costs and the uncertainties
associated with projecting such O&M costs.
Among the groundwater alternatives that are protective of human
health and the environment and comply with all ARAR~J the
selected alternative is the most cost-effective choice because it
uses a well proven widely-used treatment method for which costs
can be reliably predicted (air/gas/steam stripping), and because
the use of the POTW option is the most cost-effective means to
dispose of the treated groundwater.
Utilization of permanent solutions. and alternative treatment
technoloaies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable: The selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solution. and treatment can practicably
be used for this action. Both of the selected remedy components
are considered permanent solutions.
Among the alternatives that are protective of human health and
the environment and comply with all ARARs, EPA and the State of
South Carolina have determined that the selected remedy achieves
the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of
toxicity/mobility/volume, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. The selected groundwater action is
more readily implementable than the other alternatives
considered, and utilizes the most cost-effective option for
disposal of treated water. The selected soil remedial action is
the most practical and easily implemented alternative, given the
relatively small volume of soil requiring remediation
(approximately 650 cubic yards).

-------
Record of Decision
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Paqe 107
Preference for treatment as a principal remedy element: The
proposed groundwater remediation system will fulfill the
preference for treatment as a principal element, through
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater until the
remedial goals are achieved.
The soil remedial action will not satisfy the preference, because
it was determined that treatment of the small volume of soil
requiring remediation is not practical. Additionally, offsite
disposal is more feasible in that it does not result in creation
of an onsite waste cell that must be monitored for an extended
period of time. If the contaminated soils are treated prior to
disposal at a RCRA facility, then the preference will be
satisfied.

-------
APPBHDIX B
STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA COIlCURRERCB LB'rTER
ELHORB WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERPUND SITE

-------
D BcaE C
Interim Commissioner: Thomas E. Brown. Jr.
. I
"".~_4.( (..../. (c..-...
Department of Health and enVIronmental Control
Board: JOhn 1-' lUrrlss. Chairman
Richard E. Jabbour. DDS. Vice Charrman
Robert J. Stripling. Jr. Secretary
W:lllam E. ApPlegate. I!!.
Toney Graham. Jr.. MD
Sandra J. Molander
John 8. Pate. MD
2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201
Promoting Health. Protecting the Environment
March 31, 19
APR 06 1993
Mr. Patrick Tobin
Acting Regional Administrator
US EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE:
Final Draft Record of Decision (ROD)
Elmore Waste Disposal Site
Spartanburg County
Dear Mr. Tobin:
The Department has reviewed, commented on, and concurs with The Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Elmore Waste Disposal site. The ROD is for the remedial actions to be
undertaken at this Site. The EP A recommended alternative for source control includes
excavation and transportation to an approved hazardous waste disposal facility of contaminated
soils. The groundwater related remedial activities include extraction filtration, treatment through
chemical precipitation and discharge to a local POTW.
Should the proposed discharge alternative require an upgrade of the local POTW, the
ROD should be reopened and all alternatives for discharge from the groundwater pump and treat
system re-evaluat~. In concurring with this ROD, the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) does not waive any right or authority it may have to
require corrective action in accordance with the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management
Act and the South Carolina Pollution Control Act. These rights include, but are not limited to,
the right to ensure that all necessary permits are obtained, all clean-up goals and criteria are met,
and to take a separate action in the event clean-up goals and criteria are not met. Nothing in
the concurrence shall preclude SCDHEC from exercising any administrative, legal and equitable
remedies available to require additional response actions in the event that: (l)(a) previously
unknown or undetected conditions arise at the site, or (b) SCDHEC receives additional
information not previously 'available concerning the premises upon which SCDHEC relied in
concurring with the selected remedial alternative; and (2) the' implementation of the remedial
alternative selected in the ROD is no longer protective of public health and the environment.
..
'-.I lecycled paoel

-------
March 31, 1993
Page 2
This concurrence with the selected remedy for the Elmore Waste Disposal Site is
contingent upon the State's above-mentioned reservation of rights. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact Mr. Lewis Bedenbaugh at (803)734-5211.
Sincerely,
!f~.~
R. Lewis Shaw, P. E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Control
RLS/LRB/ehr
cc:
Hartsill Truesdale
Lewis Bedenbaugh
Keith Lindler
Rebecca Dotterer
Harry Mathis
Charles Gorman
Barney Harmon

-------