PB94-964059
EPA/ROD/R04-94/188
October 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Lexington County Landfill
Superfund Site, Cayce, SC,
9/29/94
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA SUPERFUND SITE
CAYCE, LEXINGTON COUNTY
SOUTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Lexington County Landfill Area Site
Cayce, Lexington County, South Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Lexington County Landfill Area Superfund Site (the Site) in
Cayce, South Carolina, which was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C § 9601 et sea., and,
to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 C.F.R. Part 300 et seq. This decision is based on the
administrative record for this Site.
The State of South Carolina, acting as a support agency, 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 present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedial action addresses on-Site and off-Site groundwater
contamination in addition to contaminated landfill waste material
as the principal threat at this Site. On-Site sediment and
surface water contamination is also addressed as part of the
remedy.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
D Consolidation and capping of the waste areas, including deed
restrictions for protection of the cap and the use of
groundwater beneath the Site for drinking purposes;
D Methane gas collection and venting. Analysis for vinyl
chloride will also be included;
D Extraction of contaminated groundwater/leachate and
discharge to the POTW. Additional pretreatment will be
-------
performed, if necessary, to allow for discharge of the
treated groundwater to a local publicly-owned treatment
works (POTW); and
D Additional sampling of surface water and sediment to fully
delineate extent of contamination and potential threat to
aquatic and terrestrial life.
D Monitoring of groundwater, surface water, sediment, and
landfill gas. The monitoring plan will be designed to
detect contaminant migration, evaluate the effectiveness of
the remedial action, and detect any new 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.
The presumptive remedy chosen for this Site was based on EPA's
expectation that containment technologies would be appropriate
for municipal landfill waste, because the volume and
heterogeneity of the waste makes treatment impracticable. This
remedy utilizes alternative treatment technology to the maximum
extent practicable for this Site.
This selected remedy will result in contaminated groundwater
remaining on-Site above health-based levels until remedy
implementation is complete. Therefore/ five (5) year reviews
will be conducted after initiation of remedial action to insure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
rC
John H. Hankinson, Jr Date
Regional Administrator
-------
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Site Description 1
1.2 Site Topography and Drainage 4
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 5
2.2 Previous Investigations 6
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 9
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY ... 10
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 10
5.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting 10
5.2 Hydrogeology 12
5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 13
5.2.1 Waste Disposal Areas 14
5.2.2 Methane Gas Survey 14
5.2.4 Surface Water and Sediment Samples 19
5.2.5 Groundwater 20
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS . 26
6.1 Human Health Risks 26
6.1.1 Exposure Assessment 26
6.1.2 Risk Characterization 28
6.2 Environmental Risks • 30
7.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 34
7.1 Description of Remedial Alternatives 36
7.2.1 Alternative 1: 36
7.2.2 Alternative 2: 37
7.2.3 Alternative 3: 38
7.2.4 Alternative 4: 39
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .... 40
8.1 Threshold Criteria 40
8.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 41
8.3 Modifying Criteria 43
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY 43
9.1 Waste Performance Standards 45
9.2 Groundwater Performance Standards 45
9.3 Compliance Testing 46
9.4 Monitor Site Groundwater and Surface Water .... 47
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 47
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment . . 48
10.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) 48
10.2.1 Consolidation/Gas Recovery 48
10.2.2 Groundwater 50
-------
10.3 Cost effectiveness 52
10.4 Utilization of permanent solutions, and
alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable 52
10.5 Preference for treatment as a principal remedy
element 53
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 53
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX B - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - PROPOSED PLAN
APPENDIX D - PUBLIC NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
APPENDIX E - TRANSCRIPT OF PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Aerial Photo 2
1-2 Site Layout Map 3
5-1 Waste Disposal Areas 15
5-2 Methane Survey Stations 16
5-3 Leachate, Surface Water, Sediment Sample Stations... 18
5-4 Groundwater Sampling Stations ....21
5-5 Chloride Groundwater Plume 22
5-6 Benzene Groundwater Plume 23
LIST OF TABLES
6-1 Chemicals Exceeding ARARs. 27
6-2 Hazard Indices 31
6-3 Carcinogenic Risk 33
6-4 Ecological Risk 34
6-4 Remedial Alternatives 37
-------
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Lexington County Landfill Area Site (the "Site") is located
in Lexington County, South Carolina (Figure 1-1). The Site
consists of five properties and includes the 321 Landfill (a
former municipal landfill), the Old Cayce Dump, and the Bray Park
Dump. The Site is located in the geographical area known as the
Sand Hills, which are remnants of ancient sand dunes within the
Coastal Plain geologic province of South Carolina.
The 321 Landfill was formerly a sand mine excavated into the
slope of a hill. The 321 Landfill operations began in May, 1972,
at the 321 Landfill and ended in 1988 when the facility reached
capacity and was closed with a clay cap. The Old Cayce Dump and
the Bray Park Dump were used by local residences as household
refuse dumps. Dumping at the Old Cayce Dump began in the 1940's
and at the Bray Park Dump in the 1960's.
1.1 Site Description
The Site consists of five properties (Figure 1-2). The north
property is approximately 41 acres and is owned by Mr. Wyman
Boozer. The property in the center of the Site is approximately
97 acres and is owned by the cities of Cayce and West Columbia.
W. Gregory Medlin owns two properties (3.2 acres each) along
Route 321 in the south portion of the Site. Mrs. Beulah Sturkie
owns one property (approximately 20 acres) in the south corner of
the Site at the intersection of Route 321 and Bray Park Road.
The 321 Landfill occupies approximately 16 acres of Mr. Wyman
Boozer's property and approximately 51 acres of the center
property. The Bray Park Dump is also located on the center
property and the Old Cayce Dump is located on Mrs. Beulah
Sturkie's property.
The north and center properties are open areas primarily as a
result of the mining and the 321 Landfill operations. The 321
landfill is the most evident feature at the Site. The surface of
the 321 Landfill slopes into the hillside in the northwest
portion of the Site where a golf driving range is currently
operated on the cap. A methane recovery system located adjacent
to the driving range extracts methane gas from recovery wells
installed within the 321 Landfill. Lexington County utilizes the
southeast portion of the Site as a recreation facility.
Approximately 25 acres have been excavated in the east portion of
the Site and that portion is used as a sedimentation basin. Some
of the excavated soils were used for cover material for the clay
cap of the 321 Landfill. The excavated area is predominantly
flat, sloping only two to three percent, and is bare of
vegetation. A narrow strip of wooded land ranging from 100 to
-------
S^lf/ y
\ \ 11\ii f
- ^BOUNDARY OF \\ I /// f
0 i ^ DETAILED /JH/fj
^_;>^/^
^_. V^^^ •'_ ^^^^t/
PALMETTO
WOUD PRESERVING
STUDY AREA
?^& >/.? 7/-^ ^r—i*r:'>
—"="« LEXINGTON -.\,.
COUNTY
LANDFILL
SITE
.=--. *z~- -,' •^-^^=^P^^^^^'?Ai:'?^-x;' -
^^__"&ta'vel:/ V .J-T^tt??.-^ r^
SCRDI
^'.'^ STUDY AREA
SOURCE: USGS S.W. COLUMBIA. SC QUAD
•Hardng Lawson Assodatee
! Engineering and
!Environmental Services
SITE LOCATION MAP
LEXINGTON CO. LANDFILL AREA
Lexington County Landfill
Superfund Site
Lexington, SC
FIGURE
1-1
' DRAWN
i JSR
JOB NUMBER
25969.1
APPROVED
DATE
11/93
REVISED DATE
-------
EXPLANATION
EXISTING UPPER UNFT MONfTORINO WELL
EXISTING LOWER UNrT MONITOBINO WELL
FORMER TEST WELL OR BORING
WATER SUPPLY WELL
FORMER SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENTS SAMPLE LOCATION
FORMER SEEP SAMPLING LOCATION
FORMER SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION
L23
(EPA. 1967)
US • TW-131
(EPA. 1987)
WW-Jo
(MARTTN. IJ7J)
(EPA, 1917) II
\\
«
(MARTIN, 197J)
(MICHEL, 1974)
WW-11
(MARTIN, 1973)
OUClycz
Dunp
TW-IB '
<> I DHL
HW
(MICHEL, 1976)
(MARTIN, 197})
(MICHEL, 1976)
S KMARTLN.U7!)
A'(SCDHEC.I979)
FIGURE 1-2
SITE LAYOUT MAP
-------
300 feet in width separates the 321 Landfill and the Starmount
Subdivision. The ruins of a cement block building exist in the
west corner of the property.
The southern properties are predominantly wooded with several
small clearings and a large clearing in the southeast corner of
the Sturkie property. A building currently used as a used tire
shop is located on the Sturkie property at the intersection of
Route 321 and Bray Park Road. A collapsed building exists
approximately 150 feet northeast of the tire shop. An abandoned
building is located on the southern Medlin property along Route
321.
The Bray Park Dump and the Old Cayce Dump are two subsurface
waste burial areas located to the east and southeast of the 321
Landfill, respectively. Aside from scattered debris which can be
seen in the general location of these two waste disposal areas,
these two areas are relatively non-descript.
1.2 Site Topography and Drainage
The regional topography of "the sand hills" region of the Upper
Coastal Plain area is characterized by relatively small hills and
river valleys formed in poorly consolidated sediments.
Elevations of the Site decrease southward from an approximate
elevation of 310 ft above mean sea level (msl) at the north
corner of the Site to an approximate elevation of 190 ft above
msl at the southern boundary of the Site. A topographic high
point exists immediately northwest of the Site.
The headwaters of the nearest stream originate at three springs
within the south boundary of the Site. The t*ree channels formed
by the springs merge into one primary channel south of Bray Park
Road which flows toward the Congaree River located two miles
southeast of the Site. Most of the storm water runoff is in the
form of sheet flow until it reaches the two major drainage
channel networks currently existing at the Site. One network
drains the west side of the Site and the other drains the east
side of the Site.
The channel network draining the west side of the Site originates
within a large channel which parallels Route 321. This channel
meanders through the Medlin properties in the south portion of
the Site and opens into a large clearing on the Sturkie property.
A tributary originating 300 feet east of the primary channel
along the tree line south of the 321 Landfill joins the primary
channel on the Medlin property.
The channel network draining the east side of the Site originates
on the north edge of the 321 Landfill approximately 800 feet east
of Route 321 . The mouth of the channel opens into the excavated
-------
area comprising the sediment basin in the east portion of the
Site. Storm water that does not infiltrate the sandy surface
soils is transported through sheet flow to the outlet of the
sediment basin, located approximately 100 feet from the north
athletic field at the Bray Park recreation facility. The outflow
from the basin flows along a ditch which parallels the west edge
of the Interstate 26 access road. A small tributary feeding the
ditch collects storm water runoff along the south side of the
athletic fields. • A catch basin collects the receiving flow from
the ditch and diverts it across Dixiana Road into a channel on
the east side of Interstate 26.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The history of the Site has been formulated from correspondence
of previous Site activities, a review of aerial photographs, and
previous hydrogeologic and engineering investigations. The
following sections provide an overview of Site activities,
previous investigations, and a summary of findings regarding the
hydrogeology and environmental quality at the Site.
2.1 Site History
Aerial photographs indicate that sand mining operations began in
the northern portion of the Site sometime between 1938 and 1943.
At that time, the remainder of the Site was primarily wooded,
with a small pond (Stanley Pond) situated in the southwest
portion of the property. Sand mining operations continued at the
Site until the late 1960's.
In 3970, the cities of Cayce and West Columbia purchased 57 acres
to use as the 321 Landfill. On December 10, 1971, the 321
Landfill was turned over to Lexington County. In January 1972
the 321 Landfill was permitted by the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and sanitary
landfill operations by Lexington County began in May 1972.
Shortly thereafter, an agreement was made between Mr. Wyman
Boozer and Lexington County to fill an open pit on a portion of
his 41-acre parcel by including it in the adjacent 321 Landfill
operations. The 321 Landfill was operated utilizing compaction
and daily cover which was the commonly accepted practice at the
time. Landfilling continued until 1988 when the capacity of the
facility was reached. The 321 Landfill closure took place in
1990 with the placement of a low permeability clay cap.
The Bray Park Dump is the location of the City of Cayce's former
solid waste disposal operations. The Bray Park Dump was used by
both the cities of Cayce and West Columbia from the mid-1960's to
-------
about 1970. The Bray Park Dump has been covered with several
feet of soil. There is no visual surface evidence of its
existence.
The Old Cayce Dump was used for solid waste disposal in the
1960's. Refuse was apparently placed there by individuals in an
uncontrolled situation, with no formal operation of the Site by
the City of Cayce. A portion of this dump was located in what
was formerly known as Stanley Pond. The Old Cayce Dump was
closed in 1969 and covered in 1972 by Lexington County. No
surface topographic expression of the dump or former pond is
evident today. The Old Cayce Dump area is currently covered with
thick vegetation.
Waste disposal records for the Old Cayce Dump and Bray Park Dump
are not available and, based upon the history of the operation of
these areas, probably never existed. Waste disposal records for
the 321 Landfill, however, are available. Through these records,
the EPA was able to prepare a list of potentially responsible
parties (PRPs). Although a vast majority of the refuse in the
321 Landfill consisted of sanitary domestic waste, records
indicate that certain types of industrial wastes were also
disposed in the facility. These wastes included chemical
solvents, petroleum products, and metallic wastes.
2.2 Previous Investigations
Several hydrogeological and engineering studies have been
performed at or in the vicinity of the 321 Landfill during the
1975-1992 period. A total of 44 test holes or monitoring wells
have been constructed as part of those investigations. In
addition, water supply wells and nearby surface waters have been
utilized to monitor water levels and/or water quality. In
general, these investigations support the findings and
conclusions of the RI/FS. The following paragraphs summarize the
previous investigations.
EPA Research Study — 1975-1976 - In 1975, the EPA funded a
research project of the 321 Landfill in cooperation with
Lexington County. A. W. Martin Associates performed the work and
presented the findings in their 1975 report. The A.W. Martin
report indicates that the sand quarry was excavated to the top of
a clay layer in many portions of the Site. Chemical analyses of
the groundwater samples indicated higher than background
concentrations of aluminum, chloride, sulfate, iron, sodium,
potassium oxides, and manganese. Sporadic concentrations of
sodium, zinc, and copper were also detected above background
concentrations.
Analyses of two surface water samples collected in the A.W.
Martin investigation indicate higher concentrations of iron and
-------
manganese in the upstream sample (S-l at Bray Park Road) than the
downstream sample (S-2 at Dixiana Road). Analysis of the
downstream sample (B) indicated that manganese, iron, chloride,
magnesium, and calcium concentrations exceeded background
concentrations of the upstream sample (HW).
J. Michel (1976) used essentially the same data collected for the
A. W. Martin study, including chemical data from monitoring wells
and water wells, and surface water chemistry data collected
during the period April-December 1975. Michel described the
chemical reactions in the vicinity of the 321 Landfill and
evaluated the chemical transport of various parameters. The
results of her study indicated that chlorides and specific
conductance were the best indicators of leachate presence and
migration. She concluded that increases of dissolved solids
(primarily chlorides) in groundwater samples collected from down-
gradient water supply wells were indications of a leachate front
originating from the 321 Landfill. Michel indicated that there
was an increase of magnesium, aluminum, and chloride in water
samples collected from the deeper lysimeter installed at the 321
Landfill.
SCDHEC Study — 1977-1979 - The SCDHEC study of the 321 Landfill
area was performed during the period 1977-1979. The results of
groundwater sampling activities indicated that chloride, iron,
and manganese were detected above background concentrations in
test well DH-2 immediately adjacent to the 321 Landfill.
Concentrations of chromium (80 ug/1), lead (250 ug/1), arsenic
(60 ug/1), and mercury (22.8 ug/1) were detected above their
detection limits on one or more sampling dates; however, they
were not detected on a consistent basis during the study period
at any of the wells. No trends were apparent throughout the
study period. Total and dissolved mercury was detected above the
detection limit in groundwater samples collected from well WW-5
on more than one sampling event throughout the study.
Based on sampling of surface water from the intermittent stream
southeast of Bray Park Road, SCDHEC concluded that specific
conductance, chloride, hardness, barium, chromium, and mercury
concentrations were elevated during some sampling rounds and were
the result of leachate production in the 321 Landfill and the Old
Cayce Dump.
The Bray Park Dump was discovered during test drilling
activities. The discovery of the Bray Park Dump prompted
reconsideration of the previous water-quality conclusions that
the 321 Landfill was the source of contaminants in the Rucker
wells (WW-5, WW-7). Because original sampling of these wells
indicated low concentrations of metals (lead, mercury, iron,
manganese), SCDHEC officials believed that the groundwater
quality had been impacted by leachate movement from the 321
Landfill.
Lexington County Monitoring Wells — 1980-1981 - At the
conclusion of the SCDHEC study, Lexington County installed four
-------
8
monitoring wells at locations selected by SCDHEC officials. The
three downgradient wells were installed by Walker Laboratories
and the upgradient well was installed by a local well driller.
Chemical analyses from these four wells indicated that chloride,
total dissolved solids, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, and mercury
exceeded background concentrations. Cadmium and selenium
concentrations were reported to be 119 ug/1 and 15.1 ug/1
(respectively) in downgradient well MW-2. Arsenic and mercury
concentrations were reported to be 30.2 ug/1 and 19.9 ug/1
(respectively) in downgradient well MW-4.
Lexington County Engineering Study — 1981 - As part of a 1981
engineering study contracted by Lexington County, nine auger
holes were drilled into the base of the active 321 Landfill to
determine the local subsurface conditions (McNair, 1981). These
test holes were located near the southeast margin of landfilling
operations. Five of the boreholes terminated in trash. The
remaining four bore holes encountered white, silty to sandy
kaolinitic clay at elevations ranging from approximately 200 ft
above mean sea level (msl) to 216 ft msl. Groundwater in the
auger holes was considered to be perched above the clay.
S&ME Study — 1982-1983 - In 1982, Site Consultants, Inc. and
Soil & Material Engineers (S&ME) were retained by Lexington
County to devise an improved groundwater monitoring system. S&ME
divided the sedimentary strata into distinct hydrogeologic units
which were referred to as the Upper Unit and Lower Unit. As part
of that study, two monitoring wells (MW-5, MW-6) were installed
by S&ME to monitor the quality of groundwater within aquifer
sands in the Lower Unit, which was shown to be separated from the
Upper Unit by a low permeability clay layer.
Specific conductance values of samples collected from Upper Unit
wells immediately downgradient of the 321 Landfill were
significantly elevated in comparison to samples collected from
wells located several hundreds of feet downgradient of the 321
Landfill (S&ME, Inc., 1984). Water samples collected from Lower
Unit monitoring wells (MW-5, MW-6) had low specific conductance
values with no evidence of groundwater quality degradation at
that time.
S&ME Study — 1985 - In conjunction with the initiation of a
SCDHEC-approved and expanded groundwater monitoring program for
the 321 Landfill, S&ME installed three additional monitoring
wells. These three wells were included in the quarterly
monitoring program beginning in 1986, and the results of chemical
testing of groundwater from these wells have been included in
quarterly and annual monitoring reports submitted to the SCDHEC.
EPA Study — 1987 - EPA Region IV personnel performed a Site
inspection of the Lexington County Landfill Area Site during
February 23-26, 1987. During their inspection, EPA staff
-------
collected 11 surface soil and sediment samples, six surface water
samples, and 10 groundwater samples (six from monitoring wells,
and four from domestic water supply wells). Analysis of the
groundwater sample collected from well MW-2 indicated elevated
concentrations of metals and organic compounds that were not
detected in samples from the other nine wells (MW-8, MW-9, MW-10,
MW-5, WW-3, WW-29, DH-13, WW-4, and WW-5). Analyses of surface
water samples indicated elevated concentrations of metals and
organic compounds at three of these sample locations.
Westinghouse Study — 1989 - Westinghouse Environmental and
Geotechnical Services, Inc. (Westinghouse) performed an
additional assessment for Lexington County in 1989. These
assessment activities included an electromagnetic (EM) survey,
laboratory soil tests, borehole permeability tests, water quality
analyses, and the installation of nine test wells. This
investigation evaluated the hydraulic confinement of the Lower
Unit. The clay confining bed was determined to be present at all
Lower Unit well locations with thicknesses ranging from 9 ft (TW-
2D) to over 20 ft (MW-5).
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community relations activities were conducted in accordance with
Sections 113(k), 117(a), and 121(f) of CERCLA 42 USC § 9617.
Interviews with residents were conducted in January 1992. A
Community Relations Plan was developed and an information
repository was established at the Lexington County Library in
July 1992. A fact sheet announcing the start of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was issued by EPA in
early June 1992. On July 14, 1992, EPA held a public meeting at
the Grace Chapel Church to inform the public of the RI/FS
process. The meeting was attended by more than 40 citizens.
EPA's presentation to the public included information on how to
participate in the investigation and remedy selection process
under CERCLA. RI field work was initiated in October 29, 1992,
and continued through February 26, 1993. Additional field work
was conducted from April 20, 1993, through May 13, 1993. The
final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report was
released to the public and placed in the information repository
on April 6, 1994.
Following completion of the RI and the FS, EPA released the
proposed plan fact sheets on April 7, 1994. An advertisement was
published in the local newspapers on April 6, 1994, informing the
public of the proposed plan, public meeting, and the public
comment period, which extended from April 6, 1994, to May 6,
1994.
The public meeting for the Proposed Plan was held on April 14,
1994, to present the Agency's selection of preferred alternatives
-------
10
for addressing contaminated subsurface waste and groundwater at
the Site. Representatives from SCDHEC were present at this
public meeting. A request was made (and granted) for a 30 day
extension to the public comment period, which extended the
closing date to June 6, 1994. Public comments and questions are
documented in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The purpose of the remedial alternative selected in this ROD is
to reduce future risks at this Site. The remedial action for
contaminated subsurface waste will remove future health threats
by preventing leaching of the contaminants to groundwater. The
groundwater remedial action will remove future health threats
posed by potential usage of contaminated groundwater. Additional
activities will include imposition of deed restrictions to
protect the integrity of the cap and prevent the utilization of
groundwater beneath the Site for drinking purposes, venting of
methane gas, and sampling of surface water and sediment to
further evaluate the ecological threat to area wildlife and
aquatic biota. This is the only ROD contemplated for this Site.
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 total of seventy-seven
methane samples, thirteen sediment samples, thirteen surface
water samples, four leachate samples, and forty groundwater
samples were collected during the RI. The main portion of the RI
was conducted from October 1992 through February 1993, followed
by additional groundwater sampling between April 20 through May
13, 1993. The sampling locations are shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-
4.
5.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting
The Site is within the inner margin of the Upper Coastal Plain,
which is underlain by a southeastward-thickening wedge of
unconsolidated sedimentary sands and clays of Late Cretaceous to
Recent (Holocene) age. These sediments overlie crystalline
bedrock. The unconsolidated sedimentary geologic strata beneath
and in the vicinity of the Site range from about 150 ft thick to
250 ft thick, and generally dip to the southeast at a rate
varying from about 15 ft/mi to as much as 35 to 40 ft/mi.
However, the dips of Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments at
the Site have been considerably affected by post-depositional
erosion, and erosional dips are locally greater than 40 ft/mi.
-------
11
Four geologic units underlie the Site - the bedrock, the
Middendorf Formation, a sequence of Lower Tertiary elastics, and
the Pinehurst Formation. A fifth geologic unit, referred to as
alluvium, is located south of the Site.
Bedrock - Crystalline bedrock or the saprolitic clay overlying
crystalline bedrock was penetrated at a depth of 185 feet at well
TW-32D and at 165 feet at well WW-30 at Foster-Dixiana Company
immediately west of the 321 Landfill. Generally, the bedrock in
this area is overlain by a hard, micaceous saprolitic clay which
was reported by the driller to be 13 feet thick at well WW-30.
Most water wells are terminated when this hard clay is
penetrated, and wells are screened opposite sands within the
overlying Middendorf Formation.
Middendorf Formation - The Middendorf Formation (also referred to
by some geologists as the Tuscaloosa Formation) of Late
Cretaceous age unconformably overlies the eroded surface of the
bedrock or saprolite overlying bedrock. The Midder.dorf is
composed of alternating beds of poorly sorted, very fine to
coarse-grained arkosic sands and dense kablinitic clays that were
deposited in upper deltaic and fluvial environments. The
Middendorf thickens from about 75 feet beneath the higher
elevations at the 321 Landfill to 150 feet or more southeast of
the Site.
Most of the deeper water wells in the vicinity of the 321
Landfill are screened opposite artesian fine to coarse-grained
aquifer sands within the lower part of the Middendorf Formation.
The lower part of the Middendorf Formation is a moderately
productive aquifer which is under artesian conditions in the
vicinity of the .Site. This lower part of the Middendorf
Formation has been referred to as the Lower Hydrogeologic Unit,
or simply Lower Unit, in previous reports and in this Record of
Decision.
Lower Tertiary elastics - The Middendorf Formation is
unconformably overlain by a sequence of poorly sorted, very fine
to coarse, clayey and silty arkosic and quartz sands and
kaolinitic clays of Tertiary age, which was referred to as the
Black Mingo Formation by Padgett (1981) and S&ME (1983) and as
the Huber Formation by Smith (1977). These strata are designated
"Lower Tertiary elastics". These Lower Tertiary elastics are the
upper part of the Upper Hydrogeologic Unit, or simply Upper Unit,
as described in this ROD. Low-permeability aquifer sands occur
within the lower part of the Lower Tertiary unit.
Pinehurst Formation - The higher elevations of the Site are
underlain by a sequence of loose, wind-blown (eolian) sands that
have been referred to as the Pinehurst Formation by Kite (1985).
These sands are as much as 50 feet or more thick beneath higher
elevations of the Site and surrounding areas, and unconformably
-------
12
overlie the Lower Tertiary unit. The sands of the Pinehurst,
where present, are generally unsaturated, but are permeable and
allow downward infiltration of precipitation into sands of the
lower Tertiary unit.
Alluvial Sediments - The Holocene (Recent) alluvial sands and
clays deposited by the ancestral Congaree River occur south and
southeast of the Site, but are not present beneath the Site north
of Dixiana Road. Padgett (1981) described the geology and
hydrogeology of these alluvial sediments underlying the SCRDI
Dixiana Site.
5.2 Hydrogeoloav
S&ME (1983) subdivided sediments above the bedrock into Upper and
Lower Units at the Site. Geologic cross-sections were
constructed to evaluate the geology of the Upper and Lower Units.
The thickness, stratigraphic relationships, and lithologies of
these hydrogeologic units are presented in five cross-sections of
the Site as illustrated in the RI. The physical and hydrologic
characteristics of these units are summarized in the following
paragraphs.
Upper Unit
The Upper Unit consists of the Pinehurst Formation, the Lower
Tertiary elastics (probably Black Mingo Formation) and the
alternating sands and clays within the upper part of the
Middendorf Formation. A laterally persistent clay bed, referred
to as the lower confining clay of the Upper Unit, separates the
Upper and Lower Units. These marginal marine sediments are
primarily sands and interbedded clays and silts. The sands
consist of white to light brown, well sorted fine sands and pale
orange to yellowish orange poorly sorted, fine to very coarse
quartz sands and are typically crossbedded. Kaolinitic clay
lenses ranging from white to reddish purple are also interbedded
within the sands. Erosional scarps and troughs may be prevalent
within these sediments. The following sequence of strata is
present within the Upper Unit; the upper sands, the middle sands,
the upper confining clay, the lower sands/middle confining clay,
and the lower confining clay.
Three laterally extensive clay confining beds and three
interbedded sands are present within the Upper Unit. The upper
sands of the Upper Unit are eolian sediments of the Pinehurst
Formation that overlie the Tertiary elastics beneath the higher
elevations in the north half of the Site. The sediments consist
primarily of moderately to poorly sorted, fine to coarse quartz
sand, and are not saturated. Several large clay lenses and clay
beds occur within the basal portion of these sands, some of which
locally confine the middle sands.
-------
13
The middle sands overlie the upper confining clay and consist
primarily of white to grayish pink quartz sands. These sands
appear to have been deposited unconfonnably on the eroded surface
of the upper confining clay, and erosional channels are present
in the upper and middle confining clays. Several small black
clay layers typical of back-barrier depositional environments
overlie these sands in several borings in the south portion of
the Site at elevations ranging from 165 to 175 feet msl.
Groundwater chemistry data indicate that contaminants within the
Upper Unit primarily migrate within these sands in the south and
east portions of the Site.
The upper confining clay appears to occur throughput the Site;
however, breaches within this clay bed are apparent in the north,
east, and southwest portions of the Site. The thickness of the
upper confining clay ranges from 5 to 18 feet.
The lower sands within the Upper Unit exist between the upper and
lower confining beds and consist primarily of poorly sorted,
clayey fine to coarse quartz sands. Clay and silt are common in
the sands. These sediments are present below an elevation of
approximately 150 to 190 feet msl. Several of these lower sands
were not saturated in the north portion of the Site. The middle
confining clay, a 3 to 5 foot thick sandy clay, is interbedded
within the lower sands in the south and east portions of the
Site.
The lower confining clay, ranging from 5 to 19 feet thick, marks
the base of the Upper Unit, and appears to be continuous
throughout the Site; however, a channel is apparent in the south
portion of the Site at test well TW-27S. The clays are dense,
dry, and have low permeabilities as indicated by the geologist
logs, gamma logs, and laboratory permeability tests.
Lower Unit
The Lower Unit is in the basal sand sequence within the
Middendorf Formation and contains the more permeable artesian
aquifer sands used in the area for groundwater supplies. The
Lower Unit is composed predominantly of poorly sorted, very fine
to very coarse quartz sand and pebbles. Orthoclase, muscovite,
pyrite, and various heavy minerals occur within the sands.
Interbedded clay laminae and clay lenses occur within these
sands. These sands are the most permeable strata within the
Lower Unit.
5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
Based on information presented in the Remedial Investigation, the
environmental contamination at the Site can be summarized as
follows:
-------
14
1. The following waste disposal areas were identified during
the Remedial Investigation: The 321 Landfill, the Bray Park
Dump, the Old Cayce Dump, and a separate area (Waste Area
No. 3) between the Bray Park Dump and the Old Cayce Dump.
2. A methane gas plume is present in areas along SC Highway
321 including the southern corner of the 321 Landfill. The
gas plume extends along Bray Park Road adjacent to the
stream culverts and along areas adjacent to the methane
recovery system.
3. Groundwater in the Upper Unit is contaminated with both
organic and inorganic contaminants. Groundwater in the
lower unit is also contaminated with several organic and
inorganic contaminants but to a lesser extent than the Upper
Unit.
4. Both organic and inorganic contamination is present in
leachate, surface water, and sediment samples collected from
the immediate vicinity of the Site.
5.2.1 Waste Disposal Areas
Electromagnetic (EM) surveys were performed at the Site to
delineate the lateral extent of the Bray Park and Old Cayce
Dumps. Test pits were excavated along the suspected perimeters
of each dump to verify the results of the EM survey. The actual
boundaries of the Bray Park Dump and Old Cayce Dump (Figure 5-1)
corresponded to the electromagnetic anomalies measured during the
EM survey. Domestic trash and construction debris were observed
within test pits excavated within the perimeters of the two
dumps. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure analyses of
soil samples collected at the base of the two dump sites
identified concentrations of barium (1.5 to 5.7 mg/kg), cadmium
(0.038 mg/kg), and lead (0.094 mg/kg).
5.2.2 Methane Gas Survey
The locations of the potentially affected population for methane
gas and the methane survey stations are illustrated in Figure 5-
2. The highest concentration of methane (43% Lower Explosive
Limit LEL or 22,790 ppm) was detected at survey station SV-34
along Route 321. Methane was detected at adjacent stations SV-
56, SV-58, and SV-60 below 20% LEL, and in the southern corner of
the 321 Landfill at well TW-2S. The extent of the methane gas
plume will be further delineated during the Remedial Design.
Additional data will be collected during the Remedial Design to
confirm the extent of the plume within the area of the
sedimentation basin.
-------
0
e
SCALE
ELECTROMAGNETIC ANOMALY
ARE* 1 "* ASSOCIATED W/ GRID SURVEY
ELECTROMAGNETIC ANOMALY
ASSOCIATED W/ PERIMETER SURVEY
CKEO IT I SCAUC I JH» NO. I f
A-IM [AS SHDWN| 1239B |
atlanta testing & engineering
hydrogeologic consultants
florida —georgia—carollnas
FIGURE 5-1
WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
-------
• METHANE SURVEY STATION
FEET
FIGURE 5-2
METHANE SURVEY STATIONS
JOB NO.: 12398
-------
17
Methane concentrations were also detected at survey stations SV-1
(4% LEL) and SV-2 (1% LEL) adjacent to stream culverts along Bray
Park Road. Methane was also detected at station SV-64 (<1% LEL)
adjacent to the existing methane recovery facility for the 321
Landfill. The existing methane gas recovery system, installed
during 1986, recovers methane for resale to nearby industries.
5.2.3 Leachate Samples
Leachate samples were collected from leachate seeps on the north
side of the 321 Landfill (LS-1, LS-2) and from a leachate seep on
the east side of the 321 Landfill (LS-3). A water sample (LS-4)
was collected from a small seep, or spring, located southeast of
the 321 Landfill (Figure 5-3).
Organic compounds including acetone (27 ug/1 to 66 ug/1), 2-
butanone (11 ug/1 to 22 ug/1), 4-methyl-2 pentanone (3 ug/1),
phenol (410 ug/1 to 2300 ug/1), and methylphenols (25 ug/1 to
4800 ug/1) were detected in leachate samples LS-1 and LS-3.
Toluene, diethylphthalate, and bis (2-etl._, Ihexyl) phthalate, were
also detected in leachate sample LS-3. Benzene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes were detected in leachate sample LS-2 at
concentrations below the contract required detection limit
(CRDL).
Chemical data indicate that there was no correlation between
organic compounds detected in the leachate samples and organic
compounds detected in sediment samples collected at the same
sample locations. None of the semi-volatile organic compounds
identified in the leachate samples were detected in the
associated sediment samples. Bis (2-ethyIhexyl)phthalate (480
ug/kg) was detected in sediment sample SED-11 near leachate LS-1.
Concentrations of indicator parameters at LS-4 indicate that the
water quality of this seep is probably representative of a fresh-
water spring.
Inorganic analyses indicate that sample LS-1 and LS-3 contained
concentrations of barium (587-1510 ug/1), calcium (62.4-82.9
mg/1), cobalt (58.1-65.1 ug/1), copper (114-185 ug/1), magnesium
(17-59 mg/1), nickel (57.8-242 ug/1), lead (10.0-31.6 ug/1), and
zinc (18.8-19.7 mg/1). These metals are likely characteristic of
leachate generated by the Site. Cadmium (13.0 ug/1) and
manganese (2400 ug/1) were also detected in LS-1. Concentrations
of calcium (84.7 mg/1) and iron (17.1 mg/1) detected in LS-2
exceeded concentrations present in LS-4. Leachate generated by
infiltration of rainwater into the Site is the likely source for
the presence of these metals.
-------
NOTE: SAMPLE L-4 IS A SPRING SAMPLE
EXP1JINATION
L-1 LEACHATE SEEP SAMPLE LOCATION
SW/SEO-I STREAM AND/OR SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(ORIGINAL MAP) SCALE: 1"-1OO'
(PLOTTED MAP) SCALE: 1" •MOO-
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10'
atlanta testing Se engineering
hydrogeologic consultants
florida —georgio — Carolina s
LEACHATE. STREAM &
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5-3
-------
19
5.2.4 Surface Water and Sediment Samples
Surface water and sediment samples were collected along the two
major drainage channel networks present at the Site (Figure 5-3).
Exceedences of chronic concentrations of chlorides and ammonia
indicate potential ecological impact to surface water at Sites
SW-1 through SW-4 along the surface water south of the Site.
Additional surface water samples will be collected along the
stream during the Remedial Design to determine the extent of the
potential ecological impact to water quality on the biota.
Benzene and chlorobenzene were detected below the Contract
Required Detection Limit (CRDL)(10 ug/1) in surface water samples
SW-1, SW-2, and SW-7 located at the headwaters of the streams
along Bray Park Road. These compounds were not detected in
downstream samples SW-3 and SW-4. Acetone was detected in
surface water sample SW-5 collected at the outlet of the sediment
basin. Acetone was also detected in sediment samples SED-3, SED-
4, SED-5, and SED-7. Acetone has been detected in leachate,
surface water, and sediment samples collected along the east
drainage channel network. Analyses of sediment samples oED-11
and SED-13 indicate the presence of vanadium (3.2 mg/kg), zinc
(5.8-7.1 mg/kg), and lead (0.81-1.1 mg/kg). Barium (3.7 mg/kg)
was also detected in SED-11.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in surface water samples
SW-4 and SW-5 at concentrations less than 4 ug/1. A
concentration of 0.2 ug/1 of butylbenzyl phthalate was detected
in the duplicate SW-5 surface water sample. Di-n-octylphthalate
and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were also detected in several
sediment samples. Several other semi-volatile organic compounds
were detected in sediment sample SED-7 but were not detected in
downstream surface water or sediment samples.
Analyses of sediment and surface water samples collected down-
stream of the Old Cayce Dump indicate that several inorganic
contaminants appear to be related to wastes within the Old Cayce
Dump. Barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium and
sodium were detected at higher concentrations in surface water
samples SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, and SW-7 than in downstream sample SW-
4. Analyses of sediment indicate that barium, calcium, iron, and
manganese precipitate from the surface water at sample location
SED-4. Magnesium, sodium, and potassium appear to remain soluble
in the surface water. Aluminum, chromium, vanadium, zinc, and
lead concentrations detected in sediment samples SW-3 and SW-4
may indicate a source of these metals downgradient of the Site.
Aluminum, barium, chromium, copper, iron, vanadium, zinc, and
lead concentrations were detected in surface water sample SW-5.
A macroinvertebrate assessment was performed at the streams south
of the Site to evaluate the potential impact on the aquatic
-------
20
environment. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected from two
control stations (C-l and C-2) located along Fish Hatchery Road
within separate drainage basins northwest of the Site. Low flow
rates observed during the assessment indicated that intermittent
stream conditions may not have been, nor ever will be conducive
to larger populations. The data showed no discernible difference
in macroinvertebrate communities located downstream of the Site
and control station C-l. However, the impact of the drought
conditions on the macroinvertebrate communities may have affected
the data. Although the Site poses a potential threat to
ecological life, the limited data collected during the Remedial
Investigation does not justify remediation at this time.
Additional sampling will be performed during the Remedial Design
to confirm this position. Remedial action will be performed
should sampling results indicate such a need.
5.2.5 Groundwater
Groundwater Contamination - Upper Unit
Groundwater sampling stations are presented in Figure 5-4.
Previous investigations had shown that chloride was the best
indicator, or "fingerprint," of groundwater contamination at the
Site because of its high solubility and mobility in groundwater,
and low background concentrations. The distribution of chloride
concentrations in groundwater within the Upper Unit is
illustrated on Figure 5-5. The distribution of chloride
indicates that two extensions of the plume follow the two
groundwater components flowing southeast.
Total organic halogen (TOX) and ammonia concentrations also
showed close correlation with chloride concentrations and extent
of the plume. TOX concentrations exceeded background
concentration (0.05 mg/1) in 10 Upper Unit test wells located
east/southeast of the 321 Landfill. Based on these
concentrations, pesticides and PCBs were analyzed during the
second round of chemical analyses.
Laboratory analyses indicate that benzene and chlorobenzene are
the primary volatile organic compounds associated v/ith the
contaminant plume in the Upper Unit. Figure 5-6 illustrates the
distribution of benzene concentrations within the Upper Unit,
which resembles the chloride concentration distribution. Benzene
was detected at concentrations exceeding the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL = 5 ug/1) in groundwater samples collected from most
of the Upper Unit test wells on-Site. Benzene was not detected
in test wells TW-41S, TW-42S, or TW-45S located within Starmount
Subdivision. Concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX) were detected in groundwater samples collected
during Round 1 and Round 2.
-------
•- TEST WELLS-UPPER UNIT (INSTALLED PRIOR TO 12-92)
•4- TEST WELLS-LOWER UNIT (INSTALLED PRIOR TO 12-92)
•& TEST WELLS-UPPER UNIT (INSTALLED 12/92-4/93)
•#• TEST WELLS-LOWER UNIT (INSTALLED 12/92-4/93)
O WATER SUPPLY WELLS
, SCALE FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(ORIGINAL MAP) SCALE: 1"-100-
(PLOTTED MAP) SCALE. r-400'
CONTOUR INTERVAL 1O'
atlanta testing 8c engineering
hydrogeologic consultants
florida—georgia—Carolines
GROUND-HATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5-4
-------
.10-
EXPLANATION
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR
(ROUND a) "elo" #CHUORIDE CONCENTRATION (MO/I)
SCALE FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(ORIGINAL MAP) SCALE: T-1OO'
(PLOTTED MAP) SCALE: 1"--tOO'
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10'
atlanta testing & engineering
hydrogeologic consultants
florida—georgia—carolinas
FIGURE 5-5
CHLORIDE GROUNDWATER PLUME
-------
13 BENZENE CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
^ CONCENTRATION REPORTED FROM ROUND 2 ANALYSES
BOL- BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
SCALE FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(ORIGINAL MAP) SCALE: r-100'
(PLOTTED MAP) SCALE] T—»OO'
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10'
DATE [DRAWN BY [CHECKED BY I SCALE I JOB NO. [ FIGURE
9/9/93 | KON | TJU | AS SHOWN | 123OB
atlanta testing & engineering
hydrogeologic consultants
florida—georgia—Carolines
FIGURE 5-6
BENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUME
-------
24
Concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE),
dichloroethenes (DCE's), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
dichloroethanes (DCA's), and vinyl chloride were detected
slightly above and below the CRDL in Upper Unit wells. Most of
these compounds were detected in groundwater samples collected
from wells TW-20 to TW-22 during Round 1; however, only TCE and
1,2-DCE were detected in the groundwater at these two wells
during Round 2. Vinyl chloride, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-
dichloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethane were not detected in
groundwater samples collected during Round 2. TCE was detected
above the MCL (5 ug/1) in groundwater samples collected from well
TW-20S during Round 1 (9 ug/1) and Round 2 (8 ug/1).
Concentrations of semivolatile compounds were detected primarily
below the CRDLs in Upper Unit groundwater samples collected at
the Site during Round 1.
Pesticide compounds were detected in down-gradient Upper Unit
wells during the Round 2 analyses. Concentrations of alpha-BHC
were detected in groundwater samples collected from wells TW-12S
(0.0043 ug/1), and TW-28S (0.003 ug/1). Beta-BHC was detected in
groundwater samples collected from wells TW-25S (0.035 ug/1), TW-
27S (0.017 ug/1), and TW-28S (0.0094 ug/1). Gamma-BHC (0.013
ug/1) and Endosulfan II (0.012 ug/1) were also detected in the
groundwater sample collected from well TW-25S. Heptachlor was
detected in samples collected from wells TW-12S (0.0095 ug/1),
TW-20S (0.0063 ug/1), and TW-27S (0.0048 ug/1). Concentrations
of all of these compounds are below the established MCLs.
Pesticides were detected in groundwater within the Upper Unit at
locations where other contaminants have been detected and,
therefore, are believed to be Site-related. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's) were not detected in groundwater at the Site.
Laboratory analyses of inorganic parameters indicate that sodium,
potassium, iron, magnesium, calcium, and barium are associated
with the groundwater plume within the Upper Unit. Chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and arsenic were detected in the
groundwater in several Upper Unit test wells; however,
concentrations of these inorganics were not detected consistently
between Round 1 and Round 2 sampling events. Arsenic has been
detected in groundwater samples collected from test wells TW-2S
and TW-12S located southeast and down-gradient of the 321
Landfill. Arsenic was also detected during the second round of
sampling in groundwater samples collected from well TW-25S east
of the 321 Landfill, and wells TW-42S and TW-45S, located north
of the 321 Landfill.
The highest concentrations of all of the metals were detected in
test well TW-45S including elevated levels of beryllium and
cadmium. Several industries are located upgradient of well TW-
45S. Well TW-45S will be resampled during the Remedial Design to
evaluate the impact to groundwater quality.
-------
25
Groundwater Contamination - Lower Unit
The primary volatile organic compounds detected in groundwater
within the Lower Unit are benzene and chlorobenzene. These two
compounds were detected in groundwater samples collected from
test well TW-32D during Round 1 and Round 2. A benzene
concentration of 12 ug/1 was also detected in the groundwater
sample collected from well WW-3. The MCL for benzene is 5 ug/1.
During Round 1 sampling, concentrations of benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) compounds were detected in
groundwater samples collected from Lower Unit test wells.
Ethylbenzene and xylenes were not detected in groundwater samples
collected from Round 2 sampling activities. Concentrations of
benzene (12 ug/1), acetone (31 ug/1), toluene (2 ug/1), and 1,1-
DCE (3 ug/1) were detected in the sample from unused water well
WW-3 at Bray Park. Concentrations of benzene (9 ug/1),
chlorobenzene (3 ug/1), methylene chloride (5 ug/1), vinyl
chloride (5 ug/1), 1,1-DCA (7 ug/1) and 4-methyl-2-pentanone
(2 ug/1) were detected in the groundwatex sample collected from
test well TW-32D.
Concentrations (less than 10 ug/1) of semi-volatile organic
compounds were detected in groundwater samples collected from
Lower Unit test wells including phenol, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, naphthalene, di-n-octylphthalate,
diethylphthalate, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 2-methyl naphthalene.
Inorganic parameters consisting of barium (40.4 ug/1), calcium
(11,600 ug/1), chromium (11.3 ug/1), copper (30.3 ug/1), iron
(34,400 ug/1), and sodium (153,000 ug/1) were detected in the
groundwater sample collected from water well WW-3.
Concentrations of lead, chromium, vanadium, copper and barium
were detected in the groundwater within the Lower Unit but were
not detected consistently between Round 1 and Round 2 sampling
events. Inorganic primary drinking water standards (MCLs) were
not exceeded in any groundwater samples collected from Lower Unit
test wells. Inorganic secondary MCLs were exceeded for aluminum,
iron, manganese, and sodium in the water sample collected from
water well WW-3.
The occurrence of metals and organics in the Lower Unit at well
WW-3, TW-32D and WW-31 may be related to poor well construction
rather than to downward leakage of contaminants from contaminated
sands within the Upper Unit. Additional evaluation will be
performed during the Remedial Design to verify this hypothesis.
-------
26
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
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.
A Presumptive Remedy approach as presented in EPA's directive No.
9355.0-49FS was utilized for this Site. A Risk Assessment was
conducted by EPA to evaluate the risks to human health and the
environment, under present-day conditions and under assumed
future use conditions . The streamlined approach for municipal
landfills (Presumptive Remedy) consisted of identifying chemicals
present in groundwater and comparing them to Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs) . Those chemicals that exceeded these
values for a given pathway were noted for remedial action, and as
such, were not incorporated into the calculations for Site risk
for that pathway. Under the Presumptive Remedy approach, any
chemical exceeding an MCL is assumed to result in a site risk. A
list of these chemicals for all pathways is presented in Table 6-
j. . The remaining chemicals which did not exceed ARARs for a
particular pathway were included in the discussion of the Site
risks if the results indicated that a contaminant might pose a
significant current or future risk or contribute to a cumulative
risk which is significant.
The presumptive remedy for municipal landfills, which as applied
to this Site, requires that a protective cap be placed over the
waste disposal areas. See discussion at Section 7, p. 37 of this
ROD. Under such conditions the surface soils could not present a
potential threat, and therefore were not evaluated.
5.1 Human Health Risks
The human health risk assessment evaluated the nature and extent
of the threat to public health caused by the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances from the Site. The
contaminated media at the Site as identified through the Remedial
Investigation are groundwater, surface water, sediment and
leachate .
The Site land use is currently zoned for commercial usage and is
expected to remain as such in the future. Groundwater is
currently used as a source for drinking, showering, cooking, di=h
washing, laundering and gardening for properties surrounding the
Site.
6.1.1 Exposure Assessment
The following media were evaluated for this Site: groundwater,
surface water, and sediment. The pathways for groundwater
-------
27
TABLE 6-1
CHEMICALS EXCEEDING ARARS/PRG
CHEMICALS
Benzene
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
i
I Vanadium
i
Zinc
MAX.
CONC.
DETECT .
UG/L
85
20
5
5
2
1
7
15
9
8
30.5
1,560
21.6
5.1
454
183
4010
242
880
8,180
MCL
UG/L
5
4
100
75
7
5
5
5
5
2
50
2,000
4
5
100
15*
—
100
—
—
RISK
BASED
PRG"
UG/L
0.62
6.07
1.42
3.5
0.017
0.197
6.3
365
—
0.03
0.05
2,560
0.02
18.3
183
180
730
70
3,000
" Val-je presented for lead is based or. E?As airier, level. So MCL has been established for lead.
*« ?RGs (PreliEir.ary Remediation Goals) for carcinogens were calculated by dividing the target
risk level by both the inhalation and the oral cancer slope factor. PRGs for non-carcir.oger.s
were calculated by dividir.g the target hazard index by both the inhalation and oral reference
dose. j
-------
28
include the upper and lower aquifer for both on-Site and off-Site
conditions. The groundwater pathways were evaluated for
ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation of volatiles
while showering and cooking, and dermal (skin) absorption while
showering. Other potential exposure pathways evaluated were the
incidental ingestion and dermal contact with surface water and
sediment. Exposure pathways involving air as a medium were not
considered due to the presumptive remedy which includes capping
of waste disposal areas and gas control.
Populations that could potentially be exposed to Site
contaminants include current and future residents in addition to
current and future visitors. Based on these potential receptors,
seven exposure pathways were selected for further numerical risk
quantification:
• Ingestion of groundwater
• Inhalation of volatiles while showering and cooking
• Dermal absorption while showering
• Incidental ingestion of surface water*
• Dermal contact with surface water*
• Incidental ingestion of sediment*
• Dermal contact with sediment*
Youth (age 7-16 years) only
In order to quantify the exposure associated with each pathway,
various standard assumptions were 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 contaminant taken into the
body, or chronic daily intake, which must be calculated using a
number of assumptions.
6.1.2 Risk Characterization
The final step of the Baseline Risk Assessment consists of the
generation of numerical estimates of risk. Tables 6-2 and 6-3
present summaries of the total hazard quotient (non-carcinogenic
risk) and total cancer risk associated with the Site.
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental
probability of an individual developing cancer over a life-time
as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess life-time
cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:
-------
29
Risk = GDI x SF
Where:
Risk = a unit-less probability (e.g., 2 x 10"5) of an
individual developing cancer;
GDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years
(mg/kg-day) and;
SF = slope-factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)
-i
These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in
scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10"6 or IE"6). An excess lifetime
cancer risk of IE"6 indicates that, as a reasonable maximum
estimate, an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing
cancer as a result of Site related exposure over a 70 year
lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at the Site. EPA
generally uses the 1E~4 to IE"6 risk range as an "acceptable risk
range" within which the Agency strives to manage risks as part of
the Superfund cleanup.
The highest risk values presented (3.23E"6 for on-Site upper unit
wells and 4.98E"6 for the lower unit wells) are within the
acceptable risk range. However, EPA may decide that a risk level
less than 10"6 (i.e., a risk between 10"* and 10"6) is unacceptable
due to site-specific conditions and that remedial action is
warranted. For this Site, EPA believes that Remedial Action is
warranted since MCLs were exceeded for groundwater. Groundwater
accounted for the greatest risk associated with this Site. The
majority of the -total carcinogenic risk is attributable to
exposure to 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.
NON-CARCINOGENS
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by
comparing an exposure level over a specified time period (e.g.,
life time) with a reference dose derived for a similar exposure
period. The rate of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard
quotient (HQ). A Hazard Index equal to or greater than 1 is
considered to exceed an acceptable risk level. By adding the HQs
for all contaminants of concern that affect the same target organ
(e.g., liver) within a medium or across all media to which a
given population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI)
can be generated. The HQ is calculated as follows:
Non-Cancer HQ = CDI/RfD
-------
30
Where:
GDI = Chronic Daily Intake, and;
RfD = Reference Dose
GDI and Rfd are expressed in the same units and represent the
same exposure period (i.e., chronic, subchronic, or short-term).
Future non-carcinogenic risk is estimated as HI = 8.6 for current
child resident exposed to off-Site upper unit groundwater.
Exposure through ingestion of groundwater is the major
contributor to the risk. Exposure to Chromium accounted for the
largest percentage of this risk. These levels justify remedial
action for this Site. The human health risk associated with
exposure to surface water and sediment are below the Agency's
level of concern.
6.2 Environmental Risks
Because land use on the surrounding properties is zoned for both
residential and commercial usage, the ecological communities
surrounding the Lexington County Landfill Area Site have been
altered from their natural state.
As a result of the different toxicity of some chemicals to fish
and wildlife as compared with human receptors, the chemicals of
concern for ecological assessment were different from those
evaluated in the human health risk assessment.
Both the Least Shrew and the Chipping Sparrow were selected for
evaluation as the terrestrial species likely associated with this
Site. The Least Shrew was evaluated for soil and surface water
ingestion while the Chipping Sparrow was evaluated for ingestion
of plant seed, soil and surface water.
The results of the environmental risk assessment indicate that
this Site poses a potential threat to terrestrial life. The
contaminants responsible for this risk are presented-in Table 6-
4. The majority of the estimated risk for terrestrial life is
attributed to surface water.
A benthic macroinvertebrate evaluation was performed to evaluate
the Site's impact on area streams. Drought conditions resulted
in low stream flow which, in turn, adversely affected the
reliability of the study.
-------
31
TABLE 6-2
HAZARD INDICES
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
INGESTION
OF
GROUNDWATER
NON-
INGESTION OF
GROUNDWATSR
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SEDIMENT
INGESTION
OF
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
Current Child Resident (1-6 Years Old)
Groundwater: Off -Site
Upper Unit Wells
Groundwater: Off-Site
Lower Unit Wells
8.5
0.18
0.14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.6
0.18
Current Youth Resident (7-16 Years Old)
Off-Site Upper Unit
Wells
Off-Site Lower Unit
Wells
5.7
0.12
0.09
ND
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
6.0
0.38
Current Adult Resident
Off-Site Upper Unit
Wells
Off-Site Lower Unit
Wells
3.6
0.08
0.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
0.08
Future Child Resident (1-6 Years Old)
On-Site Upper Unit
Wells
On-Site Lower Unit
Wells
0.80
2.4
0.22
0.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
2.5
ND - Not Detected or not chosen as a chemical of concern for this medium.
N/A - Not applicable
-------
32
TABLE 6-2
HAZARD INDICES (continued)
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
INGESTION
OF
GROUNDWATER
NON-
INGESTION OF
GROUNDWATER
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SEDIMENT
INGESTION
OF
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
Future Youth Resident /Visitor (7-16 Years Old)
On-Site Upper Un.it
Wells
On-Site Lower Unit
Wells
0.53
1.6
0.15
0.08
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.94
1.9
Future Adult Resident
On-Site Upper Unit
Wells
On-Site Lower Unit
Wells
0.34
1.04
0.10
0.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.44
1.1
ND - Not Detected or not chosen as a chemical of concern for this medium.
-------
33
TABLE 6-3
CARCINOGENIC RISK
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
INGESTION
OF
GROUNDWATER
NON-
INGESTION
OF
GROUNDWATER
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SEDIMENT
INGESTION
OF
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
Current Resident (Child, Youth, and Adult)
On-Site Upper Unit
Wells
On-Site Lower Unit
Wells
Off-Site Upper Unit
Wells
Off-Site Lower Unit
Wells
2.4E-06
2.8E-06
ND
N/A
N/A
1.4E-06
ND
N/A
8.2E-07
8.2E-07
8.2E-07
8.2E-07
2.7E-09
2.7E-09
2.7E-09
2.7E-09
4.4E-09
4.5E-09
4.5E-09
4.5E-09
3.2E-06
5.E-06
8.2E-07
8.24E-07
ND - Not Detected or not chosen as a chemical of concern for this medium.
N/A - Not applicable
-------
34
TABLE 6-4
TERRESTRIAL LIFE ECOLOGICAL RISK
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl )
phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Heptachlor
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
Least
Shrew
X
X
X
Chipping
Sparrow
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aquatic
Life
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Plants
X
X
X
Y ' 1
1
X
X - Denotes that the concentration of a particular chemical present
at this Site poses a potential risk for the corresponding
] terrestrial wildlife.
Although the Site poses a potential threat to ecological life,
the limited data collected during the Remedial Investigation does
not justify remediation at this time. Additional sampling will
be performed during the Remedial Design to confirm this position.
Remedial action will be performed should sampling results
indicate such a need.
7.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
-------
35
The Feasibility Study (FS) utilized the presumptive remedy
approach for municipal landfills. Title 40 C.F.R. Section
300.430(a)(iii)(B) of the NCP contains the expectation that
engineering controls, such as containment, will be used where
treatment is impracticable. The preamble to the NCP identifies
municipal landfills as a type of Site where treatment of the
waste may be impracticable because of the size and heterogeneity
of the contents (55 Federal Register 8704, 1990). Because
treatment is usually impracticable for a landfill, EPA considers
containment to be the appropriate response action, or the
"Presumptive Remedy". The presumptive remedy for CERCLA
municipal landfill sites relates primarily to containment of the
landfill mass and collection and/or treatment of landfill gas.
Other measures to control leachate, affected groundwater, and/or
upgradient groundwater that are causing saturation of the
landfill mass may also be implemented as part of the presumptive
remedy. The presence of concentrated waste areas, or "Hot Spots"
would require additional characterization, however, no hot spots
were present at this Site. Use of the presumptive remedy also
eliminates the need for the initial identification and screening
of alternatives during the feasibility study.
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
Site. Alternatives were developed with the goal of attaining
these Remedial Action Objectives:
• Prevent ingestion of groundwater containing any
carcinogen concentrations above Federal or State ARARs,
or if there is no established ARAR, above levels which
would allow a remaining excess cancer risk greater than
10'6 to 1Q-*.
• Prevent ingestion of groundwater containing any non-
carcinogen concentrations above Federal or State ARARs,
or if there is no established ARAR, above levels which
would allow an unacceptable remaining non-carcinogenic
threat (HI equal to or greater than 1.0).
• Prevent the migration of contaminated groundwater to
surface waters.
• Prevent inhalation of and explosion potential from
landfill gas
• Prevent direct and dermal contact with, and ingestion
of contaminated landfill contents.
-------
36
Prevent on-Site inhalation and dermal adsorption of
Site-related contaminants, and migration of leachate to
surface waters.
Determine extent of contaminant concentrations in the
surface water and sediment.
Determine impact to ecological life.
7.1 Description of Remedial Alternatives
The technologies identified were evaluated on the basis of
effectiveness and implementability criteria. Table 7-1 lists
those technologies and outlines the components of each of the
four (4) remedial alternatives proposed for remediation. All
alternatives include sampling to monitor contaminated
groundwater. Additionally, all of the alternatives include Five
(5) Year Reviews to be conducted during the assumed Thirty (30)
year Operations & Maintenance period. The "O&M cost" included
for each alternative refers to the costs of operating and
maintaining the treatment described in the alternative, for an
assumed period of Thirty (30) years.
7.2.1 Alternative It
The No Action/Monitoring alternative is retained as the baseline
case for comparison with other alternatives. No remedial actions
would be performed on the media of concern at the Site. The
entire Site, as -defined during the RI, would remain in its
present condition.
Under the no action/monitoring alternative, no further action
would be taken to contain the refuse at the Site or control the
migration of landfill gas and groundwater. However, scheduled
maintenance of existing cap and operation of the gas extraction
system could continue. A monitoring program would be established
to monitor surface water, groundwater and landfill gas. A 30-
year performance period is commonly used as the maximum
performance period for no action alternatives or in cases where
the performance period cannot be accurately estimated. It is
assumed that the frequency of monitoring will be quarterly for
two years and then semi-annually thereafter. It is noted that
the Site monitoring program is the same for all of the
alternatives.
-------
37
TABLE 7-1
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
1. No Action/Monitoring
2. Containment/Gas Recovery/
Institutional Controls/Monitoring
3. Containment/Gas Recovery/Groundwater
Extraction and Treatment/Institutional
Controls/Monitoring
a. Groundwater treatment at POTW
b. Groundwater treatment with
disposal by land irrigation
4. Consolidation/Containment/Gas
Recovery/Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment and Disposal/Monitoring
a. Groundwater treatment at POTW
b. Groundwater treatment with
disposal by land irrigation
$1,408,553
$6,081,822
$6,466,967
$6,745,293
$8,332,509
$8,610,836
The monitoring program would be reevaluated every five (5) years
to assess the appropriateness of the sampling program. Because
hazardous contaminants would remain on-Site, five year reviews
would be required under Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 9621(c).
Capital Costs:
Annual O&M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs;
$ 190,080
$ 105,500
$ 1,408,553
7.2.2 Alternative 2t
In this alternative the Old Cayce Dump and the Bray Park Dump
would be capped. The existing cap present at the 321 Landfill
would be modified by including a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)
and increasing the existing agricultural soil layer to eighteen
(18) inches. The small refuse area between Old Cayce Dump and
Bray Park Dump and miscellaneous refuse spread across portions of
the Site would be consolidated into the Bray Park Dump and
capped. Deed restrictions would also protect the integrity of
the caps.
-------
38
The cover for the 321 Landfill would be designed to include a
system to passively collect landfill gas in the event that the
existing gas collection system is discontinued. Other passive
vents would be installed as needed to minimize the accumulation
of gasses along Route 321 where elevated methane readings have
been measured.
An extensive network of surface water improvements would be
constructed to minimize erosion of the cover systems and manage
surface water runoff at the Site. The 321 Landfill improvements
would be modified to include a perimeter drainage swale between
the upper portion of the 321 Landfill and the toe. The perimeter
swale would be connected to down-slopa ditching which would tie
into a perimeter ditching and conveyance system at the toe of the
321 Landfill. This ditch would be connected to one or more
surface water detention/sedimentation ponds which would discharge
to existing off-Site drainage features via a culvert or ditch.
Surface water runoff from Route 321 and the southwest side of the
321 Landfill would be diverted around the southwest side of the
Old Cayce Dump.
To address potential exposure to groundwater within the Site
boundaries, deed restrictions would limit the use of groundwater
and would apply until monitoring results indicated that
applicable drinking water standards had been attained. See
Section 10.2.2. If groundwater supplying currently used private
wells of downgradient residents or businesses were to become
impaired due to migration of contaminants from the Site, an
alternative source of water may be necessary. If future sampling
results indicated the potential for such an impact, EPA would
notify those individuals and businesses not currently connected
to city water that may be affected. EPA and/or Lexington County
would also notify the owners of any known abandoned wells that
may be impacted by such migration. Groundvrater, surface water,
and landfill gas monitoring for this alternative would be the
same as for Alternative 1.
Capital Costs: $ 3,555,860
Annual O&M Costs: $ 137,826
Total Present Worth Costs: $ 6,081,822
7.2.3 Alternative 3:
Alternative 3 will include all of the components of Alternative 2
but will also include groundwater extraction, treatment and
disposal. This alternative includes two groundwater treatment
and disposal options identified in 3a and 3b. Under Alternative
3a, groundwater would be extracted and conveyed to the local POTW
for treatment and disposal. Alternative 3b includes on-Site
treatment and land application of treated groundwater. In both
options, groundwater remediation is limited to the Upper Unit
-------
39
because sufficient: data are not available to assess the extent of
contamination in the Lower Unit which might require remediation.
Information will be collected during the Remedial Design to
determine if the contamination in the Lower Unit is the result of
poor well construction or a result of system flow. If
contaminants are migrating from the Upper Unit into the Lower
Unit as a result of system flow, then the extraction system will
be modified to include remediation of the Lower Unit.
Alternative 3a would include conveying the extracted groundwater
to the City of Cayce POTW, located approximately three miles east
of the Site. Under this alternative, groundwater would be
collected in a force main which would connect with an existing
force main located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Site. Pump
stations would be required to transport the water through the
pipeline to the POTW. The water would be treated at the POTW and
discharged to surface water under the POTW's NPDES permit. If
necessary/ "the extracted groundwater would receive pretreatment
prior to transportation to the POTW. This option would require
a pretreatment permit for the Site and monitoring and reporting
would be performed to comply with the permit requirements as
needed.
Capital Costs: $ 3,837,460
Annual O&M Costs: $ 140,386
Total Present Worth Costs: $ 6,466,967
Alternative 3b would include conveying the extracted groundwater
to an on-Site treatment system. The objective of the treatment
would be to reduce chemical concentrations in groundwater to
levels that would meet land application criteria. The water
would be applied using an irrigation system to maintain
vegetation on the Site cover or to other vegetated areas of the
Site. It is estimated that between 40 to 80 acres of land would
be required to dispose of the treated effluent. The level of
treatment for land application is generally less stringent than
required under other disposal options because the soil that the
water is applied to has the capacity to further treat the water
prior to it reaching the water table. During wet periods,
treated water may require storage in on-Site holding ponds to
minimize runoff of water. This water would then be applied to
the ground at a later time using the irrigation system.
Capital Costs: $ 4,040,960
Annual O&M Costs: $ 142,236
Total Present Worth Costs: $ 6,745,293
7.2.4 Alternative 4;
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that it
includes consolidation of the Old Cayce Dump with the Bray Park
Dump. The Old Cayce Dump is considered a candidate for
-------
40
consolidation because it is located in a groundwater discharge
zone. Under these conditions, the refuse is partially saturated
with groundwater and may be an ongoing source of groundwater
contamination and/or surface water contamination (due to
groundwater discharge) for an extended period of time.
Consolidation would be accomplished using standard techniques
such as track-mounted excavators or drag line equipment. The
excavated material could be temporarily stockpiled on-Site prior
to consolidation or placed directly in one of the other refuse
areas. The area where the refuse consolidation occurs would then
be capped. The area of excavation would be backfilled and
covered with top soil.
Alternative 4a would be the same as Alternative 3a except it
would include the consolidation described above.
Capital Costs: $ 5,201,460
Annual O&M Costs: $ 152,786
Total Present Worth Costs: $ 8,332,509
Alternative 4b would be the same as Alternative 3B except xt
would include the consolidation described above.
Capital Costs: $ 5,404,960
Annual O&M Costs: $ 154,636
Total Present Worth Costs: $ 8,610,836
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The four alternatives were evaluated based upon the nine (9)
criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9) of the NCP. In
this section, brief summaries of how the alternatives were judged
against these nine criteria are presented. Also included is a
description of the criteria.
8.1 Threshold Criteria
Implementation of an alternative must result in attainment of the
following two (2) threshold criteria before it can be selected.
1. Overall protection of human health and "the environment
addresses whether the alternative will adequately protect human
health and the environment from the risks posed by the Site.
Included in judgement of compliance with this criterion is an
assessment of how and whether the risks will be properly
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, and/or institutional controls.
-------
41
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not achieve protection of human
health and the environment. Risks identified in the Baseline
Risk Assessment would continue to exist. Alternative 2
(Containment) would produce limited protection by preventing
human contact with contaminated groundwater by restricting
aquifer and property usage. Alternative 3 (Containment/
Groundwater Extraction) would achieve a moderate degree of
protection. Further migration of the groundwater contaminants
would be prevented, and groundwater would be extracted and
discharged to POTW or treated on-Site for land application.
Alternative 4 (Containment/Groundwater Extraction/Consolidation)
would provide the highest degree of protection by reducing the
volume of waste in contact with groundwater thereby reducing the
amount of contamination leaching to groundwater .
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 and/or justifies a waiver from an ARAR. The
specific ARARs which will govern the selected remedy are listed
and described in Section 10, Selected Remedy. Section 10
includes a discussion of chemical-specific and action-specific
ARARs. There are no known location-specific ARARs for the Site.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not meet their respective groundwater
ARARs, specifically the MCLs, at the completion of the remedial
activities. Alternatives 3 and 4 involve an extraction scheme
which would recover and treat groundwater, therefore achieving
compliance with the groundwater ARARs.
9.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
Five (5) criteria were used to weigh the strengths and weaknesses
among alternatives, and to select one of the alternatives, once
the threshold criteria were met .
1. Long term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of the alternative to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time, once the remediation goals
have been met.
Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 2 (Containment) would not meet
this criterion. Contamination levels for groundwater would not
be adequately addressed. Alternatives 3 and 4 would achieve and
maintain a high degree of effectiveness and permanence. If
implemented successfully, Alternative 4 (Consolidation of Old
Cayce Dump with the Bray Park Dump) would achieve the highest
degree of effectiveness and permanence through removal of waste
which acts as a source of contamination to groundwater.
-------
42
2. Reduction of toxicitv. 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,
eliminates or reduces their migration away from the site, and/or
reduces their volume on a site.
Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 2 would not meet this criterion
since no treatment would occur. Alternatives 3 (Groundwater
Treatment) and 4 (Consolidation) would achieve varying degrees of
mobility and toxicity reduction. Because EPA considers
containment to be the appropriate response action for the
landfill mass and collection and/or treatment of landfill gas,
none of the alternatives were intended to reduce waste volume.
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 goals are achieved.
Of the alternatives that achieve chemical-specific ARARs
(Alternatives 3 and 4), Alternative 3 (Groundwater Treatment)
affords the greatest level of short-term protection because it
presents the least disturbance to the Site. Alternative 4 could
release amounts of volatile emissions during consolidation but
should be manageable through standard construction practices.
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 1 (No Action),
since no actions would be implemented. The remaining
alternatives are implementable using proven technologies. The
services and materials required for these alternatives would be
readily available on relatively short notice.
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 (5) alternatives is presented in
Table 7-1. Of the alternatives that achieve chemical-specific
ARARs (Alternatives 3 and 4), Alternative 3a is the least costly
alternative.
-------
43
8.3 Modifying Criteria
State acceptance and community acceptance are two (2) additional
criteria that are considered in selecting a remedy, once public
comment has been received on the Proposed Plan.
1. State acceptance; The State of South Carolina concurs with
the selection of Alternative 4a, the preferred alternative
outlined in the proposed plan. South Carolina's letter of
concurrence is provided in Appendix A to this ROD.
2. Community acceptance During the Proposed Plan public
meeting, held on April 14, 1994, EPA presented its preferred
alternative, Alternative 4a, for the remediation of the Site.
The public comment period opened on April 6, 1994, and closed on
June 6, 1994. Comments expressed at the public meeting are
addressed in the Responsiveness Summary attached as Appendix B 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 contamination
at this Site. The selected remedy for this Site is Alternative
4a: Consolidation/Containment/Gas Recovery/Groundwater Extraction
and Treatment and Disposal at POTW/Monitoring.
This alternative will include excavation of Old Cayce Dump, waste
area Number 3, and miscellaneous refuse spread across portions of
the Site for consolidation with the Bray Park Dump. Since
consolidation will take place within the same area of
contamination (AOC), such consolidation will not constitute
placement of wastes under RCRA and will not, therefore, trigger
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268). Consolidation
will remove the portion of waste located within the groundwater
discharge area thereby reducing the source of contamination for
the groundwater.
Following consolidation, this waste area will be capped and the
surface of the cap contoured or terraced to address erosion
problems. The existing cap present at the 321 Landfill will be
modified as follows:
1) A Geosynthetic Clay Layer (GCL) will be added to the
existing cover. The existing agricultural layer will be
increased to eighteen (18) inches to support vegetative
growth.
-------
44
2) The surface terrain will be designed in a manner to
reduce soil erosion beyond current levels. Permanent
engineered run-on and run-off systems shall be constructed
as a part of the cap/cover system. The run-on and run-off
controls shall be designed for at least a fifty (50) year
rainfall event.
The cap design for the Old Bray Park Dump, to include the
consolidated waste area, will meet or exceed the performance
standards of the modified cap design for the 321 Landfill in
terms of ability to reduce infiltration. Capping should greatly
reduce the volume of rainfall infiltration into the waste
disposal areas thereby minimizing the production of leachate
and/or contaminated groundwater. Capping will also prevent
direct and dermal contact with, and ingestion of, contaminated
waste disposal area contents. Deed restrictions limiting both
the disturbance of the cap and the use of groundwater beneath the
321 Landfill would also further protect the integrity of the cap.
A groundwater/leachate collection system will be installed to
intercept and collect contaminated liquids migrating from the
Site. This will prevent contaminated liquids from migrating to
off-Site groundwater and/or discharging into surface waters at
concentrations above acceptable health and ecological levels. To
address potential exposure to groundwater within the Site
boundaries, deed restrictions would limit the use of groundwater
and would apply until monitoring results indicated that
applicable drinking water standards had been attained. Private
landowners with known abandoned wells that may be affected by any
groundwater migration from the Site would also be notified. As
part of the Remedial Design, sufficient additional groundwater,
surface water, and sediment data shall be collected to achieve
the following objectives:
A. Verify the extent of contamination present in the lower
aquiferi This will include identifying how contaminated
groundwater from the upper aquifer is migrating into the
lower aquifer. Information will be collected during the
Remedial Design to determine if the contamination in the
Lower Unit is the result of poor well construction or a
result of system flow. If contaminants are migrating from
the Upper Unit into the Lower Unit as a result of system
flow, then the extraction system will be modified to include
remediation of the Lower Unit.
B. Delineate the extent of contamination in the surface
water and sediment. This will include identifying the
sources and pathways for contaminant migration into the on-
Site tributaries.
C. Determine the ecological impact from contaminated surface
water and sediments.
-------
45
A landfill gas extraction system operates on an intermittent
basis at the 321 Landfill. Operation of the existing system is
expected to continue for the foreseeable future, but the cover
for the waste disposal areas will be designed to include gravel
trenches to passively collect landfill gas in the event that the
current operation ceases. The vent pipes installed within the
modified 321 Landfill cap would be utilized to collect the gas
once the current landfill gas extraction system is no longer
operational. Other passive vents will be installed as needed to
minimize the accumulation of gasses along Route 321 where
elevated LEL readings have been measured. This system would
prevent inhalation and explosion potential from landfill gas.
9.1 Waste Performance Standards
The Old Cayce Dump contains a variety of wastes. The remediation
objective for this waste disposal area is to control the
migration of contaminants from the waste and fill material to the
surrounding groundwater by excavation, consolidation/containment
of the waste material.
During the Remedial Action process, the areal limits of the
debris excavation shall be determined by visual observation.
Soil sampling will then be performed within the excavated area.
Criteria governing a decision concerning acceptable excavation
levels will be considered during the Remedial Design.
9.2 Groundwater Performance Standards
Groundwater concentrations protective of human health and the
environment were based on MCLs or the Site-specific risk
calculations from the Baseline Risk Assessment. The groundwater
remediation goals below shall be the performance standards for
groundwater extraction/remediation. Groundwater shall be
extracted until these maximum concentration levels are attained.
The following groundwater cleanup goals are based on State and
Federal standards, referred to as Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs).
ORGANICS CLEANUP GOALS
Benzene 5 ug/1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4 ug/1
Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 ug/1
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 ug/I
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 ug/1
Methylene Chloride 5 ug/1
Tetrachloroethene 5 ug/1
-------
46
Trichloroethene 5 ug/1
Vinyl Chloride 2 ug/1
INORGANICS CLEANUP GOALS
Arsenic 50 ug/1
Beryllium 4 ug/1
Chromium 100 ug/1
Nickel 100 ug/1
Cadmium 5 ug/1
Barium 2000 ug/1
The following groundwater cleanup levels are based upon
toxicological data reviewed by EPA for contaminants which do not
have MCLs. These cleanup levels are protective of human health
under the most stringent exposure scenario; future potential
ingestion of contaminated groundwater by a child. These cleanup
levels are:
INORGANICS CLEANUP GOALS
Lead 15 ug/1*
Manganese 180 ug/1
Vanadium 70 ug/1
Zinc 3000 ug/1
* The level for lead is an action level and is not an MCL nor a
PRG.
These cleanup levels are based upon Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) identified in the FS, adjusted for exposure to a child.
The PRGs presented in the FS for vanadium (256 ug/1) and zinc
(11,000 ug/1) were initially derived for an adult.
9.3 Compliance Testing
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
undetermined 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:
* discontinuation of pumping at individual wells where
cleanup goals have been attained;
* alternation of pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
-------
47
* 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 attained, 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.
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. § 9621(c).
9.4 Monitor Site Groundwater and Surface Water
Beginning with initiation of the Remedial Design, groundwater and
surface water samples shall be collected and analyzed on a
regular schedule as described in Section 7.2.1. Analytical
parameters for groundwater and surface water samples will include
the known Site contaminants of concern. The specific wells to be
sampled and methodology for sample collection will be determined
during remedial design. Surface water samples will be collected,
at a minimum, from the unnamed tributary at one upstream location
and one downstream location as necessary to monitor the
contamination. The analytical data generated from the sampling
events established for groundwater 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 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §
9621. 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 the
contaminants. The following section discusses how the remedy
fulfills these requirements.
-------
48
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will eliminate, reduce, or control risks
posed through each pathway by means of treatment and
implementation of engineering controls and deed restrictions and
thus ensure adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Potential risks will be either eliminated, reduced,
or controlled by the remedial action.
The installation of a cap will minimize the amount of leachate
generated and will place a barrier between the contaminated waste
disposal areas and the surface soils such that surface water will
not be allowed to percolate through the contaminated waste
disposal areas. The installation of a groundwater collection
system will contain contaminated groundwater plume and leachate
preventing their migration off-Site.
The existing methane gas recovery system will be expanded to
contain all portions of the methane plume which presents an
unacceptable risk. During the remedial design the methane plume
will be further delineated.
Site future risks will be reduced to within the 10"6 to 10~* range
for carcinogens and the Hazard Indices total for non-carcinogens
will be less than 1.0.
10.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
ARARs are "applicable" requirements, intended to specifically
address a site or circumstances found at a site and "relevant and
appropriate" requirements that, while not legally applicable to
the site, address situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at a site, such that their use is well suited to the
site. See 40 C.F.R. Section 300.5. Thus, when establishing
criteria for ensuring the proper implementation of a remedial
action, EPA and the State of South Carolina have agreed to
consider a number of procedures that are relevant and
appropriate, if not legally applicable.
10.2.1 Consolidation/Gas Recovery
The selected alternative consists of closure of the formerly
permitted 321 Landfill in accordance with SCDHEC and RCRA
regulations governing Subtitle D landfill closures, along with a
sampling program to monitor groundwater, surface water, and
landfill gas. Alternative 4a is designed to meet the applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The Federal
ARARs include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(42 USCA Section 6901 et seq and 40 CFR Part 264) and the Clean
Air Act (42 USCA Section 7401 et seq and relevant sections of 40
CFR Part 50 and 61).
-------
49
Title 40 C.F.R. Section 264.310, promulgated pursuant to RCRA,
specifies the performance-based requirements for a cover at
completion of landfill construction. The cover system for the
landfill will be a cap and cover system as described in 40 C.F.R.
Sections 264.117 through 264.120, 264.228(a), 264.310(a) and
264.310(b) and will comply with the relevant and appropriate RCRA
regulations. Thus the cap will minimize migration of liquid
through the landfill, function with minimum maintenance, promote
surface drainage, minimize erosion, minimize leachate generation,
accommodate settling, and be less than the permeability of
natural subsoils present. Surface water control addressing run-
on and run-off are outlined in 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.251,
264.273, and 264.301 and would also be considered relevant and
appropriate.
After construction is completed, the substantive monitoring and
maintenance requirements contained in 40 C.F.R. Section 264.117
through 264.120 will be conducted. After the closure activities
have concluded, a survey plat, as prescribed in 40 C.F.R. Section
264.116, indicating the location and dimensions of the disposal
area will be submitted to the local zoning authority, or to the
authority with jurisdiction over local land use, and to EPA
Region IV. Title 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.117(c) and 264.258
addresses post-closure care use of property to prevent damage to
the cover and would be considered relevant and appropriate.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) identifies and regulates pollutants that
could be released during earth-moving activities associated with
the consolidation of waste disposal areas. Section 109, of the
CAA outlines the pollutants for which National Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) have been established. Section 112, of the
CAA, identifies pollutants for which there are no pertinent
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CAA, Sections 109 and 112, is
an ARAR and will be complied with during implementation of the
selected remedy and would be considered applicable for this Site.
Section 101 of the CAA would be applicable as it serves as the
basis for odor regulations from air pollution emissions. Title
40 C.F.R. Parts 52 and 61 would also be applicable by requiring
an estimation of emission rates for each pollutant expected, and
verification that emissions of mercury, vinyl chloride, and
benzene do not exceed hazardous air pollution regulations. 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 would also apply to this
Site.
If drums or other hazardous material are discovered during the
consolidation of the waste disposal areas, the hazardous material
would be transported off-Site for disposal. Title 49 C.F.R.
Parts 107, 171-179, promulgated under the authority of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act would be applicable in
-------
50
regulating the labelling, packaging, placarding, and transport of
hazardous materials off-Site.
Title 40 C.F.R. Parts 261.3 and 262.20, promulgated under the
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which
govern the identification, transportation, and manifesting
requirements of hazardous wastes in addition to closure and
groundwater monitoring requirements would be considered
applicable to this Site. The land disposal restrictions in 40
C.F.R. Part 268.8 and South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations 61-79.268 would not apply in consideration of
Corrective Action Management Units Sections 260.10 and 270.2.
Title 40 C.F.R Section 403.5 requires that pollutants which are
discharged to a POTW will require a pretreatment permit and would
be considered applicable to this Site. Specific prohibitions
will also apply to the discharge of pollutants in a POTW.
Discharge of treated groundwater to the POTW shall comply with
all applicable industrial pretreatment standards, as well as any
other effluent standards or limits established by EPA.
10.2.2 Groundwater
Groundwater remediation shall comply with all noted applicable
portions of the following Federal and State of South Carolina
regulations:
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 relevant and
appropriate as remediation criteria.
40 C.F.R. § 403.5, CWA Pretreatment Standards (CWA § 307),
promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act regulates
discharges of water to POTWs and would be applicable to this
Site.
SC Reg., Section G of 61-68, Class Descriptions and Specific
Standards for Groundwaters, 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 standards for protecting
state groundwater.
SC Reg. 61-71, South Carolina Well Standards and Regulations,
promulgated under 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.
-------
51
40 C.F.R. Parts 141-143, National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards/ promulgated under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act establishes acceptable maximum levels of
numerous substances in public drinking water supplies. Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs) are specifically identified in the NCP as remedial action
objectives for groundwater that is a current or potential source
of drinking water supply (NCP 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.430(a)(1)(ii)(F). Therefore, MCLs and MCLGs are relevant
and appropriate as criteria for groundwater remediation at this
Site.
40 C.F.R. 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
implements this regulation, South Carolina Reg. 62-61, is
applicable to the consolidation/containment/gas control/ and
groundwater portion of the remedy.
Various materials to be considered (TBC) 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. Other TBC material
include the following:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ER-L/ER-M
Values include guidelines that were developed as screening
criteria for sediment contamination in surface water bodies, and
are based on toxicity to aquatic life.
Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site
Response Actions, OSWER Directive 9834.11, June 1988. 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 § 3004 and § 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.
Guidelines for Ground Water Use and Classification, EPA Ground
Water Protection Strategy, U.S. EPA, 1986. This document
-------
52
outlines EPA's policy of considering a Site's groundwater
classification in evaluating possible remedial response actions.
All on-Site excavation work shall comply with 29 C.F.R. §
1910.120, the OSHA health and safety requirements applicable to
remedial activities. All treatment and disposal shall comply
with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
as cited above.
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 or 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 are applicable, or relevant and appropriate, to this
remedy.
10.3 Cost effectiveness; Among the alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs, the selected alternative is the most cost-effective choice
because it uses a treatment technology to address the waste
disposal area which is acting as a source of contamination for
the groundwater. This approach will reduce the volume of
groundwater that will need to be treated.
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been
determined to provide overall effectiveness proportioned to its
costs (present worth = $8,332,509). Table 7-1 compares estimated
costs associated with all four alternatives. Alternative 4 is
the only alternative that will actively reduce the generation of
leachate and contaminated groundwater. Alternative 4a is the
most cost-effective choice because the use of the POTW option is
the most cost-effective means to dispose of the treated
groundwater.
10.4 Utilization of permanent solutions, and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; EPA has determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective
manner.
Based upon the information presented, the selected remedy will
protect surface water and groundwater quality by reducing
infiltration and leachate production. It provides the best
balance among all nine (9) evaluation criteria, with the
following being the most important considerations for the Site;
-------
53
1. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for solid waste landfill closure;
2. Availability of equipment and materials;
3. Cost of construction, 0 & M;
4. Elimination of rain water infiltration and, thus, reduction
in the volume of leachate and contaminated groundwater
released to the environment; and,
5. Continued monitoring to ensure the remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the environment.
10.5 Preference for treatment as a principal remedy element;
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment because treatment of landfill waste, other than
groundwater and leachate, is considered impractical. The remedy
does not include treatment of any contaminated landfill waste
matrix. Treatment of the source of contamination (the entire
waste disposal areas) is technically impracticable, because of
the large volume of material, the known heterogeneity of the
material, and the low average contaminant concentrations believed
to be present. The feasibility of treating isolated, heavily
contaminated areas is in question, because the nature and extent
of anomalous contamination within the fill area has not been
quantified and would be very difficult (and costly) to quantify.
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in April 1994.
It identified Alternative 4a, Consolidation/Containment/Gas
Recovery/Groundwater Extraction and Treatment and Disposal at
POTW as the preferred alternative. This alternative involved
capping the 321 Landfill with an Flexible Membrane Liner to
reduce infiltration of water. During the public comment period,
new information indicated that the use of a Geosynthetic Clay
Liner would be more efficient and cost effective in preventing
infiltration while achieving the same results. In addition,
supplemental watering would be critical for maintaining a
vegetative cover on the capped areas. A portion of the recovered
groundwater will be pretreated and then utilized to maintain
vegetative cover.
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
....,, South Carolina ...-.-, . . - , __
Commissioner Douglas E. Bryant
DHEC
Board: Richard E. Jabbour. DOS. Chairman John H. Burriss
Robert J. Stripling, Jr.. Vice Chairman William M. Hull, Jr.. MD
""•"--• "•a7"~~-"'r""~ """ Sandra J. Molander, Secretary Roger Leaks, Jr.
Department o. Health and Environmental Control Burnet R Maybank. Ill
2600 Bull Street, Columbia. SC 29201 Promoting Health, Protecting the Environment .
September 20, 1994
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
RE: Lexington County Landfill Superfund Site - Record of Decision
Dear Mr. Hankinson:
The Department has reviewed the Draft Record of Decision (ROD),
dated September 1, 1994, for the Lexington County Landfill site and
concurs with the selected remedial alternative. 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
under federal or state law. SCDHEC reserves any right and
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:
(1)(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.
The State concurs with the selected source remediation alternative
of consolidation and capping of the waste areas with deed
restrictions for protection of the cap and the restriction of
groundwater use beneath the site for drinking purposes, and with
the selected groundwater remediation alternative of extraction,
pretreatment, if necessary, and discharge to the local POTW. In
addition, the State concurs with the decision to collect and vent
methane gas. The State also concurs with the proposals for
additional sampling of surface water and sediment, and for
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, sediment, and landfill
gas to determine the effectiveness of the remedial action.
o
recycled paper
-------
Page 2
Mr. John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Lexington County Landfill- ROD
September 20, 1994
State concurrence on this remedial alternative is based on the
alternative meeting all applicable clean-up criteria. Concurrence
is also contingent upon the results of the additional investigative
work to be completed during the Remedial Design phase. Depending
on the results of the investigative work, an Explanation of
Significant Differences (BSD) and/or ROD Amendment may be required.
An BSD and/or ROD Amendment would require State concurrence.
Sincerely,
R. Lewis Shaw, P.E.
Deputy Cw^onissioner
Environmental Quality Control
cc: Hartsill Truesdale
Keith Lindler
Gary Stewart
Jim Bowman
Lewis Bedenbaugh
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA SDPERFUND SITE
-------
10.0 THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
10.1 OVERVIEW
During the April 14, 1994, public meeting, EPA presented the
Proposed Plan and solicited questions from the public. Community
interest has been significant following the decision by the
Lexington County Council to finance the RI/FS. Citizens have
been and continue to be concerned about the quality of
groundwater and surface water associated with the Site.
10.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Comment No. 1: The newspaper announcement appearing in The State.
April 6, 1994, indicated that the Administrative Record was
available for review at the R.M. Smith Branch Library.
EPA Response to Comment: The correct location was, and still is,
the Cayce-West Columbia Library. The Proposed Plan fact sheet
mailed on April 8, 1994, did indicate the correct library. An
announcement was also made during the public meeting on April 14,
1994, to address this error.
Comment No. 2: One resident felt that the list of PRPs was
available only upon specific request from EPA.
EPA Response to Comment: The list of potentially responsible
parties has been available at the information repository since
July 9, 1992. This list was also mentioned during the public
information meeting held on July 14, 1992.
Comment No. 3: Several residents have expressed concern over
Lexington County's decision to fund the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study and the Remedial Design/Remedial Action. They
have the perception that EPA is only allowing the County to fund
these activities and that the other PRjrs will not be held
responsible for this Site.
Response to Comment: EPA views every PRP as being responsible for
the investigation and cleanup of hazardous waste Sites. In the
case of the Lexington County Landfill Area Site, the County, by
letter dated January 16, 1992, indicated to EPA that it desired
to negotiate the RI/FS at this Site. In that same letter, the
County also stated:
This letter is further notice to you that the County of
Lexington does also desire a Consent Order for conducting
the remedial work that is deemed to be needed at the Site.
The funding issue has been discussed during both the public
information meeting and the Proposed Plan public meeting, with
representatives from the Lexington County Council present to
answer questions from the public.
-------
Comment No. 4: The SC DHEC expressed concern that the Remedial
Monitoring well sampling network include wells in both the Upper
Unit and the Lower Unit.
Response to Comment: All proposed Remedial Monitoring for each
alternative considered was based upon the collection of
groundwater from wells located in both the Upper Unit and the
Lower Unit.
Comment No. 5: Concern was expressed by SC DHEC that the
composite barrier cap be designed in accordance with State
Regulation 61-107.258.60. This regulation requires that the cap
consist of the following layers:
a. Gas management layer or layers, or other design, as
necessary;
b. Eighteen (18) inches of soil with a permeability of 1 x 10~5
centimeters per second, and capable of providing a suitable
foundation for the flexible membrane liner;
c. A 20-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) with a maximum
permeability equal to or less than the bottom liner system, if
HDPE is used as the FML, then a sixty (60) mil thickness is
required;
d. A drainage layer, and;
e. A minimum of two (2) feet of soil capable of supporting
native vegetation.
SC DHEC stated that they would consider alternate cap designs
only if adequate information is provided to demonstrate that
these designs meet or exceed performance standards.based on State
Regulation 61-107.258.60., as opposed to Subtitle D requirements.
Furthermore, the use of a geotextile as a substitute for the
drainage layer must provide adequate stability for the overlying
soil layer. This may also require the use of a geonet. The
substitution of the eighteen inch (18) soil layer with bentonite
matting would not provide an adequate foundation for the
overlying flexible membrane liner.
Response to Comment: Subsequent discussions with SC DHEC and
Lexington County led to the development of an FS Addendum. This
Addendum evaluated ten (10) landfill cover alternatives for use
at this Site. The primary objectives were the reduction of water
infiltration, the containment of waste, and eliminating direct
exposure of waste to the surface area. The Addendum identified
Design #8, a Geosynthetic Clay Layer combined with an increase in
the agricultural layer to eighteen (18) inches, as the most
efficient and cost effective landfill cover for this Site.
-------
Comment No. 6: The SC DHEC requested that an explanation be given
regarding the omission of saturated or "wet" sediment sample S-4
from the calculation of the exposure point concentrations for the
Least Shrew (dry sediment samples were used in Risk Assessment
calculations for the Least Shrew).
Response to Comment: The Least Shrew resides in dry areas and
would not be expected to have any extensive contact with
saturated sediments.
-------
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED PLAN FOR LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA SUPERFUND SITE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
SUPERFUND SITE
CAYCE, LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1994
INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), is proposing
a cleanup plan, referred to as the
preferred alternative, in response to
contamination at the Lexington County
Landfill Area Superfund Site (the Site)
located in Cayce, Lexington County,
South Carolina.
This Proposed Plan summarizes the
cleanup methods and technologies
evaluated in the Site's FeasOtSty Study
(FS). EPA is publishing this Proposed
Plan to provide an opportunity for the
public's review and comment on all the
cleanup options, known as remedial
alternatives, considered for the She,
and to initiate a thirty (30) day public
comment period, from April 6,1994, to
May 6, 1994, during which EPA will
receive comments on this Proposed
Plan and the RI/FS reports. EPA, in
consultation with South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control, will select a
remedy for the Site only after the
comment period has ended and all
PUBLIC MEETING
Date: April 14, 1994
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Davis Elementary
2305 Frink Street
Cayce, SC
information submitted to EPA during
that time has been reviewed and
considered. EPA encourages public
participation by providing an
opportunity for the public to comment
on the proposed remedial alternatives.
As a result of such comments, EPA
may modify or change its preferred
alternative for the Site.
This fact sheet summarizes information
that is explained in greater detail in the
Remedial Investigation (HI) Report,
dated February 1994, and the Baseline
Risk Assessment, dated March 1994,
and the FS, dated March 1994. These
documents and all other records utilized'
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Page 2
April 1994
by EPA to make the proposal specified
below are contained in the Information
Repository/Administrative Record for
this Site. EPA encourages the public to
review this information to better
understand the Site and the Superfund
process. The information
repository/administrative record is
available for public review during
normal working hours, locally at the
Cayce-West Columbia Branch Library,
1500 Augusta Road, West Columbia,
South Carolina, or in the Record Center
at EPA's office in Atlanta, Georgia.
Words appearing in bold rtaffcized print
within this document
are defined in the glossary which
begins on page 10.
RESULTS OF THE
INVESTIGATION
REMEDIAL
The Site consists of five properties and
includes the 321 Landfill (a former
municipal landfill), the Old Cayce
Dump, and the Bray Park Dump (Figure
1). State and Federal studies have
been conducted on this Site since
1975. A Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study performed in 1992
through 1993 under the direction of
EPA identified the following:
Waste Disposal Areas: Waste disposal
areas consist of the 321 Landfill, the
FIGURE 1
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Page 3
April 1994
Bray Park Dump, the Old Cayce Dump,
and a separate area between the Bray
Park Dump and the Old Cayce Dump
(Figure 1). Test pits wereexcavated
along the suspected perimeters of each
dump. Domestic trash and
construction debris were observed in
test pits excavated within the
perimeters of the two dumps.
Methane Gas Plume: The locations of
potential receptors of methane gas and
the methane survey stations are
illustrated in Figure 2. The highest
concentration of methane (43% of the
Lower Explosive Limits or 22,790 ppm)
was detected at survey station SV-34
along Route 321. Methane was
detected at adjacent stations SV-
56,SV-58, and SV-60 below 20% of
the LEL, and in the southern corner of
the 321 Landfill at well TW-2S.
Methane concentrations were also
detected at survey stations SV-1 (4%
of the LEL) and SV-2 (1% of the LEL)
adjacent to stream culverts along Bray
Park Road in addition to station SV-64
«1% of the LEL) adjacent to the
existing methane recovery facility.
Surface Water and Sediment: Several
organic and inorganic contaminants
present in surface water and sediment
samples appear to be related to the
waste disposal areas. Contamination in
the surface water
FIGURE 2
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Eact Sheet
Page 4
April 1994
and sediment is limited to on-site areas
and areas adjacent to the She. A
macroinvertebrate study indicated that
this Site has impacted the aquatic
environment, however, the data
produced was of limited value due to
drought conditions encountered during
the study. Additional surface water
and sediment sampling will be
performed and evaluated using a risk-
based approach during the Remedial
Design.
Groundwater Contamination: There are
two separate water bearing zones at
this Site consisting of the upper aquifer
and the lower aquifer. Each
aquifer was evaluated separately
because both units are potential
sources for water supply wells. The
sources for water supply wells. The
distribution of contamination in the
upper aquifer indicates that a
ground water phone with two finger-like
extensions follow the ground water flow
to the southeast (Figure 3).
Groundwater within the plume is
contaminated with both organic and
inorganic compounds attributable to
waste placed in the disposal areas.
Seven (7) of the inorganic and eleven
(11) of the organic concentrations
exceeded the Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) for those substances.
BENZENE CONCENTRATION
CONTOUR
FIGURE 3
-------
Lexington County LandfiH
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Pages
April 1994
The primary contaminants detected
ingroundwater within the lower aquifer
are benzene and chlorobenzene.These
two compounds were detected in
groundwater samples collected from
test well TW-32D during Round land
Round 2. A benzene concentration of
12 ug/l was also detected in the
ground water sample collected from well
WW-3. Additional groundwater work
will be performed to assess
contamination in the lower aquifer.
Summary of She Risks: In utilizing the
presumptive remedy approach for
municipal landfills, the presence of
contaminant concentrations in
groundwater in excess of established
groundwater values (eg., MCLs)
justifies cleanup (remedial action).
A risk assessment was performed to
evaluate the risk that would be present
from the remaining contaminants (the
ones below their respected MCLs in
addition to contaminants that do not
have established MCLs). This effort
was taken in order to establish cleanup
levels for contaminants without
established MCLs.
The pathways of exposure can be
evaluated by making assumptions such
as the length and number of times
exposed, how much of the chemical is
ingested, and using certain other
factors to estimate the total exposure
to each Site-related contaminant. The
potential current and future pathway
are:
•Direct contact with surface water and
leachate;
-Ingestion and direct contact with
sediments;
-Ingestion and non-ingestion
(showering, washing, etc.) with
groundwater from the upper and lower
aquifers.
The risk assessment report concluded
that this Site presented an
unacceptable risk and required remedial
action. The most serious pathway and
risk at the Site is:
Potential Future Risk Use:
Child - Ingestion of Grrundwater
While contamination levels in the
surface water and sediment do not
present a current risk to human health,
they do pose a potential threat to
ecological receptors. Further sampling
will be performed during the remedial
design to determine if cleanup action is
necessary. More detailed information
concerning Site risks is presented in the
Baseline Risk Assessment.
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES AND
ALTERNATIVES
Development of Remedial Alternatives:
In the FS, cleanup options (remedial
alternatives) were evaluated for the
Site. In consideration of the large
waste volume and variety present in
municipal landfills, treatment is usually
impracticable. EPA generally considers
containment to be the appropriate
response action, or the "Presumptive
Remedy". The presumptive remedy for
municipal landfill sites focuses on
containment of the landfffl mass and
coflection and/or treatment of landfill
gas. Additional measures to control
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Page6
Apri1994
leachate, affected groundwater, and
infiltration of water into the landfill
mass are also evaluated as part of this
presumptive remedy.
Based on the results of the RI/FS
reports and the Risk Assessment,
cleanup levels were developed that
would be protective of human health
and the environment. These cleanup
levels would form the basis of any
remedial activity. Various alternatives
were evaluated fc the FS for meeting
these cleanup levels. The following
groundwater cleanup levels are based
on state and federal standards, referred
to as Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs). The cleanup standards for the
Lexington County Landfill Area Site are
as follows:
ORGANICS
Benzene 5 ug/l
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4 ug/l
Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/l
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 ug/l
1,1 -Dichloroethene 7 ug/l
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 ug/l
Methylene Chloride 5 ug/l
Tetrachloroethene 5 ug/l
Trichloroethene 5 ug/l
Vinyl Chloride 2 ug/l
INORGANICS
Arsenic 50 ug/l
Beryllium 1 ug/l
Chromium 100 ug/l
Nickel 100 ug/l
Cadmium 5 ug/l
Barium
2000 ug/l
The following groundwater cleanup
levels are based upon toxicological data
reviewed by EPA for contaminants
which do not have MCLs. These
cleanup levels are protective of human
health under the most stringent
exposure scenario; future potential
ingestion of contaminated groundwater
by a child. These cleanup levels are:
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
15 ug/l
180 ug/l
70 ug/l
3000 ug/l
These cleanup levels area based upon
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
identified in the FS. adjusted for
exposure to a chid. The PRGs
presented in the FS for vanadium (256
ug/l) and zinc (11,000 ug/l) were
initially derived for an adult. The PRG
for lead is protective of a chad.
Groundwater containment wBI continue
until ail cleanup levels are met.
The FS report evaluated a variety of
cleanup methods that could be used at
this Site. As required by law, a no
further action alternative was evaluated
to serve as a basis for comparison with
the other active cleanup methods. The
following outlines present possible
cleanup methods considered for this
Site.
No action taken for cleanup or
control of contamination
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Page?
April 1994
• Scheduled cap maintenance &
operation of gas control system
• Annual groundwater monitoring of
upper and lower unit (sample
collection & analysis)
30-Year Total Present
Worth Cost: $1,408,553
Alternative 2: Containment/Gas
Recovery/Institutional Controls/
Monitoring
• Capping of 321 Landfill, Old Cayce
Dump, and Bray Park Dump in
accordance with State and Federal
requirements
• Waste area between Old Cayce
Dump and Bray Park Dump moved
to Bray Park Dump
• Expansion of the existing gas
collection system
• Surface improvements to minimize
erosion and control surface water
runoff
• Institutional controls for
groundwater and future land use
• Annual groundwater monitoring
including installation of additional
wells
30-Year Total Present
Worth Cost: $6,081,822
Alternative 3: Containment/Gas
Recovery/Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment/institutional
Controls/Monitoring
• All components listed
Alternative 2
under
• Groundwater extraction and
treatment process utilizing one of
the following options:
Alternative 3A - Groundwater
extraction/treatment and disposal at
Privately Owned Treatment Works
(POTW).
30-Year Total Present
Worth Cost: $6,466,967
Alternative 3B - Groundwater
extraction/on-site treatment with
disposal by land irrigation.
30-Year Total Present
Worth Cost: $6,745,293
Alternative 4: Consolidation/
Containment/Gas Recovery/
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
and Disposal/Monitoring
• All components listed under
Alternatives 2 and 3
• Combining the Old Cayce Dump &
waste area 3 with either the Bray
Park Dump or the 321 Landfill
• Groundwater extraction and
treatment process utilizing one of
the following options:
Alternative 4A - Groundwater
extraction/treatment and disposal at
POTW.
30-Year Total Present
Worth Cost: $8,332,509
Alternative 4B - Groundwater
extraction/on-site treatment with
disposal by land irrigation.
30-Year Total Present
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
PageS
April 1994
Worth Cost: $8,610,836
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
After conducting a detailed analysis of
all of the alternatives, EPA has selected
the following preferred alternative for
remediation of the Site:
Alternative 4A: Consolidation/
Containment/Gas Recovery/
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
and Disposal at POTW/Groundwater
Monitoring
Rationale for the Preferred Alternative
EPA has selected Alternative 4A as the
best alternative for use at the Site.
Because treatment is usually
impracticable, EPA generally considers
containment to be the appropriate
response action, or the "presumptive
remedy" for municipal landfill sites.
The primary factors in EPA's evaluation
focus on containment of the Site's
waste. The following discussion is
based on the comparison presented in
the FS.
Protection of Human Health and
Environment: Alternatives 3
(Ground water extraction and treatment)
in addition to Alternative 4 (Capping of
sludge and groundwater treatment)
meet the two (2) threshold criteria of
protecting human health and the
environment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs): The consolidation of waste
disposal areas should not trigger Land
Disposal Restrictions as they will not be
moved outside the current areas of
contamination. This action is possible
under EPA's Corrective Action
Management Units (CAMU) regulations.
Additionally, the requirements for
capping, closure, discharge and
groundwater monitoring wfll meet the
ARARs as identified in the Feasibility
Study.
Long-Term Effectiveness: Alternative 4,
consolidation of the Old Cayce Dump
with either the Bray Park Dump or the
321 Landfill, would provide the greatest
degree of long-term effectiveness. The
Old Cayce Dump, located within a
groundwater discharge area, appears to
be a significant source for groundwater
contamination at this Site.
Consolidation with one of the other
waste areas could significantly reduce
the volume of groundwater requiring
treatment.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobiity or
Volume Through Treatment: Both
Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume through
treatment. Alternative 4, consolidation
of the Old Cayce Dump with either the
Bray Park Dump or the 321 Landfill.
would provide the greater degree of
volume reduction through reducing the
amount of groundwater requiring
treatment. Any hazardous waste
generated by consolidation wilt be
disposed of in accordance with Federal
and State requirements.
Short Term Effectiveness: Alternative 1
would have the least short term impact
upon the environment. The remaining.
alternatives could potentially have a
short term impact on human health due
to dual and particles generated during
-------
Lexington County Landfill
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Paged
April 1994
soil moving process. This would be
minimized through dust control
measures and the use of proper health
and safety procedures.
ImplementabBity: All of the alternatives
use established construction
techniques. Because caps and
groundwater extraction and treatment
systems have been installed at other
sites with similar contamination
problems, it is anticipated that this plan
would be administratively feasible with
a minimal amount of effort. The
services and materials required for this
alternative would be readily available on
relatively short notice.
nost: Alternative 1 would be the least
istly of the alternatives to implement
r this Site. Alternative 4B is the most
>stiy of all the alternative evaluated
r this She.
State and Community Acceptance:
This proposed plan is presented for
evaluation by both the State and the
Community. Acceptance of this
proposed plan will be evaluated based
on comments received during the
upcoming public meeting and during the
public comment period.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Concurrent with the release of this
Proposed Plan, EPA has initiated a 30-
day public comment period from April
6, 1994 through May 6, 1994 for
submission of written and oral
comments on the Proposed Plan and all
supporting documentation contained in
the Administrative Record. All
comments, written or oral, should be
directed to Terry Tanner, EPA Remedial
Project Manager for the Site, at the
address and telephone number listed
below. Upon timely request, EPA will
extend the public comment period by
30 additional days. EPA w3i also
accept comments at the public meeting
on April 14, 1994, and explain the
rationale behind the preference for
Alternative 4A.
-------
Lexington County Landfill Page 10
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet April 1994
GLOSSARY
Adnvhtstratrve Record - A file which is maintained and contains all information used by the EPA to
make its decision on the selection of a response action under CERCLA. This file is required to be
available for public review and a copy is to be established at or near the site, usually at the information
repository. A duplicate file is maintained in a central location such as a regional EPA and/or state
office.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) - Requirements which must be met by
a response action selected by EPA as a site remedy. "Applicable" requirements are those mandated
under one or more Federal or State laws. "Relevant and .Appropriate" requirements are those which,
while not necessarily required, EPA judges to be appropriate for use in that particular case.
Aquifer - An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing usable amounts of
groundwater that can supply wells and springs.
BaseSne Risk Assessment - An assessment which provides an evaluation of the potential risk to human
health and the environment.
Comprehensiva Envsronmsntsl Response. Compensation and UaoSty Act (CERCLA) - A federal law
passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
This Act creates a trust fund, known as Superfund to investigate and cleanup abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Groundwater - Underground water that fids pores in soils or openings in rocks. This water can be used
for drinking, irrigation, and other purposes.
Information Repository- Materials on Superfund, including site-specific information, which are located
conveniently for local residents.
Lower Explosive Limit • The concentration of a compound in the air below which a flame will not
propagate (grow) if the mixture is ignited.
Macroinvertibrate • Small animals lacking backbones found in sediments of water bodies.
Maximum Contaminant Levels ffiCLtt • The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water
which is delivered to any user of a public water system.
National Priorities List (NPL) • EPA's list of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous wastes sites eligible
for long-term cleanup under the Superfund Remedial Program.
Plume - A three dimensional zone within the groundwater that contains contaminants and generally
moves in the direction of, and with, groundwater flow.
Record of Decisron (ROD) - A public document that explains which cleanup alternative will be used at
a National Priorities List site and the reasons for choosing the cleanup alternative over other
possibilities.
-------
Lexington County Landfill Page 11
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet April 1994
Remedial Investigalion/FeasmStY Study (RI/FS) - Two distinct but related studies, normally conducted
together, intended to define the nature and extent of contamination at a site and to evaluate
appropriate, she-specific remedies.
Svperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - Modifications to CERCLA enacted on
October 17. 1986.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Remedial Project Manager
Terry Tanner
Community Relations Coordinator
Cynthia Peurifoy
AT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Region IV
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtiand Street N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365
1 -(800) 435-9233. or (404) 347-7791
• ••*••••••• ••• •••••••••
Jim Bowman, Hydrologist
Superfund Section, Division of Hydrogeology
South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Control
2600 BuH Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 734-4928
REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON THE
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA SUPERFUND SITE MAILING LIST
If you would like your name and address placed on the mailing list for the Lexington
County Landffll Area Superfund Site, please complete this form and return to: Cynthia
Peurifoy, Community Relations Coordinator, EPA-Region IV, North Superfund Remedial
Branch, 345 Courtiand Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30365, or call 1-800-435-9233.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
AFFILIATION:
-------
Lexington County Landfill Page 12
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet April 1994
USE THIS SPACE TC WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Lexington County Landfill Site is important in helping EPA
select a final remedy for the site. You may use the space below to write your comments, then mail
to Terry Tanner. A response to your comment will be included in the Responsiveness Summary.
Comments Submitted By:
Name
Address
City State Zip
Affiliation
-------
United States North Supwfmd Remedial Branch Bff«»4
5 Covflnd Street, NE
Atlanta, Geoifk 30365
2J2Ł BninmBatriFrateetiaa 345 Covflnd Street, NE
-------
APPENDIX E
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING
-------
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
OF
LEXINGTON
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
SUPERFUND SITE
CAYCE, LEXINGTON, COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA
DAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2305 FRINK STREET
CAYCE, SOUTH CAROLINA
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1994
7:10 P. M. - 8:49 P. M. '
APPEARANCES:
TERRY TANNER, E.P.A. REMEDIAL PROJECT
MANAGER
CYNTHIA B. PEURIFOY, E.P.A. COMMUNITY
RELATIONS COORDINATOR
COURT REPORTER:
LORI S. MORTGE CCR (GA)
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
920 MOHEGAN TRAIL
WEST COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
(803) 791-4127
29169
-------
ALSO PRESENT:
JOHN ATKINS
LINDA C. BLOODWORTH
JIM BOWMAN, DHEC HYDROGEOLOGIST
RUSSELL BRITT, BUSINESS MANAGER INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
ART BROOKS, LEXINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION
BARBARA CLARKSON
DAN GENSAMER, PAR TEE DRIVING RANGE
TODD GOING
SUZANNE HOUSE
LOVYST HOWELL, ATSDR
LINDA LARKEE
TONY MANCINI, ATLANTA TESTING AND ENGINEERING
WILLIAM MORGAN
CHARLES NICHOLSON
RUTH NICHOLSON
LANE PARKER, TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS
ROGER SCOTT, PALMETTO HEALTH DISTRICT OF DHEC
LOWELL C. BUTCH SPIRES, JR., COUNTY COUNCILMAN
EUGENE THOMAS
BRUCE TODD, SITE CONSULTANTS
WALTER TURBEVILLE, CAYCE SANITATION DIRECTOR
(NO EXHIBITS WERE MARKED)
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 (THE FOLLOWING WAS HAD AT 7:10 P. M.):
2 MR. TANNER; ON BEHALF OF E.P.A., I WOULD
3 LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE HERE TONIGHT FOR THIS
4 MEETING ON THE LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL. MY NAME
5 IS TERRY TANNER, I'LL BE CONDUCTING THE MEETING
6 TONIGHT. I AM ALSO THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR E.P.A.
7 ON THIS SITE.
8 I'D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE CYNTHIA PEURIFOY
9 HERE TO MY LEFT. CYNTHIA IS THE COMMUNITY
10 RELATIONS COORDINATOR WITH E.P.A. SHE HELPS US TO
11 PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER. SHE ALSO HELPS US IN OUR
12 MEETINGS, IN GETTING A LOT OF THINGS ACROSS TO YOU
13 FOLKS, AND DOES A VERY GOOD JOB AT IT, TOO.
14 I'D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE JIM BOWMAN FROM THE
15 STATE. AND WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM
16 THE.HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TODD GOING AND LOVYST HOWELL
17 HERE IN THE BACK, NO NEED TO STAND UP. I JUST
18 WANTED TO MENTION THAT.
19 I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO SOME OF YOU
20 PEOPLE TONIGHT TO GET A LITTLE IDEA ABOUT SOME OF
21 YOUR CONCERNS FOR BEING HERE, AND THERE'S A WIDE
22 RANGE I'M PICKING UP ON. I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET
23 TO THOSE ISSUES TONIGHT, AT LEAST AS MANY OF THEM
24 AS I CAN. IF I CAN'T ANSWER THEM FOR YOU, I'LL TRY
25 TO FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
IN MY WORLD OF RESPONSIBILITIES AT E.P.A.,
THEY'RE VERY NARROW. I DON'T HAVE INVOLVEMENT IN A
LOT OF THE OTHER PROJECTS, BUT I AM HEAVILY
INVOLVED IN THIS BEING ONE OF THE PROJECTS. BUT
I'LL DO WHAT I CAN TO FIND YOU THE INFORMATION YOU
NEED, SO JUST BEAR WITH ME IF YOU WOULD.
A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE
WE BEGIN, AND THAT'S SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE
HAVE. WE'VE ALL COME HERE TONIGHT WITH
EXPECTATIONS. MOST OF US HAVE COME HERE WITH
EXPECTATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED US
TO DO WAS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME UNDERSTANDING. IF
NOT, WE REALLY WILL HAVE WASTED A BEAUTIFUL EVENING
HERE TONIGHT.
A LOT HAS HAPPENED ON THIS SITE, SOME OF IT
VERY TECHNICAL, SOME OF IT VERY EMOTIONAL. I'D
LIKE TO DO WHAT I CAN TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW ABOUT
IT AND YOU CAN DO THE SAME WITH ME, GIVE ME SOME
UNDERSTANDING, AND I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU SOME
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
EVERY TIME I PUT ONE OF THESE SITES TOGETHER,
I ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT I
WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU FOLKS. BECAUSE OF THE
SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF THESE STUDIES, THERE ARE A LOT
OF FIGURES AND FORMULAS AND LABORATORY RESULTS, AND
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 I ALWAYS WRESTLE WITH HOW MUCH TO GIVE YOU. I WANT
2 TO KEEP YOUR INTEREST GOING, BUT I DON'T WANT TO
3 GIVE YOU SO LITTLE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD
4 UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON SO HELP ME WITH
5 THAT. I'M GOING TO BE STRUGGLING WITH THAT ALL
6 NIGHT, SO BEAR WITH ME AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED
7 MORE INFORMATION OR LESS OR IF I'M BOGGING YOU DOWN
8 OR NOT. LET ME KNOW.
9 HERE'S THE OUTLINE OF OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. WE
10 JUST FINISHED WITH THE INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING
11 REMARKS. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
12 ABOUT THE SUPERFUND PROCESS, HOW ONE OF THESE SITES
13 GETS PLACED ON E.P.A.'S LIST, WHY WE'RE CLEANING IT
14 UP, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT
15 AND WHERE WE ARE NOW ON THIS SITE. I'M GOING TO GO
16 INTO THE BACKGROUND OF THE LEXINGTON COUNTY
17 LANDFILL, AND TALK ABOUT THE RESULTS FROM THE
18 INVESTIGATION WE JUST PERFORMED.
19 WE'RE ALSO GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU FOLKS
20 TONIGHT A PROPOSAL FOR CLEANING UP SOME OF THE
21 PROBLEMS — WELL, THE PROBLEMS AT THE LANDFILL.
22 WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE
23 ACTIVITIES, THINGS TO COME, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
24 NEXT, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ALSO
25 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 (PAUSE). OKAY. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU BRIEFLY
2 ABOUT THE PROCESS, WHAT E.P.A. DOES WHEN IT GOES
3 THROUGH ONE OF THESE SITES. THE FIRST STEP THAT
4 YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LIST IS SITE DISCOVERY THROUGH
. 5 A WIDE RANGE OF SOURCES — E.P.A. GETS TIPS ABOUT
6 PROBLEM AREAS LIKE THIS. A LOT OF TIMES THEY'RE
7 FROM PEOPLE CALLING IN AND SAYING, "HEY, I SAW SOME
8 DRUMS OVER HERE" OR "A TANK THAT FELL OFF A TRUCK"
9 OR "I SAW SOMEBODY DUMP SOME WASTE," SO AND SO, AND
10 WE BEGIN TO FOLLOW THEM OUT.
11 WE PUT THEM THROUGH A SCREENING PROCESS TO TRY
12 TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED FURTHER
13 INVESTIGATION. IF THEY DO, INDEED, NEED FURTHER
14 INVESTIGATION, WE TRY TO FIND OUT THE PEOPLE
15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE SITES TO BEGIN WITH.
16 WE NEGOTIATE WITH THEM, TRY TO GET THE COMPANIES TO
37 COME FORWARD AND SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH E.P.A. TO
18 PERFORM THE INVESTIGATION.
19 ONCE WE'VE AGREED TO THE TERMS, WE GO OUT AND
20 ACTUALLY COLLECT OUR SAMPLES SOIL, GROUNDWATER,
21 SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENT. YOU NAME IT, WE'RE OUT
\ .-
22 THERE SAMPLING IT. ONCE WE GET ALL THE INFORMATION
23 BACK WE SIFT THROUGH THE MATERIAL, WRITE A REPORT,
24 AND TRY TO OUTLINE WHAT IT IS THAT WE FOUND.
25 ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, WE WILL WRITE A RECORD
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 OF DECISION WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THIS STEP HERE
2 (INDICATING). RECORD OF DECISION SIMPLY OUTLINES
3 WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO NEXT, WHAT WE THINK
4 NEEDS TO BE DONE.
5 FOLLOWING THAT, WE GO BACK TO THE PARTIES THAT
6 WE KNOW OR THAT WE FEEL CONTRIBUTED TO THE WASTE AT
7 THE SITE AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM FOR THE ACTUAL
8 CLEANUP. ONCE THEY'VE AGREED TO CLEAN IT UP, WE GO
9 ON TO THE REMEDIAL DESIGN OR REMEDIAL ACTION.
10 WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT TONIGHT.
11 THE STEP THAT WE'RE AT CURRENTLY IS THIS STEP
12 HERE (INDICATING). WE'VE JUST COMPLETED THE
13 INVESTIGATION FOR THIS SITE. AND, AS PART OF THE
14 PROCESS, WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE PUBLIC NOW AND
15 SAYING, "HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND AND THIS IS
16 WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO AS THE — WHAT E.P.A.
17 FEELS THE BEST POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE FOR CLEANING UP
18 THE SITE."
19 BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I WANT TO TURN THIS
20 OVER TO CYNTHIA, CYNTHIA PEURIFOY, AGAIN OUR
21 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR, IS GOING TO TELL
22 YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS AND HOW WE LIKE
23 TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN THIS. CYNTHIA?
24 MS. PEURIFOY; THANK YOU, TERRY. GOOD
25 EVENING. AGAIN, I'M CYNTHIA PEURIFOY AND I'M THE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
8
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR FOR THE LEXINGTON
COUNTY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE AS WELL AS ALL OF
THE SUPERFUND SITES IN SOUTH CAROLINA EXCEPT THE
SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT.
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU'RE HERE WITH US
TONIGHT AND, AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
INTERACT AND LET US KNOW HOW THE INFORMATION IS
BEING RECEIVED. AND EVEN IF IT'S AFTER THIS
MEETING IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR OTHER MEETINGS,
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
TERRY JUST TALKED WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE SUPERFUND PROCESS. WELL, THAT PROCESS IS ABOUT
TO UNDERGO SOME CHANGES. IT IS UP FOR
REAUTHORIZATION, AND I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
GET INVOLVED. THERE ARE SOME VERY EXCITING CHANGES
BEING PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, SUCH AS
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY WORK GROUPS AT EACH SITE
— A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND I'D LIKE TO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING
PROPOSED BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, MAKE YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL
REPRESENTATIVES, AND LET US KNOW ALSO, YOU KNOW,
WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE GOOD CHANGES TO TAKE
PLACE.
I WANT TO, AGAIN, TALK ABOUT THE TECHNICAL
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAM. E.P.A. PROVIDES
2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, GRANTS TO COMMUNITIES, THERE
3 ARE $50,000 GRANTS THAT YOU CAN GET TO HIRE YOU A
4 TECHNICAL ADVISER TO REVIEW THE E.P.A. DOCUMENTS,
5 SUCH AS THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
6 TONIGHT, AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'LL DEVELOP IN
7 THE FUTURE. YOU CAN APPLY FOR A TECHNICAL
8 ASSISTANCE GRANT UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE SITE IS
9 PROPOSED FOR DELISTING, SO YOU STILL HAVE TIME. IF
10 YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT,
11 LET ME KNOW. I'LL BE GLAD TO COME UP AND WORK WITH
12 YOU AND GET THAT PACKAGE PUT TOGETHER.
13 I WANT TO TELL YOU A LITTLE SOMETHING ABOUT
14 SOMETHING THAT E.P.A. IS DOING THIS SUMMER. WE'RE
15 GOING TO BE HAVING WHAT WE CALL A TEACHER'S
16 INSTITUTE IN ATLANTA JULY 17TH THROUGH THE 29TH,
17 AND IT'S FOR MIDDLE Ł.ND HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS TO
18 TEACH THEM AND GET THEM FAMILIAR WITH THE THINGS
19 THAT E.P.A. DOES AND THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM, RCRA.
20 IT'S GOING TO COVER A LOT OF AREAS SO THAT THEY CAN
21 WORK WITH COMMUNITIES ON THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE
22 SCHOOLS OR WHAT HAVE YOU TO HELP BETTER THE
23 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. SO IF
24 ANYBODY KNOWS A TEACHER THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN
25 COMING, SEE ME AFTER THE MEETING AND I'LL BE GLAD
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
-LU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
TO HAVE A PACKAGE SENT TO THEM ON THE -- ON THE
INSTITUTE.
NOW, ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING. YOU KNOW WE'RE
IN A COMMENT PERIOD THAT ENDS MAY 6TH. HOWEVER,
THAT COMMENT PERIOD CAN BE EXTENDED FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS. YOU JUST NEED TO LET TERRY OR
MYSELF KNOW IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED MORE TIME TO
REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS OR TO PREPARE YOUR COMMENTS,
BUT WE ARE ALSO ACCEPTING COMMENTS TONIGHT.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IS AVAILABLE AT THE
CAYCE-WEST COLUMBIA BRANCH LIBRARY. AND I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY NOW FOR MAKING THE MISTAKE-
IN THE AD IN PUTTING THE WRONG LIBRARY. THAT WAS
MY FAULT, I APOLOGIZE FOR IT DEEPLY. THOSE
DOCUMENTS ARE THERE. IF YOU GOT A FACT SHEET IN
THE MAIL OR A FACT SHEET TONIGHT, THE CORRECT
INFORMATION IS IN THERE.
AS YOU SPEAK TONIGHT PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT OUR
COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR YOU, AND PLEASE IDENTIFY
YOURSELF BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRANSCRIPT
OF THIS MEETING THAT WE'LL BE USING TO PREPARE WHAT
WE CALL A RESPONSE AND SUMMARY.
THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY IS PREPARED PRIOR
TO THE RECORD OF DECISION THAT TERRY TALKED ABOUT,
AND IT ADDRESSES ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
11
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD. SO MAKE SURE
2 YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND THAT RESPONSIVENESS
3 SUMMARY WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE AT THE INFORMATION
4 REPOSITORY ALONG WITH THE RECORD OF DECISION WHEN
5 IT IS SIGNED.
6 I THINK THAT REALLY CONCLUDES WHAT I HAD TO
7 TALK ABOUT TONIGHT. AGAIN, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE
8 YOUR FEEDBACK AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S NOT
9 TONIGHT AT ANOTHER TIME IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D
10 LIKE TO SAY WE DO HAVE AN 800 NUMBER. IT'S ON THE
11 FACT SHEET. IT WAS IN THE AD IN THE PAPER. CALL
12 US, LET US KNOW WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE THINGS
13 BETTER OR TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
14 THANK YOU, TERRY.
15 MR. MORGAN: ABOUT EXTENDING THIS TIME -•
16 THE COURT REPORTER; CAN I HAVE YOUR
17 NAME> PLEASE?
18 MR. MORGAN; — SINCE THE AD WAS RUN -
19 WRONG, I FEEL THAT GIVES ABOUT A 90-DAY EXTENSION.
20 THE COURT REPORTER; CAN I HAVE YOUR
21 NAME, PLEASE?
22 MR. MORGAN; WILLIAM MORGAN.
23 MR. TANNER; MR. MORGAN, WE CAN'T EXTEND
24 THE TIME PERIOD. BY LAW, I DON'T THINK WE CAN
25 EXTEND IT 90 DAYS.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
12
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
MR. MORGAN: BY STATE LAW, 30 DAYS AHEAD
OF TIME STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLICIZED BEFORE
YOU HAVE A HEARING. BY STATE LAW. THAT WOULD BE A
30-DAY NOTICE. THIS WAS ONLY NOTIFIED ON THE 6TH
OF THIS MONTH. THAT AIN'T -- THAT'S A FAR CRY FROM
30 DAYS, NOW.
MR. TANNER; CYNTHIA?
MS. PEURIFOY; I THINK I CAN EXPLAIN TO
YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE DO THIS. WE USUALLY
TRY TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME AT THE END OF THE COMMENT
PERIOD AFTER THE MEETING, AND THIS IS DONE BASED ON
DOING THIS A LOT. PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY
WOULD PREFER WE COME EARLIER IN THE COMMENT PERIOD
-- AND THIS GROUP MAY BE DIFFERENT. IF THAT'S
TRUE, LET ME KNOW. BUT THEY LIKE IT EARLY SO THAT
THEY CAN HEAR THE PRESENTATION, THINK ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE SAYING, AND THEN HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND
PREPARE THEIR COMMENTS.
NOW, WE CAN EXTEND IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30
DAYS, THAT'S NO PROBLEM, BUT THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW
US. WE'RE WORKING BY THE SUPERFUND, NOW, LAW, NOT
BY STATE LAW.
MR. MORGAN: YOU'RE STILL IN SOUTH
CAROLINA.
MS. PEURIFOY; WELL, YEAH, I KNOW, BUT WE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
13
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 CAN EXTEND IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS IF YOU
2 REQUEST IT. WE HAVE NO PROVISION TO EXTEND IT FOR
3 A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
4 MR. TANNER; LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT
5 ABOUT THE BACKGROUND OF THE LEXINGTON COUNTY
6 LANDFILL. THE SITE ACTUALLY CONSISTS OF SEVERAL
7 AREAS -- THE 321 LANDFILL, THE BRAY PARK DUMP, AND
8 THE OLD CAYCE DUMP. THE 321 LANDFILL WAS FORMALLY
9 USED AS A SAND QUARRY BETWEEN 1940 UNTIL THE LATE
10 '60S.
11 (INDICATING). THIS SHOULD GIVE YOU A LITTLE
12 BIT BETTER IDEA. HERE WE SEE THE 321 LANDFILL,
13 WOULD BE THIS LARGE AREA HERE, THE BRAY PARK DUMP
14 AREA WHICH I REFERRED TO, AND THE OLD CAYCE DUMP
15 HERE AS WELL.
16 . WELL, BACK IN 1970, THE CITIES OF CAYCE AND
17 WEST COLUMBIA PURCHASED 57 ACRES OF THE SAND QUARRY
18 TO USE AS A LANDFILL. THE COUNTY OBTAINED THE
19 PERMIT FROM THE STATE IN 1971, AND ESSENTIALLY THIS
20 PERMIT GAVE THE COUNTY AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT GENERAL
21 HOUSEHOLD AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE.
22 NOW, WASTE WAS PLACED IN THE QUARRY AND
23 COVERED WITH SOIL, TYPICAL LANDFILL TYPE
24 OPERATIONS. THE LANDFILL — OR THE LANDFILL
25 CONTINUED UNTIL 1988 WHEN THE CAPACITY OF THE 321
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
14
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 LANDFILL WAS REACHED. THE LANDFILL WAS LATER
2 CLOSED IN 1991 OR 1990. A METHANE RECOVERY SYSTEM
3 WAS INSTALLED, AND WE'LL TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT
4 THAT LATER.
5 NOW, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE WASTE PLACED
6 IN THE LANDFILL CONSISTED OF SANITARY DOMESTIC TYPE
7 WASTE, HOUSEHOLD WASTE, THE RECORDS INDICATE THAT
8 THERE WAS INDUSTRIAL WASTE PLACED IN THE LANDFILL
9 AS WELL.
10 THERE WERE TWO OTHER FORMER DISPOSAL AREAS
11 PRESENT, THE OLD CAYCE DUMP AND THE BRAY PARK
12 DUMP. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE FIGURES HERE. THE
13 OLD CAYCE DUMP WAS ACTUALLY AN UNCONTROLLED DUMP,
14 WHICH STARTED IN THE 1960'S. IT WAS VERY TYPICAL
15 OF DUMPS AT THE TIME WHERE YOU SIMPLY HAVE A PILE
16 OF TRASH AND PEOPLE DRIVING BY WOULD SEE THAT AND
17 DECIDE INSTEAD OF MAKING TWO PILES OF TRASH IT
18 WOULD BE BETTER TO PUT THEIR PILE WITH THE OTHER
19 PILE. WELL, OVER THE YEARS THIS CONTINUED AND, LO
20 AND BEHOLD, DEVELOPED INTO THE OLD CAYCE DUMP.
21 WE ALSO HAVE THE BRAY PARK DUMP. THE BRAY
22 PARK DUMP WAS USED BY THE CITIES OF CAYCE AND WEST
23 COLUMBIA FROM THE MID-'60S TO 1970, APPROXIMATELY.
24 THE DUMP RECEIVED SOLID WASTE"DURING THIS PERIOD
25 AND IS PRESENTLY COVERED WITH SOIL. IT'S HARD TO
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
15
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 DIFFERENTIATE. MOST OF THE MORE DISCERNIBLE
2 LANDMARKS YOU WILL SEE WHEN YOU DRIVE BY THE 321
3 HIGHWAY IS THE ACTUAL LARGE LANDFILL ITSELF HERE.
4 NOW, WASTE DISPOSAL RECORDS WE DO HAVE FOR THE
5 321 LANDFILL. THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY COMPLETE, BUT WE
6 DO HAVE RECORDS OF WHAT WENT IN THERE AND SOME OF
7 THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING WASTE TO THE
8 LANDFILL.
9 THE OLD BRAY PARK DUMP AND THE OLD CAYCE DUMP
10 ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO NOT
11 HAVE RECORDS OF WHAT WENT IN THESE DUMPS. AND
12 BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNCONTROLLED SITUATION, NO
13 RECORDS PROBABLY EVER EXISTED.
14 THIS BRINGS US UP TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE
15 INVESTIGATION. AS PART OF THE STUDY PERFORMED ON
16 THIS SITE, WE PERFORMED A — A LOT OF SAMPLING. WE
17 ALSO PERFORMED SOME SPECIAL TESTING, SUBSURFACE
18 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS. IT GIVES US AN IDEA OF WHAT
19 IS BELOW THE SURFACE WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING DOWN
20 THERE AND DIGGING THE STUFF UP. IF YOU HAVE BURIED
21 WASTE BENEATH THE SOIL, THE SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL
22 SURVEYS WILL OFTEN PICK THOSE THINGS UP.
23 WE ALSO DUG TEST PITS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS
24 AROUND THE OLD BRAY PARK DUMP AND THE -- THE OLD
25 CAYCE DUMP AND THE OLD BRAY PARK DUMP, RATHER. WE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
16
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 ACTUALLY WENT OUT WITH A BACKHOE AND EXCAVATED
2 AROUND THE EDGES TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WENT IN
3 THERE, TRY TO GET SOME IDEA OF THE WASTE THAT WAS
4 ACTUALLY DEPOSITED IN THERE.
5 WE ALSO TOOK SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
6 SAMPLING. YOU CAN SEE, HOPEFULLY, THE STATIONS
7 MARKED. THESE WERE THE SEDIMENTS AND SURFACE
8 WATER. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A STREAM AND A SPRING
9 HERE AT THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHERE WE
10 COLLECTED SAMPLES.
11 THERE'S ALSO A MORE OF AN INTERMITTENT STREAM,
12 IT'S NOT ALWAYS WET, BUT WE DID MANAGE TO COLLECT
13 SAMPLES THROUGH HERE AND OTHER SAMPLES AND MORE
14 SURFACE WATER SAMPLES THROUGH HERE TO TRY TO GIVE
15 US SOME IDEA OF THE QUALITY OF THE WATER AND THE
16 SEDIMENT IN THESE AREAS (INDICATING).
17 NOW, AS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE ALSO
18 TOOK GROUNDWATER SAMPLES AND MANY OF THEM. ALL OF
19 THESE POINTS THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THIS MAP ARE
20 ACTUALLY LOCATIONS WHERE THERE WAS EITHER AN
21 EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL OR WE CAME IN
22 AND INSTALLED ADDITIONAL NEW WELLS. AND YOU CAN/
23 SEE THEY WERE SCATTERED ACRCSSkTHB?ENTIRE SITE, f?
24 GROUNDWATER IS OFTEN A GOOD INDICATOR OF WHAT
25 IS GOING ON AND HOW SERIOUS THESE SITES ARE.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
17
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 * TYPICALLY WHEN CONTAMINATION COMES INTO CONTACT
2 WITH THE SOIL, IT WILL SIT THERE UNTIL WATER COMES
3 ALONG AND WASHES IT OR CARRIES IT DOWN INTO THE
4 WATER TABLE. ONCE IT GETS IN THE WATER TABLE, YOU
5 CAN GO IN AND VERY READILY SAMPLE IT. I MEAN NOT
6 ONLY CAN YOU GO BACK AND SAMPLE THE SOIL SAMPLES
7 WHERE THE CONTAMINATION MAY HAVE BEEN, BUT THE
8 GROUNDWATER IS ALSO A GOOD INDICATOR TO LET US
9 KNOW, GIVE US SOME IDEA (A) IF THE WASTE IS THERE
10 AND (B) IF IT'S GOTTEN INTO THE GROUNDWATER.
11 WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND TO SUM UP OUR
12 INVESTIGATION. WE FOUND THAT GROUNDWATER IN THE
13 UPPER AQUIFERS ARE CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANIC AND
14 INORGANIC COMPOUNDS. WE ALSO SAW SOME
15 CONTAMINATION IN THE LOWER AQUIFER. AT THIS POINT
16 WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTAMINATION
17 PRESENT IN THE LOWER AQUIFER WAS DUE TO SOME OF THE
18 WELLS THAT WE PUT IN ACTUALLY CREATED — OR SOME OF
19 THE OLDER WELLS ESPECIALLY THAT WERE PUT IN THEY
20 COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY CREATED A PATHWAY FOR THE
21 CONTAMINATION TO GO DOWN INTO THE LOWER AQUIFER.
22 WE'RE NOT SURE.
23 WE DON'T KNOW HOW EXTENSIVElil^: IS, RUT IT-IS ;
24 NOT AS EXTENSIVE AS THE CONTAMINATION IN THE UPPER
25 AQUIFER. WE DO HAVE SOME WELLS DOWN THERE. WE'RE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
18
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 GOING TO GO BACK AND DO SOME ADDITIONAL SAMPLING OF
2 THE LOWER AQUIFER JUST TO SEE IF WE HAVE ALL OF THE
3 CONTAMINATION IDENTIFIED, BUT WE'LL TALK A LITTLE
4 BIT ABOUT THAT LATER.
5 WE ALSO FOUND SOME CONTAMINATION IN THE
6 SURFACE WATER AND THE SEDIMENT SAMPLES. WE FOUND
7 SOME ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN THOSE PARTICULAR
8 SAMPLES.
9 A CHARACTERISTIC COMMON TO LANDFILLS IS
10 METHANE GAS. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE EVER SEEN A
11 LANDFILL BURNING, VERY COMMON THING, MOST OF THE
12 TIMES IT BURNS BECAUSE OF METHANE GAS. METHANE GAS
13 RESULTS WHEN YOU 'BURY WASTE UNDER THE GROUND/ KEEP
14 IT NICE AND MOIST. OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, IT
15 BEGINS TO BREAK DOWN. DURING THIS PROCESS, AS IT
16 BREAKS DOWN IT TENDS TO RELEASE METHANE GAS, AND
17 METHANE GAS IS VERY FLAMMABLE.
18 WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WHEN WE STARTED
19 THE INVESTIGATION WAS TO DETERMINE HOW EXTENSIVE
20 THE METHANE WAS IN THE AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
21 FOLKS HAVE EVER HAD THE CHANCE TO SEE THIS OR NOT,
22 BUT THE 321 LANDFILL DOES HAVE AN EXISTING METHANE
23 GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM ON TOP OF IT. AND ONE OF THE
24 THINGS WE WANTED TO ?O WAS TO FIND OUT IF, INDEED,
25 THAT METHANE GAS PLUME WAS BEING CONTAINED BY THOSE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
19
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 -- BY THE COLLECTION SYSTEM.
2 NOW, AT THIS POINT, IS EVERYONE STILL WITH
3 ME? IS THIS MAKING SENSE? GOING TOO FAST, TOO
>
4 SLOW?
5 (NO RESPONSE)
6 MR. TANNER; THIS MAP, TO GIVE YOU AN
7 IDEA OF WHAT WE FOUND WHEN WE SAMPLED THE
8 GROUNDWATER, AS YOU CAN SEE THESE SERIES OF CIRCLES
9 REPRESENT BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
10 GROUNDWATER. AGAIN, YOU'LL NOTICE THE WELLS.
11 BENZENE IS SOMETHING "OU WOULDN'T NORMALLY
12 WANT TO DRINK IN YOUR WATER. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE
13 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS
14 ESTABLISHED SAFE DRINKING WATER LEVELS FOR THAT.
15 BECAUSE OF OUR PROGRESS, IF YOU WOULD CALL IT THAT,
16 IT'S VERY HARD TO GET CLEAN WATER ANYWHERE, EVEN IF
17 IT COMES STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CITY WATER SYSTEM.
18 NONETHELESS, THERE ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS AND THIS
19 FIGURE SHOWS WHERE THOSE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS GO AT
20 THE LANDFILL. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LARGE RING HERE
21 (INDICATING).
22 AGAIN, THIS AREA REPRESENTS THE BENZENE
23 CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE IS WHAT WE CALL A:
24 GROUNDWATER PLUME. IT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
25 CONTAMINATION PRESENT AT THE SITE IN THE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
20
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 . GROUNDWATER. YOU CAN SEE SOME HIGHER AREAS OF
2 CONTAMINATION HERE WHERE WE HAVE UP TO 30 PARTS PER
3 BILLION, I BELIEVE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WHAT WE'RE
4 CALLING THE ZERO LINE OF CONTAMINATION.
5 WHAT THIS TELLS US ESSENTIALLY IS IF YOU HAVE
6 A WELL HERE, IT'S SAFE TO DRINK THE GROUNDWATER
7 (INDICATING). IF YOU HAVE A WELL -- IT'S GOING TO
8 BE HARD TO DRAW — HAVE A WELL IN THIS AREA
9 (INDICATING), THE GROUNDWATER IS PROBABLY GOING TO
10 BE SUSPECT.
i-i WHAT WE DID FIND DURING OUR INVESTIGATION ARE
12 THERE IS -- THERE ARE NO DRINKING WATER WELLS IN
13 THIS AREA, SO THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE
14 PUBLIC.
15 ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, AND
16 IT'S PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY, IS TO MAKE SURE
17 THAT THIS CONTAMINATION DOES NOT REACH ANY DRINKING
18 WATER WELLS.
19 THIS NEXT SECTION IS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING.
20 WE PERFORM WHAT WE CALL A RISK ASSESSMENT. A RISK
21 ASSESSMENT GIVES US SOME IDEA OF THE RISK
22 ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. WE LOOK AT A LOT OF
23 DIFFERENT PATHWAYS. WE LOOK AT EVERY CONCEIVABLE
24 WAY THAT A HUMAN BEING OR A CHILD OR ANIMALS COULD
25 COME INTO CONTACT WITH CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
21
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WHAT WE DO IS WE TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND WE
2 PUT IT INTO A MATHEMATICAL MODEL. IF WE KNOW THAT
3 CONTAMINATION "X" IS BAD AT TEN PARTS PER BILLION,
4 WE KNOW HOW MUCH CONTAMINATION IS AT THE SITE, WE
5 BEGIN TO HAVE SOME WAY OF IDENTIFYING THE THREAT OR
6 THE POTENTIAL THREAT THAT THESE SITES POSE.
7 THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND OUT WHEN WE EVALUATED
8 THE LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL SITE. WE FOUND OUT
9 THAT DRINKING WATER STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED FOR
10 ELEVEN ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SEVEN OF THE INORGANIC
11 COMPOUNDS IN THE WATER.
12 THE BIGGEST POTENTIAL THREAT WE FOUND FROM THE
13 SITE WAS THE POTENTIAL OF, AGAIN, DRINKING
14 GROUNDWATER, AND THAT WOULD BE A CHILD DRINKING THE
15 GROUNDWATER. AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE
16 ARE. NO EXISTING GROUNDV7ATER WELLS AT THE SITE.
17 THIS IS ONLY THE POTENTIAL.
18 WE ALSO, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FOUND SOME
19 CONTAMINATION IN SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT. NOW,
20 THEY WEREN'T AT LEVELS GREAT ENOUGH TO POSE A
21 THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH; HOWEVER, MY PEOPLE WHO WORK
22 ON THE BUGS AND BUNNIES END, THE ECOLOGICAL ASPECT
23 OF E.P.A., TELLS ME THAT THESE CONCENTRATIONS COULD
24 POTENTIALLY POSE A THREAT TO SOME OF THE WILDLIFE
25 OUT THERE.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
22
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WE WENT BACK, LOOKED AT THE DATA. WE SAID
2 WELL, THIS IS A POSSIBILITY. WE'RE NOT SURE THAT
3 WE HAVE ENOUGH SAMPLING TO DATE, HOWEVER, TO GO IN
4 AND PROPOSE ACTUAL REMEDIATION OF THE SURFACE WATER
5 AND SEDIMENT. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS COME
6 BACK, TAKE SOME MORE SAMPLES, TRY TO DETERMINE
7 EXACTLY OR SPECIFICALLY HOW EXTENSIVE THE
)
8 CONTAMINATION IS IN THE SURFACE WATER AND
9 SEDIMENT. GO BACK, PLUG IT IN TO OUR RISK
10 ASSESSMENT NUMBERS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES
11 WARRANT CLEANUP. AND AT THE TIME IF IT DOES, WE'LL
12 PROBABLY COME BACK, HOLD ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING,
13 TELL YOU WHAT WE FOUND AND GO FROM THERE.
14 (PAUSE). LANDFILLS AREN'T ENTIRELY NEW TO
15 E.P.A. WE BEGIN TO SEE A LOT OF LANDFILLS POP UP
16 ON OUR LISTS, AND IT'S NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE OF
17 THE WASTE THAT GETS PLACED INTO THESE THINGS.
18 EVENTUALLY, THEY'RE GOING TO LEAK OUT.
19 WELL, E.P.A. DECIDED THAT WE'RE BEGINNING TO
20 SEE SO MANY OF THESE THINGS, THERE'S PROBABLY -- OR
21 THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A STANDARDIZED WAY OF
22 ADDRESSING THEM. NORMALLY WHEN WE HAVE A SITE, WE
23 LOOK AT EVERY METHOD UNDER THE SUN FOR CLEANING IT
24 UP. SOMEONE HAD THE FORESIGHT 'TO SA^/ "WELL,
25 INSTEAD OF EVALUATING ALL OF THE WAYS OF
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
23
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 POTENTIALLY CLEANING UP A LANDFILL," AND WE HAVE
2 MANY OPTIONS AT OUR CHOICE. EVERYTHING FROM
3 DIGGING UP EVERY WASHER AND DRYER AND NEWSPAPER IN
4 THE LANDFILL, ENCASING IT IN CEMENT AND SENDING IT
5 OFF TO A HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL UNTIL THE WORLD
6 ENDS, ALL THE WAY UP TO USING AN ELECTRICAL CURRENT
7 TO CLASSIFY (PHONETIC) THE WASTE. WE BEGAN TO SAY
8 "WELL, IS THIS REALLY PRACTICAL TO DO?" MOST OF
9 THE TIMES WHAT WE SAW IN OUR CLEANUPS WERE WHERE WE
10 SIMPLY TRY TO CONTAIN THE WASTE. THAT WOULD MEAN
11 ASSURING THAT NONE OF THE CONTAMINATION WAS GOING
12 TO MIGRATE PAST THE LANDFILL BOUNDARIES AND POSE A
13 THREAT TO YOU FOLKS LIVING HERE IN THE COMMUNITY.
14 A COUPLE OF WAYS OF DOING THAT — AND, BY THE
15 WAY, THIS PROCESS IS ACTUALLY CALLED A PRESUMPTIVE
16 REMEDY, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESUME
17 THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT EVERY METHOD UNDER
18 THE SUN FOR CLEANING IT UP. IT SIMPLY WASN'T
19 NECESSARY.
20 AGAIN, WHAT WE SAW FROM OUR EXPERIENCE WAS
21 THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF REMEDIES THAT ARE PRACTICAL
22 TO TRY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE
23 EVALUATED THE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO US. AND
24 WHEN I SAY THE TERM "ALTERNATIVE," THAT SIMPLY
25 MEANS ONE OF THE CHOICES THAT WE LOOKED AT FOR
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
24
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 CLEANING UP THE SITE.
2 IN GENERAL THE CHOICES INCLUDE, AS YOU CAN SEE
3 HERE IN THE LIST, CAPPING OF THE WASTE AREAS. IT'S
4 VERY COMMON TO GO BACK AND TRY TO KEEP GROUNDWATER
5 FROM FILTERING THROUGH THE WASTE OR, EXCUSE ME,
6 FROM KEEPING RAIN WATER FROM FILTERING THROUGH THE
7 WASTE CARRYING THE CONTAMINATED WATER THEN DOWN
8 INTO THE GROUNDWATER TABLE AND HAVING IT SPREAD
9 INTO THE WATER TABLE.
10 WE CAN DO THAT ESSENTIALLY BY PREVENTING THE
11 WATER FROM GETTING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE
12 TYPICALLY DO THAT WITH A CAP. WE SIMPLY PLACE SOME
13 TYPE OF EITHER CLAY OR, IN SOME INSTANCES, A
14 SYNTHETIC LINER OVER THE WASTE AREA TO KEEP THE
15 RAIN WATER FROM PERCOLATING DOWN THROUGH THERE.
16 . AS YOU SAW IN THE GROUNDWATER PLUME, WE
17 DISCOVERED THAT IN THE CASE OF A LANDFILL IT
18 USUALLY ONLY MAKES SENSE TO CONTAIN IT. AS YOU CAN
19 SEE, THESE AREAS HERE THAT OUTLINES THE ACTUAL
20 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER PLUME, WHAT WE'LL
21 TYPICALLY DO IS GO IN AND INSTALL A SERIES OF
22 WELLS. AND THE PURPOSE OF THESE WELLS -- (MARKS ON
23 CHART) —WILL BE TO PULL THE CONTAMINATED
24 GROUNDWATER OUT OF THE GROUND; THUS, KEEPING IT
25 FROM CONTINUING TO MIGRATE IN THIS DIRECTION AS
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
25
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WOULD TYPICALLY DO.
2 GROUNDWATER FLOW IS VERY CONSTANT.
3 GROUNDWATER, ONCE IT GETS IN THE GROUND, DOESN'T
4 SIMPLY SIT THERE, IT FLOWS. AND IN THE CASE OF 321
5 LANDFILL, IN GENERAL THE GROUNDWATER FLOW IS THIS
6 WAY (INDICATING). SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE
7 TO DO IS INSTALL A SYSTEM OF RECOVERY WELLS — AND,
8 AGAIN, THESE ARE A ROUGH APPROXIMATION WITH REGARD
9 TO THEIR LOCATION — AND TRY TO CATCH THE
10 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER BEFORE IT MIGRATES PAST
11 THEM.
12 MS. LARKEE; THEN WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE
13 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER?
14 THE COURT REPORTER; CAN I HAVE YOUR
15 NAME, PLEASE?
16 . MS. LARKEE: LINDA LARKEE.
17 MR. TANNER; LINDA, THERE'S A COUPLE OF
18 DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN DO IT. WHAT WE'RE GOING
19 TO PROPOSE TO DO WITH THE 321 LANDFILL IS SEND IT
20 TO THE POTW. WE THOUGHT WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING THE
21 CONTAMINATION IN THERE, THE PUBLICLY OWNED...
22 MS. LARKEE; TREATMENT.
23 MR. TANNER; TREATMENT WORKS, SEND IT TO
24 THE SEWER AND HAVE THEM TREAT IT. AGAIN, THERE'S A
25 WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS OPEN FOR TREATING
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
26
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE,
2 WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE TO DO THAT.
3 YES, SIR?
4 MR. MORGAN: WILLIAM MORGAN AGAIN. WHY
5 NOT CLASSIFY IT? IT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM
6 PERMANENTLY BECAUSE IT WOULD THEN SOLIDIFY THE
7 STUFF TO WHERE WATER WOULD NOT HURT IT. THE
8 CLASSIFICATION WOULD STOP ALL THESE WELLS, STOP ALL
9 THIS WORK WE HAVE TO DO ON IT.
10 AND ANOTHER THING IS WITH THE CAPPING, EVERY
11 TIME THAT CAP HEATS UP THAT GROUND UNDERNEATH IT
12 CAN CONTAIN MORE PARTS PER MILLION OF MOISTURE.
13 ; YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PSYCHOMETRICS ARE AND WHAT
14 A SLING PSYCHROMETER IS? WHEN YOU DO AN ANALYSIS
15 OF AIR, FOR AIR CONDITIONING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT,
16 YOU.USE A SLING PSYCHROMETER. YOU USE A
17 PSYCHOMETRIC CHART TO PLOT YOUR CHART, TO KNOW HOW
18 MUCH YOU NEED IN AIR CONDITIONING AND HOW MUCH YOU
19 DON'T. OKAY. YOU'VE GOT TO REMOVE SO MUCH
20 MOISTURE FOR SO MANY THINGS.
21 THAT CAP IS GOING TO CAUSE THAT MOISTURE TO
22 CONDENSE UNDERNEATH IT, AND IT'S GOING TO SIPHON
23 RIGHT BACK THROUGH IT AND THIS WILL BE AN ONGOING
24 THING. IF YOU SOLIDIFY IT, YOU WON'T HAVE THAT.
25 MR. TANNER! WELL, LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
27
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 THOSE ALTERNATIVES AND WE'LL ALSO CONSIDER THE COST
2 AS WELL. (PAUSE). THESE ARE SOME OF THE
3 ALTERNATIVES THAT WE EVALUATED FOR THE CLEANUP OF
4 THIS SITE. THERE'S A TOTAL OF FOUR ALTERNATIVES,
5 AND WE'LL START WITH THESE FIRST TWO.
6 BY LAW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO EVALUATE A NO ACTION
7 ALTERNATIVE. THIS GIVES US SOME IDEA OF WHAT WOULD
8 HAPPEN IF WE JUST WALKED AWAY FROM THE SITE.
9 DIDN'T CLEAN IT UP, SIMPLY MONITORED IT.
10 AS YOU CAN SEE THE COST HERE, IT MAY SEEM
11 SURPRISINGLY HIGH. ANALYT1 T.\L COSTS ARE
12 INCREDIBLE. PART OF THE REASON DRIVING THOSE COSTS
13 ARE, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. THE
14 INFORMATION THAT WE COLLECT, ESPECIALLY THE
15 LABORATORY DATA, HAS GOT TO BE DEFENSIBLE IN
16 COURT. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEPEND ON IT. PEOPLE
17 WILL DO ANYTHING TO THROW QUESTION ON THAT DATA.
18 IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, BUT WE'VE HAD
19 TO SCRUTINIZE HOW WE COLLECT THOSE SAMPLES TO AN
20 INCREDIBLE DEGREE. IT MUST STAND UP IN COURT.
21 THIS COST HERE BEGINS TO REFLECT THAT. WE ARE —
22 IN OUR SOCIETY, WE'RE VERY QUICK TO GO INTO COURT.
23 THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THAT. THIS IS ALSO A
24 DEFLECTION OF THE COST FOR 30 YEARS OF MONITORING.
25 IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BETTER, BUT IT'S STILL HARD TO
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
SWALLOW. I REALIZE THAT IS A TREMENDOUS COST FOR
DOING NOTHING.
I HOPE YOU'LL BEGIN TO GET SOME IDEA NOW OF
THE COST INVOLVED IN CLEANING THESE THINGS UP. BUT
WE'LL CONTINUE AND, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WON'T GET
MUCH CHEAPER, BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BECOME -- YOU
WILL SEE A BETTER TRADE-OFF.
ALTERNATIVE TWO: WE TALKED ABOUT CONTAINMENT,
GAS RECOVERY, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND
MONITORING. I SPOKE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ABOUT
CAPPIK" A SITE, COVERING THE SITE WITH EITHER CLAY
OR PLASTIC, SOME TYPE OF IMPERMEABLE BARRIER TO
KEEP RAIN WATER FROM CONTINUALLY FILTERING DOWN
INTO WASTE AND CARRYING IT DOWN INTO THE WATER
TABLE. THIS REMEDY INVOLVES CAPPING.
. IT ALSO INVOLVES CONSOLIDATION OF WASTE AREA
NUMBER THREE, WHICH WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT TO
DATE, BUT WAS REVEALED DURING OUR STUDY — (MARKS
ON CHART). WE FOUND A THIRD WASTE AREA, WE'RE
GOING TO CALL THIS WASTE AREA THREE. IT WAS
ACTUALLY LOCATED HERE (INDICATING). IT'S MUCH
SMALLER THAN THE BRAY PARK DUMP OR THE OLD CAYCE
DUMP. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IN THE SECOND
ALTERNATIVE IS TO ACTUALLY COMBINE THIS WASTE AREA
NUMBER THREE WITH THE BRAY PARK DUMP.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
29
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 NOW, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF OUR STUDY THAT WE DTD,
2 WE NOTICED THAT THE METHANE PLUME, WHICH IS THE
3 FLAMMABLE GAS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILLS, WAS A
4 LITTLE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WE FIRST IMAGINED. THE
5 EXISTING RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR THE METHANE GAS IS NOT
6 CATCHING THE ENTIRE PLUME. BECAUSE OF THE
7 POTENTIAL THREAT THERE, WE WANT TO GO BACK IN AND
8 EXPAND THAT SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING
9 ALL OF THE METHANE GAS PRODUCED BY THESE WASTE
10 AREAS.
11 AGAIN, IF ANYONE HAS DRIVEN BY THE SITE YOU'VE
12 NOTICED SOME EROSION PROBLEMS. ALTERNATIVE NUMBER
13 TWO ALSO PROPOSES THAT EROSION BE STOPPED. THIS
14 ALTERNATIVE ALSO ADDRESSES INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
15 FOR GROUNDWATER AND LAND USE, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN
16 AS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING.
17 AND THE COST OF THIS R3MEDY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE...
18 MS. LARKEE; LINDA LARKEE.
19 MR. TANNER; YES?
20 MS. LARKEE; DID YOU HAVE A PICTURE WITH
21 A METHANE GAS PLUME ON IT, A DIAGRAM OF THAT?
22 MR. TANNER; NO, I SURE DON'T. MY
23 APOLOGIES FOR DOING THAT. THAT'S ONE THING THAT I
24 OVERLOOKED.
25 MS. LARKEE; DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
30
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 IT —
2 MR. TANNER; OH, YES, I CAN
3 MS. LARKEE: -- WOULD BE WITH ALL THOSE
4 PICTURES UP THERE?
5 MR. TANNER; LET ME PULL OUT A MAP. IF
6 YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE BROUGHT YOUR FACT SHEET WITH YOU
7 OR GOT ANOTHER ONE FROM THE TABLE BACK THERE, I
8 BELIEVE FIGURE TWO OR THREE SHOW SOME METHANE
9 SAMPLING STATIONS DOTTED ALONG THE ROAD HERE UP
10 AROUND ALL OF THESE STRUCTURES INTO THE STARMOUNT
11 SUBDIVISION. AND — WHERE ELSE? THERE MIGHT HAVE
12 BEEN A COUPLE OF THEM OUT HERE AS WELL
13 (INDICATING).
14 WHAT WE DID FIND IS THAT WE'RE SEEING
15 CONCENTRATIONS OF METHANE GAS IN THESE AREAS HERE
16 (INDICATING), ESPECIALLY ALONG THE 321 LANDFILL.
17 IT APPEARS TO BE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PLUME
18 IS.
19 NOW, AS PART OF THE REMEDIAL DESIGN, WHICH IS
20 THE NEXT STEP, WE WANT TO GO BACK IN AND DETERMINE
21 SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT ENDED. AS YOU RECALL, THE
22 GROUNDWATER PLUME WE WERE ABLE TO DRAW A VERY
23 CLEAR-CUT MAP AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS.
24 WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE METHANE
25 AS WELL.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
31
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WE DO KNOW THAT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH
2 METHANE IS THAT IT GETS IN BASEMENTS AND IT BUILDS
3 UP AND THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR A SPARK AND
4 EXPLOSION. UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE ALL SEEN STORIES
5 ABOUT THAT IN THE NEWS. WHAT WE DID DISCOVER
6 DURING THIS INVESTIGATION WERE -- ESPECIALLY IN
7 SAMPLING THE STRUCTURES, THE HOUSES ALONG STARMOUNT
8 SUBDIVISION AND ANY OTHER STRUCTURE WE COULD FIND,
9 WAS THERE WAS NO BUILDUP IN THOSE STRUCTURES SO
10 THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE THREAT FROM EXPLOSIONS TO THE
11 HOMES. THAT WAS OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERN.
12 WHAT IS PROBABLY HAPPENING NOW IN THESE AREAS
13 IS THAT THE METHANE IS MIGRATING. IT'S COMING UP
14 TO THE SOIL AND DIFFUSING INTO THE AIR WHICH,
15 AGAIN, THE BIGGEST THREAT FOR METHANE IS THE
16 EXPLOSION FACTOR. BUT PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOIOGIES
17 FOR NOT HAVING A SLIDE ON THAT.
18 HERE WE HAVE ALTERNATIVES THREE AND FOUR IN
19 THE LAST TWO. ALTERNATIVE THREE INCLUDES ALL THE
20 COMPONENTS LISTED UNDER TWO, BUT INCLUDES
21 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION. NOW, TO DATE — OR AT
22 LEAST THE OTHER TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT WE LOOKED AT
23 DID NOT INCLUDE ADDRESSING THE CONTAMINATED
24 GROUNDWATER. PUTTING IN WELLS, PULLING UP THE
25 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER AND CLEANING IT UP.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
32
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
ALTERNATIVE THREE DOES.
WE LOOKED AT TWO OPTIONS: LOOKED AT DISPOSING
IN THE SEWER, AND A SECOND WHICH INCLUDES OR
PROPOSES THAT WE TAKE THE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER,
PUT IT BACK ON THE LAND SURFACE. IT'S NOT QUITE AS
INSANE AS IT SOUNDS. IT IS GOOD FOR MAINTAINING
VEGETATION ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL.
IT DOESN'T REALLY TREAT THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER.
YOU JUST SIMPLY END UP RECYCLING CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER. NONETHELESS, WE LOOKED AT IT AS A
POTENTIAL OPTION, WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPLY
WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. WE SIMPLY EVALUATED IT.
AND THEN WE HAVE ALTERNATIVE FOUR.
ALTERNATIVE FOUR CONSISTS OF ALL THE COMPONENTS
LISTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE THREE, INCLUDES SOMETHING
— SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND A PROBLEM WE
DISCOVERED WHEN WE WERE PERFORMING THE
INVESTIGATION.
YOU'LL NOTICE THE STREAMS THAT ARE IN THIS
GENERAL AREA OF THE OLD CAYCE DUMP. THIS WAS THE
FORMER STANLEY POND AREA, AND THERE USED TO BE AND
MAY STILL BE SPRINGS IN THIS AREA. IT WAS VERY
COMMON PRACTICE YEARS AGO THAT YOU HAD A HOLE,
DIDN'T MATTER IF IT HAD WATER IN IT OR NOT, YOU
FILLED IT WITH TRASH. FILLED IT UP WITH ENOUGH
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
33
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 TRASH, THEN YOU COVERED IT WITH SOIL. IT'S VERY
2 COMMON.
3 WE BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THIS
4 AREA ACTUALLY HAS, OR STILL HAS, SPRINGS IN THERE
5 THAT ARE FEEDING IT. AND WHAT THIS TELLS US IS ANY
6 TIME YOU SEE A SPRING, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE
7 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER, OR THE WATER TABLE AT THAT
8 POINT IN LAND, IS EVEN WITH THE LAND SURFACE AND
9 THE GROUNDWATER IS ACTUALLY DISCHARGING UP OUT OF
10 THE LAND. THIS COMPLICATES THIS AREA SIMPLY
11 BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE WASTE LITERALLY SITTING IN THE
12 WATER TABLE.
13 NOW, FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL FROM THE
14 INVESTIGATION, IT IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE 321
15 LANDFILL OR THE BRAY PARK LANDFILL OR THE WASTE
16 AREA THREE. THESE AREAS ARE WELL ABOVE THE WATER
17 TABLE.
18 HOWEVER, AGAIN, A TROUBLESOME SITUATION WITH
19 THE OLD CAYCE DUMP. AGAIN, WE BELIEVE IT IS
20 SITTING IN THE WATER TABLE AND THE WASTE IS IN THE
21 WATER TABLE. AND, BECAUSE OF THAT, WE PROPOSED A
22 METHOD OF ADDRESSING THAT. AND WHAT THAT WILL
23 INCLUDE IS CONSOLIDATION OF THE OLD CAYCE DUMP AND
24 WASTE AREA THREE WITH EITHER THE BRAY PARK DUMP OR
25 THE 321 LANDFILL.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
34
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WE FELT THAT BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION IT
2 WOULD BE BETTER TO MOVE THIS WASTE UP OUT OF THE
3 GROUNDWATER, GET THE CONTAMINATION OUT OF THE
4 GROUNDWATER, PUT IT SOMEWHERE WHERE IT CAN BE DRY
5 AND COVERED WITH A CAP TO KEEP IT DRY.
6 AGAIN, ALTERNATIVE FOUR ALSO PROPOSES
7 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, PUTTING IN SOME WELLS,
8 PULLING UP THAT CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER AND
9 TREATING IT. AGAIN, TWO DIFFERENT METHODS. EITHER
10 SENDING IT TO THE SEWER OR LAND IRRIGATION.
11 MR. PARKER; TERRY?
12 MR. TANNER; YES.
13 MR. PARKER; YOU SAID OLD CAYCE AND THE
14 OLD LANDFILL THERE. IF YOU -- LANE PARKER, I'M
15 SORRY. IF YOU GET THE TRASH OUT OF THE WATER
16 SYSTEM THERE, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU COULD TREAT THE
17 WATER SAFELY WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A
18 PROBLEM WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE WATER GOING OUT NOW?
19 MR. TANNER; COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT?
20 MR. PARKER; AFTER YOU REMOVE YOUR TRASH
21 THERE, SO-CALLED TRASH THAT'S IN THE OLD CAYCE DUMP
22 WHERE YOU HAVE THE WATER GOING OUT, I KNOW IT'S
23 PRESUMPTIVE BUT DO YOU FEEL LIKEsjTHAT WATER WOULD.-.>•*
24 BE FAIRLY SAFE OR WILjj IT BE FEEDING FROM THE OLD
25 AREA THERE? IS THIS A LOWER SPOT WHERE IT WOULD
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
35
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA'
1 JUST DRAW FROM THERE?
2 MR. TANNER; I'M NOT SURE THAT THE WATER
3 WILL BE PRISTINE ENOUGH TO DRINK. AS A MATTER OF
4 FACT, WE'LL PROBABLY STILL HAVE GROUNDWATER
5 RECOVERY WELLS IN THIS AREA TO KEEP CONTAMINATION
6 FROM MOVING UP. THE GROUNDWATER IS NOT ONLY
7 CONTAMINATED HERE FROM THIS AREA, BUT IT'S PROBABLY
8 AS WELL CONTAMINATED FROM THE WASTE IN THE 321
9 LANDFILL.
10 WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS WE CAN AT LEAST STOP
11 SOME OF THAT CONTAMINATION v GETTING THIS UP OUT
12 OF THE GROUNDWATER TABLE. IF WE CAN INSTALL AN
13 EFFECTIVE ENOUGH CAP ON THERE, WE'RE HOPING THAT
14 THE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION LEVELS WILL BEGIN TO
15 DECLINE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE, IN EFFECT, CUT OFF
16 THE.SOURCE OR, RATHER, REMOVED THE SOURCE FROM THE
17 GROUNDWATER ITSELF.
18 MR. PARKER: ONE OTHER QUESTION WHILE I'M
19 -- I HATE TO DOMINATE THIS.
20 MR. TANNER; THAT'S OKAY.
21 MR. PARKER; IF YOU BRING YOUR TRASH UP
22 THERE, YOU KNOW, PER SE, THE OLD CAYCE LANDFILL,
23 SPREAD IT ON TOP THERE, REMEDIATE; YOUR WATER FROM r
24 GOING OUT, AND BUILD THAT TYPE OF WALL TO KEEP
25 SPREADING IT OUT FROM YOU AND YOUR WELLS AROUND THE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
36
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 OUTSIDE AND BUILD A CAP ON TOP, WOULD THAT NOT BE
2 PRETTY SAFE?
3 MR. TANNER: I THINK SO. I DON'T BELIEVE
4 THAT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE
5 PROPOSING. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SLURRY WALL?
6 MR. PARKER; YEAH, A SLURRY WALL. THAT'S
7 ANOTHER WAY, ANOTHER EXPRESSION.
8 MR. TANNER: WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE WE
9 LOOKED AT A SLURRY WALL, ALTHOUGH THAT'S CERTAINLY
10 A POSSIBILITY.
:' MR. PARKER; IF YOU MITIGATE IT OUT FROM
12 YOUR SOURCE SPEAKING OF THAT, PER SE, AFTER YOU
13 <-- AFTER YOU -- AFTER YOU'VE DRAWN YOUR TRASH OUT
14 OF THE OLD CAYCE, THAT'S BASICALLY YOUR PROBLEM
15 AREA RIGHT NOW FROM SPREADING; RIGHT?
16 . MR. TANNER; WELL, IT'S ONE OF THE
17 PROBLEM AREAS. AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO THE
18 CONTAMINATION IN THE GROUNDWATER. IT NOT ONLY
19 INCLUDES THIS AREA BUT
20 MR. PARKER: BASICALLY AFTER YOU'VE DONE
21 THAT THEN PUT YOUR STRIPPER WELLS, YOU CAN PRETTY
22 WELL DO THIS FAIRLY EASILY — OR FAIRLY SAFE.' I
23 KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM; BUT IT WILL
24 ALLEVIATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS.
25 MR. TANNER: I THINK IT WILL REDUCE MANY
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 OF THE PROBLEMS IF WE CAN AT LEAST CUT DOWN ON THE
2 SOURCE AND GET THE SOURCE UP OUT OF THE
3 GROUNDWATER.
4 MS. LARKEE: LINDA LARKEE. WHAT'S A
5 SLURRY WALL?
6 MR. TANNER: OKAY. LET ME SEE IF I CAN
7 DRAW YOU A PICTURE OF ONE. PARDON THE CRUDITY OF
8 THIS DRAWING. (MARKS ON CHART). THIS WOULD BE A
9 BURIED WASTE AREA, THIS WOULD BE THE LAND SURFACE,
10 AND THIS WOULD BE THE GROUNDWATER, THE WATER
11 BENEATH THE SOIL.
12 WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR WHAT LAKE IS
13 PROPOSING, IS YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO IN AND INSTALL A
14 WATERPROOF WALL. AND, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE
15 GROUNDWATER SITTING ON, SAY, A CLAY BED. SO, FOR
16 THE MOST PART, THE GROUNDWATER IS GOING TO STOP
17 HERE, IT'S GOING TO SIT WITHIN THIS AREA
18 (INDICATING).
19 WHAT LANE WAS PROPOSING TO DO IS GO IN AND PUT
20 IN A WATER TIGHT WALL HERE (INDICATING), AND WHAT
21 THAT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS CONTAIN THE WASTE. IT'S
22 ALMOST LIKE CONTAINING THE GROUNDWATER IN A
23 BATHTUB. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU
24 CAN IMAGINE HOW LONG THIS WALL WOULD HAVE TO BE.
25 IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO ENCASE THE WASTE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
38
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 AREA. AND -- DOES THAT -- DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY
2 THINGS FOR YOU?
3 MS. LARKEE: WHAT DO THEY MAKE THE WALL
4 OUT OF? A CEMENT WALL?
5 MR. PARKER: A WATERPROOF TYPE SURFACE.
6 MR. TANNER; AGAIN, TYPICALLY THEY WOULD
7 USE BENTONITE, WHICH IS A — I DON'T KNOW THE
8 ACTUAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING
9 THAT STARTS OUT LIKE A POWDER OR PELLET AND IT
10 SWELLS AND MAKES A WATERTIGHT STRUCTURE. ALMOST
11 LIKE -- I GUESS YOU COULD THINK OF IT LIKE ALMOST
12 THE EQUIVALENT OF A CEMENT WALL, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD
13 BE MUCH MORE WATERTIGHT. IT WOULD BE LIKE
14 MR. PARKER: HOW BIG IS IT?
15 MR. TANNER: THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE
16 ENGINEERING STUDY. YOU GET A LOT OF VARIATION,
17 DEPENDING UPON HOW MUCH WATER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
18 TO HOLD BACK. OBVIOUSLY THE MORE PRESSURE ON THIS
19 WALL HERE, THE THICKER IT WOULD HAVE TO BE.
20 MS. LARKEE; AND HOW DEEP?
21 MR. TANNER: WELL, IT WOULD HAVE TO
22 EXTEND AGAIN FROM THE -- IF THIS WAS THE GROUND
23 SURFACE (INDICATING) IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOVE THE
24 WATER TABLE AND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A CONFINING
25 LAYER, SO THERE WOULD BE NO WAY FOR THE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
39
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 CONTAMINATION IN THIS AREA TO ACTUALLY LEAK OUT IN
2 HERE.
3 IT'S EQUIVALENT TO BUILDING AN UNDERGROUND
4 POOL. YOU COULD ALMOST THINK OF IT LIKE THAT.
5 DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY THINGS FOR YOU?
6 MS. LARKEE: AND IT WOULD HAVE TO GO
7 AROUND THE WHOLE LANDFILL AREA — OR THE WHOLE
8 AREA, THE POOL AREA?
9 MR. TANNER; WELL, ALMOST. AGAIN, IF YOU
10 WERE CN A SLOPE AND IF THIS WERE -- IF THIS ALL RAN
11 UPHILL HERE AND EVENTUALLY THE WATER TABLE WENT
12 LIKE THIS (INDICATING), YOU WOULDN'T NEED A WALL
13 HERE BUT YOU WOULD AROUND PROBABLY THREE-QUARTERS
14 OF THE SITE. IT DEPENDS. IT'S VERY SITE
15 SPECIFIC.
16 . MR. PARKER; THOSE THINGS ARE VERY EASY
17 TO INSTALL. WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL A SOIL SOFT
18 (PHONETIC). IT'S LIKE IT'S CUSTOM FIT OR YOU CAN
19 COME BACK IN THE BACK OF IT AND RIGHT BEHIND YOU.
20 IT'S A PRETTY FAST PROCESS BUT IT'S, LIKE YOU SAY,
21 IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. NONE OF THIS STUFF IS GOING
22 TO BE NICKEL AND DIME STUFF, YOU ALL REALIZE THAT.
23 IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REMEDIATE THIS
24 SITUATION.
25 MR. TANNER; UNFORTUNATELY, THAT TENDS TO
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
40
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 BE THE CASE WITH SUPERFUND SITES.
2 WELL, I OUTLINED THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES THAT WE
3 LOOKED AT. WE HAD TO FIND SOME WAY OF EVALUATING,
4 AND THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE USED. WE WOULD
5 NEVER PICK A REMEDY THAT WE FELT WAS NOT PROTECTIVE
6 OF HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT. THAT HAS TO BE
7 MET. THERE ARE ALSO CERTAIN FEDERAL AND STATE
8 STANDARDS THAT MUST BE MET. THE OTHER ITEMS THAT
9 YOU SEE ON THE REST OF THIS LIST ARE A LITTLE BIT
10 MORE SUBJECTIVE.
11 BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE
12 ALTERNATIVES AND CONSIDERING WHICH ONE WE SHOULD OR
13 SHOULD NOT USE, ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE ENTIRE LIST
14 THAT WE USED. IT MUST MEET THESE IN SOME SHAPE,
15 FORM OR FASHION.
16 . WE BEGIN TO BALANCE THEM NOW — OR AT THAT
17 POINT. WE'LL SAY, "WELL, IF THEY WILL ALL" -- "IF
18 THEY WILL ALL REDUCE THE TOXICITY AND THE MOBILITY
19 OR THE VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT, WHICH ONES WILL DO
20 IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN OTHERS?" SOME OF THEM
21 TEND TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE OVER THE SHORT-TERM THAN
22 THE LONG-TERM. WE ALSO EVALUATED THOSE. WE LOOKED
23 . . -AT COST.S. - . . . .,.-...•.-:...-.>, •:.ui.^&~\Ł.-..-: ;.-.v, -v;;K- ;. .* s- ::•
24 AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT AND FOR THE NEXT 30 OR
25 60 DAYS TO LOOK AT THESE TWO ISSUES HERE, WHICH
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
41
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 BRINGS US TO E.P.A.'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.
2 AFTER LOOKING AT THESE FOUR ALTERNATIVES, AND
3 EVALUATING THEM WITH THE CRITERIA WE JUST PRESENTED
4 TO YOU, ALTERNATIVE 4(A) IS, IN E.P.A.'S OPINION,
5 THE BEST CHOICE FOR CLEANING UP THE SITE. INCLUDES
6 CONSOLIDATION, THE WASTE AREAS, CONTAINMENT, A GAS
7 RECOVERY AND GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TREATMENT.
8 WELL, I'VE BEEN TALKING TOO MUCH. I WANT TO
9 GIVE YOU FOLKS A CHANCE NOW TO GIVE US SOME INPUT,
10 QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS. OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO
11 QUESTIONS. DON'T HESITATE. LINDA?
12 MS. LARKEE; LINDA LARKEE. BACK TO THIS
13 EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT OF THE WATER AGAIN, THEY
14 SAY YOU WOULD DIG WELLS -- YOU HAVE TO DIG MORE
15 WELLS IN THE WATER THAT WAS COLLECTED IN THE
16 WELLS. AND THEN HOW WOULD YOU GET THE WATER TO THE
17 PLANT? WOULD YOU GO BY TRUCKS OR -- I MEAN, I
18 DON'T KNOW. HOW WOULD YOU GET THAT WATER TO THE
19 PLANT?
20 MR. TANNER; WELL, ONCE THE WELLS ARE
21 INSTALLED, WE WOULD USE PUMPS TO BRING THE
22 GROUNDWATER UP OUT OF THE GROUND THROUGH A SERIES
23 OF PIPES OR TUBING. WE WOULD THEN IN THE CASE
24 THAT WE DECIDE OR EVERYONE AGREES TO SEND IT TO THE
25 WATER TREATMENT PLANT THERE IS A LINE, I BELIEVE, I
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
42
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 BELIEVE THERE IS A PRESSURE LINE — THERE IS EITHER
2 A PRESSURE LINE THAT RUNS HERE OR -- I BELIEVE IT
3 IS HERtf. CAN SOMEONE FROM THE CITY HELP -- YES.
4 WHAT WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY DO IS WE WOULD TAKE
5 THE GROUNDWATER FROM THE WELLS, PUMP IT UP, AND
6 CONNECT IT TO THIS LINE HERE AND SEND IT TO THE
7 TREATMENT PLANT.
8 MS. LARKEE: WOULD THESE BE UNDERGROUND
9 PUMPS, OR WHERE WOULD THE PUMPS BE? CAN YOU SEE
10 THEM?
11 MR. TANNER; YES. USUALLY YOU CAN SEE
12 THE PUMPS. THEY'RE, I THINK, VERY OFTEN MOUNTED.
13 MR. PARKER; ARE YOU TALKING THE WELL
14 POINT — EXCUSE ME, THE WELL POINT OPERATION FOR
15 SUCKING UP, YOU KNOW
16 . MR. TANNER; RIGHT.
17 MS. LARKEE: SO THE PUMP WOULD BE RIGHT
18 ON TOP OF THE WELL?
19 MR. TANNER; MM-HMM.
20 MS. LARKEE; HOW BIG WOULD THESE WELLS
21 BE? WOULD THEY BE LIKE THE ONES YOU'VE ALREADY
22 DUG?
23 MR. TANNER: THEY WOULD TYPICALLY BE TWO
24 INCH — AGAIN, IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT ON THE
25 ENGINEERING — WHAT THE ENGINEERS SAY THE SIZE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
43
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA~~
1 WOULD WORK BEST.
2 MS. NICHOLSON: RUTH NICHOLSON. HOW MUCH
3 NOISE WOULD THESE THINGS MAKE?
4 MR. TANNER; OH
5 MS. LARKEE; NONE?
6 MR. TANNER: NO, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
7 HEAR THEM.
8 MR. PARKER: TERRY, LANE PARKER.
9 MR. TANNER: YES?
10 MR. PARKER: ONE OTHER QUESTION. THIS
11 STUFF THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEWATERING -- THE
12 DEWATERING SITUATION AFTER YOU REMEDIATE THIS,
13 WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PRIOR TREATMENT
14 BEFORE WE SEND IT ON -- BEFORE YOU SEND IT ON DOWN
15 TO THE TREATMENT CENTER, TREATMENT PLANT? BECAUSE,
16 YOU.KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THERE THAT COME
17 UP, A SITUATION WHERE YOU DIDN'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT
18 BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE --
19 HOPEFULLY WE'D BE A HUNDRED PERCENT IN DETECTING
20 EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE, BUT MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE
21 AN UNKNOWN FACTOR WE'RE NOT KNOWING ABOUT, YOU
22 KNOW, THAT MIGHT CROP UP ON US. THAT'S A SCENARIO.
23 MR. TANNER: YES. THERE'S ALWAYS A
24 CHANCE THAT ONCE WE PUMP THIS WATER UP AND GET IT
25 OUT OF THE GROUND THAT THE CONCENTRATIONS MAY BE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
44
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 SUCH THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE PRETREATMENT BEFORE WE
2 SEND IT ON TO THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. AND IF
3 THAT IS THE CASE AT THE TIME, WE WOULD DO THAT.
4 MR. PARKER: MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A
5 SAFEGUARD JUST TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A SAFEGUARD TO
6 PUT IN PLACE BEFORE WE SEND IT ON ANYWHERE, YOU
7 KNOW.
8 MR. TANNER; AGAIN, TO KEEP THE COST
9 DOWN, IF WE DIDN'T NEED TO DO THAT WE WOULDN'T BUT
10 WE'D HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT AT THE TIME. YES, THE
11 GENTLEMAN BACK HERE HAD A QUESTION?
12 MR. SCOTT; ROGER SCOTT HERE. I'VE GOT
13 SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
14 MR. TANNER; I'M SORRY. ROGER?
15 MR. SCOTT; SCOTT. FIRST OF ALL, AT WHAT
16 DEPTH WOULD YOUR AQUIFER BE?
17 MR. TANNER; LET'S SEE. IF I COULD GET
18 EITHER BRUCE OR TONY TO ANSWER — TO GIVE US SOME
19 INSIGHT. THESE FOLKS WERE INVOLVED IN THE
20 INVESTIGATION.
21 MR. MANCINI: THE BOTTOM
22 THE COURT REPORTER: CAN I HAVE YOUR
23 NAME, PLEASE?
24 MR. MANCINI; I'M SORRY, TONY MANCINI.
25 THE BOTTOM OF THE UPPER AQUIFER VARIES BECAUSE OF
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
45
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 THE TOPOGRAPHY, BUT IT VARIES 40 FEET ON UP TO
2 ABOUT 110 FEET.
3 MR. SCOTT: HE SAID TWO AQUIFERS.
4 MR. MANCINI; THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE
5 BOTTOM OF THE UPPER ONE. AND THEN THE LOWER ONE IS
6 ABOUT FIVE TO TEN FEET BELOW THAT, TOP OF THE LOWER
7 ONE.
8 MR. SCOTT; THE SECOND QUESTION, YOU
9 MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT WILDLIFE. MY QUESTION IS
10 IS THERE ANY RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF
11 WILDLIFE IN THAT AREA?
12 MR. TANNER: AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE
13 NO — WELL, THE ANIMALS THAT WE LOOKED AT, I
14 BELIEVE THE LEAST SHREW AND THE -- I BELIEVE THE
15 CHIPPING SPARROW. UNLESS YOU'RE OUT HUNTING FOR
16 THOSE, IT SHOULDN'T BE A BIG THREAT TO PEOPLE
17 HUNTING IN THE AREA.
18 MS. HOUSE: TERRY?
19 MR. TANNER: YES.
20 MS. HOUSE: SUZANNE HOUSE. WHERE DOES
21 THAT STREAM GO IN THE OLD CAYCE DUMP ONCE IT MOVES
22 OFF THE SIDE OF THAT PICTURE?
23 MR. TANNER; I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY IT ENDS
24 UP IN THE CONGAREE RIVER AT SOME POINT MILES
25 DOWNSTREAM.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
46
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
MR. MORGAN: YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS HOW MUCH
IT WOULD COST TO CLASSIFY IT.
MR. TANNER: IT WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE MOST
OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM TO PASS OUT IF I TOLD
YOU. I'M NOT SURE. WE DID NOT LOOK -- NO, SIR.
WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE COST OF CLASSIFICATION
BECAUSE OF OUR — THE SHEER VOLUME, IT WOULD
PROBABLY BE IN THE BILLIONS,
MR. MORGAN: THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME IN
FRANCE WITH THEIR RADIOACTIVE WASTE, THAT'S WHY I
WAS WONDERING ABOUT IT. IT WOULD BE A ONETIME
DEAL, IT WOULDN'T BE NO MORE. IN HERE YOUR COST AS
YEARS GO ON IS GOING TO KEEP GOING UP, AND 30 YEARS
ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT'S GOING TO BE
THERE UNTIL IT'S GOTTEN OUT OF THERE. NOW YOU'RE
GOING TO JUST EXTEND THE COST ON AND ON AND ON, AND
IT'S GOING TO GO ON FORFVER.
MR. TANNER: YES, SIR.
MR. GENSAMER: DAN GENSAMER. I'VE HAD
SOME EXPERIENCE -- I DID SEE THE OPERATION IN
FRANCE WHERE THEY DO THE CLASSIFICATION AND I DID
SOME WORK IN THE UNITED STATES ON THE SAME TYPE OF
PROCESS. AND IN FRANCE, IN U. S. DOLLARS AND THE
TIME WAS 1987, IT WAS RUNNING ABOUT $12- TO $14,000
AN OUNCE FOR THAT STUFF.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
47
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 MR. TANNER; I'M SORRY?
2 MR. GENSAMER: $12- TO $14,000 AN OUNCE.
3 MR. TANNER: AN OUNCE? $12 TO $14,000 AN
4 OUNCE? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TONS WE HAVE AT THE
5 LANDFILL, BUT...
6 MS. LARKEE: LINDA LARKEE. WHAT ARE THE
7 EFFECTS OF BENZENE IN WATER AND WHAT -- I GUESS, IF
8 YOU BREATHE METHANE, WHAT ARE THOSE EFFECTS? I
9 KNOW THEY WEREN'T HAZARDOUS IN DRINKING WATER AND
10 STUFF.
11 MR. TANNER: WELL, I'M NOT QUITE SMART
12 ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT, BUT THERE MAY BE SOMEONE IN
13 THE ROOM THAT IS. WOULD OUR HEALTH PEOPLE HAVE ANY
14 IDEA? I HATE TO QUIZ YOU AND PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
15 MR. GOING: THE EFFECTS OF BENZENE
16 CONCENTRATION IN THE WATER
17 MS. PEURIFOY: TODD, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
18 MR. GOING: I'M SORRY. THE EFFECTS —
19 HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO ANY TYPE OF
20 CONTAMINANTS DEPENDS ON THE DOSE OR THE LEVEL OF
21 THE CONTAMINANT OF THE GROUNDWATER. AND WE'VE NOT
22 HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE LEVELS THAT ARE
23 IN THE GROUNDWATER, BUT WE WILL BE DOING THAT AT A
24 PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT IN WHICH WE'LL LOOK AT THE
25 CONTAMINANTS AND WE'LL RELEASE THAT TO YOU.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
48
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 MS. LARKEE: BUT THERE AREN'T ANY STUDIES
2 OF WHAT BENZENE WILL DO TO YOU?
3 MR. MORGAN: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS?
4 MR. GOING: THERE ARE EFFECTS. PROBABLY
5 THE MOST -- THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EFFECTS OF
6 BENZENE IS CANCER. BUT, LIKE I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON
7 THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE EXPOSED TO AND THE DURATION
8 THAT YOU'RE EXPOSED TO IT.
9 AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM TONIGHT'S
10 PRESENTATION, WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT A
11 POSSIBILITY AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THERE'S NO
12 INDICATION THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BEING EXPOSED
13 TO CONTAMINANTS OF GROUNDWATER. BUT WE WILL BE
14 LOOKING AT THAT.
15 MS. LARKEE; HOW ABOUT METHANE?
16 . MR. GOING: METHANE I DON'T KNOW. I
17 WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP.
18 MR. PARKER; TERRY, ON THIS -- LANE
19 PARKER. ON THIS SITE OUT THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING
20 THERE RIGHT NOW, JUST PER SE THE SITE, THAT WOULD
21 MEET — THAT WOULD EXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE
22 LIMITS FOR ANY OF THE KNOWN CONTAMINANTS THERE JUST
23 BY WALKING ACROSS THE SITE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
24 MR. TANNER; NO, NONE THAT WE'VE SEEN AS
25 PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION. THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
49
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 THREAT. MOST OF THE THREATS THAT WE'RE SEEING ARE
2 FROM, AGAIN, POTENTIAL. AND TO CLARIFY THAT, THE
3 POTENTIAL FOR THE GROUNDWATER TO ACTUALLY MIGRATE
4 INTO A PRIVATE WELL.
5 MR. PARKER; IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D HAVE
6 TO MORE OR LESS GO THERE SEVEN DAYS, 24 HOURS A
7 DAY?
8 MR. TANNER; AND PROBABLY SOME MORE THAN
9 THAT AS WELL. YES?
10 MR. SCOTT; ROGER SCOTT AGAIN. SO YOU'RE
11 SAYING THAT IN YOUR MODEL YOU'RE NOT PROJECTING
12 THAT PLUME TO EXTEND MUCH WHERE IT IS NOW?
13 MR. TANNER; WELL, FORTUNATELY FOR US THE
14 ONLY THING THAT MOVES SLOWER THAN THE GOVERNMENT IS
15 GROUNDWATER. AND SOMETIMES -- AND I GET AS
16 FRUSTRATED AT THIS PROCESS AS YOU FOLKS DO. I CAN
17 TELL YOU STORIES. WE WILL, AND I DO KNOW THIS, BE
18 ABLE TO GO OUT AND CATCH THAT GROUNDWATER BEFORE IT
19 DOES MIGRATE. I DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL MIGRATION
20 RATE, AND IT'S RATED IN I BELIEVE FEET PER DAYS.
21 DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? BUT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
22 CATCH IT BEFORE IT MAKES ANY OF THE -- BEFORE IT
23 PROGRESSES AND DOES GET IN THE WELLS AT LEAST AT
24 THIS POINT.
25 HOW ABOUT COULD WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
50
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
.1 SOMEONE MAYBE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN UP YET? AND I'LL
2 GET TO YOU OTHER FOLKS TOO AS WELL, BUT IS THERE
3 ANYONE WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM TONIGHT THAT HAS A
4 QUESTION? YES, SIR.
5 MR. NICHOLSON; CHARLES NICHOLSON. IS
6 THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF LOCATING, SAY, HOT SPOTS
7 IN THE DUMP THAT ARE ESPECIALLY BAD, THAT IF YOU
8 REMOVE THOSE THE RISK WOULD BE MORE EASILY
9 CONTAINED?
10 MR. TANNER: THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY.
11 GIVEN THE 100 ACRES-PLUS THAT WE LOOKED AT, THE HOT
12 SPOTS ARE QUITE A CHALLENGE. TYPICALLY -- AND THAT
13 IS A TYPICAL APPROACH TO LANDFILLS, WE CAN GO IN
14 AND FIND SOME HOT SPOTS LIKE THE OLD CAYCE DUMP
15 AREA, WE CAN GO IN AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE.
16 WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING FROM THE
17 ANALYTICAL DATA OR THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT
18 LED US TO BELIEVE THERE WERE HOT SPOTS ATTRIBUTING
19 TO THOSE -- TO THAT GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. I
20 WISH WE COULD HAVE FOUND THEM. IT MIGHT MAKE SOME
21 OF OUR REMEDIES A LITTLE LESS COSTLY IN THIS
22 INSTANCE. YES?
23 MS. NICHOLSON: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS
24 ABOUT THE SECTION ON PAGES 3 AND 4 CALLED SURFACE
25 WATER AND SEDIMENT — RUTH NICHOLSON. ONE OF THEM
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
51
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 IS TALKING ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION BEING LIMITED TO
2 ON-SITE AREAS AND AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE.
3 DEFINE "AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE" FOR ME.
4 MR. TANNER: OKAY. (PAUSE). WELL, I WAS
5 THINKING I HAD A SLIDE. IT SHOWED THE STUDY AREA
6 AND I PROBABLY DO SOMEWHERE. WHAT WE'RE CALLING
7 THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE STUDY AREA IS ESSENTIALLY
8 ENCAPSULATED BY THE AREA THAT YOU SEE HERE (MARKING
9 ON CHART). IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN
10 THAT BUT, FOR THE MOST PART, ESPECIALLY WITH
11 REGARDS TO THE SURFACE WATER AND THE SEDIMENT, IT
12 WOULD BE CONTAINED TO THIS AREA HERE, WHICH WERE
13 THE STREAMS THAT WE SAMPLED, AND FROM HERE TO I
14 BELIEVE HERE WAS ABOUT THE LAST SAMPLE THAT WE
15 ACTUALLY COLLECTED (INDICATING).
16 MS. NICHOLSON: SO SEDIMENT WAS TAKEN IN
17 THE BIGGER AREA?
18 MR. TANNER: NO, MA'AM. ACTUALLY, THE
19 SEDIMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO THE STREAMS
20 WHICH WERE HERE AND ANOTHER ONE HERE (INDICATING).
21 MS. NICHOLSON: AND THE OTHER THING WAS
22 IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH IT TALKED ABOUT HOW BECAUSE
23 THERE WAS A DROUGHT LAST SUMMER WHEN THINGS WERE
24 DONE IT HAD INEFFECTUAL RESULTS AND THEY'RE GOING
25 TO TRY AGAIN. WHAT IF THERE'S A DROUGHT AGAIN?
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
52
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
WILL YOU EVER GET GOOD RESULTS FROM SEDIMENT AND
SURFACE WATER?
MR. TANNER: WELL, IF WE COULD JUST GET
THAT DARN WEATHER TO BEHAVE, IF THAT WE COULD.
THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE THING ABOUT SAMPLING. WHEN
WE GO OUT TO SAMPLE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ACT OF
CONGRESS ITSELF GETTING EVERYONE OUT THERE AND THE
EQUIPMENT. AND MANY TIMES THE WEATHER DOES NOT
COOPERATE.
MS. NICHOLSON: IF YOU READ IT AT THIS
SUMMER, SAY, UNDER BETTER CONDITIONS AND YOU GOT
DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT RESULTS, WHAT WOULD THAT DO
TO I MEAN, IF WE'RE LOCKED INTO SOME SORT OF
PLAN, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE PLANS? WOULD YOU BACK
UP AGAIN?
MR. TANNER; YES, IT WOULD. ONE OF THE
THINGS PECULIAR TO SUPERFUND SITES IS THAT EVEN
THOUGH WE MAY PICK A REMEDY AND SAY — SAY WE
DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP AND
FOR SOME REASON IN THE FUTURE WE WENT BACK AND
DECIDED, "WELL, IT'S BEEN FIVE OR TEN YEARS. LET'S
GO BACK AND RESAMPLE THAT." IF WE FIND A PROBLEM
UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE SUPERFUND, WE COULD
GO BACK AND REOPEN THAT ISSUE. YES?
MR. GENSAMER: DAN GENSAMER. AT ONE TIME
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
53
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
i
1 I KNOW THERE WAS AN IDEA OF PUTTING A HOLDING POND
2 FOR SURFACE WATER TO THE LEFT OF THE BALLPARK, AND
3 THERE WAS A PIPE HOLE PUT IN AND AN ATTEMPT TO PUT
4 A SMALL HOLDING POND IN.
5 MR. TANNER; THIS AREA HERE
6 (INDICATING)?
7 MR. GENSAMER: YES. IS THAT GOING TO BE
8 REINSTITUTED?
9 MR. TANNER; I DON'T KNOW. WE DID
10 DETERMINE THAT WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE
11 SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AND THE EROSION PROBLEM. WE
12 MAY GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
13 "LET'S REACTIVATE THAT AND WORK THAT INTO THE
14 SCHEME," OR WE MAY DETERMINE THROUGH AN ENGINEERING
15 STUDY THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO TRY A SLIGHTLY
16 DIFFERENT APPROACH.
17 WE REALLY HAVEN'T DECIDED SPECIFICALLY HOW
18 WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT, ONLY THAT IT
19 DOES NEED TO BE DONE.
20 MR. GENSAMER; WHY I MENTIONED THAT IF IT
21 WAS WASHED OUT AND THERE WAS A TORRENTIAL RAIN
22 RIGHT AFTER THAT WAS INSTALLED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
23 COULD BE DONE TO REMEDY THAT. IT ALMOST WASHED OUT
24 ON 1-26. IT BLEW RIGHT THROUGH THE EXISTING
25 SYSTEM.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
54
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 MR. TANNER; IT'S GOING TO BE AN
2 ENGINEERING CHALLENGE TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW
3 WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE AT THIS POINT, AND I DOUBT
4 IF ANYONE DOES.
5 MR. GENSAMER: BUT IT WILL BE ADDRESSED?
6 MR. TANNER: YES, IT WILL.
7 (PAUSE)
8 MR. TANNER: YOU FOLKS ARE BEING AWFUL
9 EASY ON ME, OR AWFUL KIND, ONE. OR YOU'RE VERY
10 TIRED AND ARE READY TO GO HOME. OTHER QUESTIONS?
11 LINDA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
12 MS. LARKEE; I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN
13 ANSWER THIS, IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR SOMEONE
14 ELSE. WHO EXACTLY PAYS FOR THIS? I MEAN, IS THAT
15 JUST LEXINGTON COUNTY TAXPAYERS OR IS THAT, YOU
16 KNOW, WHOEVER OWNED THE DUMPS DO THEY PAY FOR IT?
17 MR. TANNER; I'LL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT
18 AT LEAST ABOUT E.P.A.'S POSITION ON WHO CLEANS
19 THESE UP. LEGALLY, OUR LAWYERS GO THROUGH ALL THE
20 RECORDS AND THEY DETERMINE WHO WE HAVE EVIDENCE
21 ON. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. SHIPPING
22 LISTS, WASTE -- A VARIETY OF THINGS. ANYTHING —
23 ANY PAPERWORK TRAIL AT ALL THAT WE CAN FIND THAT
24 ASSOCIATES A COMPANY TO A SITE, WE USE AS
25 EVIDENCE.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
55
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 IN CASE OF A LANDFILL, WE CAME UP WITH
2 APPROXIMATELY 44 DIFFERENT RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.
3 PART OF THE PROCESS, WE WENT TO ALL OF THEM AND
4 SAID, "WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS YOU FOLKS
5 WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR WASTE AT THIS SITE," AS WE DO
6 AT ALL OUR SITES.
7 IN THE CASE OF THE LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL,
8 THERE WAS ONLY ONE PARTY WILLING TO OWN UP TO THAT
9 RESPONSIBILITY. I CAN'T ANSWER FOR ANY OF THE
10 DECISIONS. I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO
11 DIDN'T COME FORWARD.
12 WHAT I DID DO WAS WORK WITH THE CARDS THAT I
13 HAD. IF SOMEBODY IS WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND
14 WORK WITH THE AGENCY, I WILL DO THAT. I KNOW THAT
15 THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN A LOT OF HEAT FOR WHAT THEY'VE
16 DONE, AND I'M NOT HERE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THAT.
17 YOU FOLKS, AND THIS IS YOUR BACKYARD, I REALIZE
18 THAT, THOS2 ARE DECISIONS AND BATTLES THAT YOU TAKE
19 ON YOURSELF.
20 I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN OUT OF ALL OF
21 THIS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT MOST OF THE WORK THAT'S
22 GOING TO BE DONE AT THIS SITE WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE
23 REGARDLESS OF E.P.A.'S INVOLVEMENT IN IT OR NOT
24 BECAUSE OF THE SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS. I THINK A
25 LOT OF PEOPLE HAVEN'T — OR MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
56
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
POINT BUT, AGAIN, I CAN'T REALLY SAY — ART BROOKS,
WHO IS THE ASSISTANT -- ART, WHAT'S YOUR TITLE?
MR. BROOKS: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
MR. TANNER; COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE
INSIGHT INTO LINDA'S QUESTION?
MR. BROOKS; LEXINGTON COUNTY, EARLY ON,
WAS IN THE PROCESS OF THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THE
CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES OF LEXINGTON COUNTY TO
CLEAN THIS SITE UP. WE ALSO HAD HEARD HORROR
STORIES AND DOCUMENTED LEGAL BATTLES AS TO WHO WAS
GOING TO PAY WHAT AND HOW MUCH, WHAT PERCENTAGE AND
SO FORTH.
WE FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE COUNTY
TO COME FORWARD AND LESS COSTLY TO THE COUNTY
OVERALL TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS. IF WE HADN'T OF
DONE THAT, WE WOULD NOT BE CLOSE TO THIS POINT WE
ALREADY ARE. I'M SURE WE'D STILL BE IN COURT WITH
SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE. THERE WERE 44 PEOPLE,
PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES, THAT TERRY
MENTIONED. SOME OF THEM WERE THE BAPTIST CHURCH IN
CAYCE, YOU KNOW. THERE'S JUST A MYRIAD OF PEOPLE
THAT USED THE DUMP OUT THERE.
SO — AND I THINK SINCE THE COUNTY — I THINK
IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR THE COUNTY THAT E.P.A. DID NOT
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
57
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 NECESSARILY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING
2 WITH COUNTIES, AND SINCE THAT TIME I THINK WE'VE
3 BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A LEADER IN A LOT OF THE OTHER
4 MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY OF LOOKING AT
5 THIS PROCESS OF A WAY OF SAVING MONEY IN THE LONG
6 RUN.
7 MS. LARKEE; SO WILL OUR TAXES GO UP TO
8 PAY FOR THIS, OR DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY?
9 MR. BROOKS: YEAH. YOU KNOW, $8 MILLION
10 FIGURE, 30 YEARS, THAT'S A QUARTER OF A MILLION
11 DOLLARS A YEAR, I GUESS, ROUGHLY FIGURED OUT. SO
12 — AND WE HAVE COUNCILMAN SPIRES HERE WHO
13 REPRESENTS US, HE'S GOING TO TELL YOU OF THE
14 BUSINESSES AND HE WANTS TO SPEAK.
15 MR. SPIRES: IT STARTED OUT AS THE CAYCE
16 DUMP, WEST COLUMBIA DUMP. THE LAND WAS BOUGHT TO
17 START WITH WHEN I WAS ON THE RECREATION COMMISSION.
18 THE SECURED — PROFIT SECURED THROUGH WHAT WAS IN
19 THE FEDERAL PROCESS CALLED BUREAU OPERATION GRANT.
20 THAT'S HOW IT ENDED UP IN THE BALDING (PHONETIC)
21 COMPLEX.
22 THE BOUNCER (PHONETIC) PROPERTY WAS THEN
23 DECIDED TO USE THE LANDFILL. IT WAS DONE SO IN
24 COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH DHEC. AT THAT TIME IT
25 FOLLOWED THE STANDARDS OF ENGINEERING AND SOUNDNESS
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
58
LEXINGTON COUNTy LANDFILL AREA~~
1 OF DISPOSABLE WASTE.
2 LOOKING BACK AT THE '60S AND '70S, WE NOW KNOW
3 THAT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PUT A LANDFILL AND SAND
4 HILL TO BEGIN WITH. IT PREDATES ME, PREDATES MY
5 ACTIVITY POLITICALLY; OKAY?
6 AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE DECIDED SEVERAL YEARS
7 AGO AND, OF COURSE, CAYCE-WEST COLUMBIA RECEIVED A
8 SMALL AMOUNT OF ROYALTY AS A RESULT OF GAS COVER
9 SYSTEMS IN THERE. BUT WE DETERMINED THAT, QUITE
10 FRANKLY, INSTEAD OF SPENDING MONEY FIGHTING LEGAL
11 BATTLES, SPENDING MONEY WITH ALL 44 IDENTIFIED
12 PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT EVERY CITIZEN, ALL 15
13 MUNICIPALITIES IN THE COUNTY, ALL THE BUSINESSES IN
14 LEXINGTON COUNTY THAT PUT IN THAT LANDFILL, WE
15 THOUGHT THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO DO IT WAS INSTEAD OF
16 SPENDING ALL THE DOLLARS IN THE LEGAL FIGHTS THAT
17 HAD BEEN GOING ON ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY FOR YEARS
18 WAS SIMPLY STEP FORWARD, IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM,
19 IDENTIFY THE COST, AND THE COUNTY DO IT.
20 WE DID IT, I THINK WE'RE THE FIRST COMMUNITY
21 IN THE COUNTRY WHO TOOK THIS POSITION. I DON'T
22 THINK — I CAN TELL YOU FOLKS THAT, QUITE FRANKLY,
23 IT WAS AN UNUSUAL POSITION. WE DETERMINED EARLY ON
24 WE'D RATHER SPEND THE DOLLARS FIXING THE PROBLEM
25 INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE DOLLARS FOR LAWYERS IN A
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
59
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 COURTROOM.
2 WE ALSO FELT IT WAS IN OUR BEST INTEREST FROM
3 THE FACT THAT WE HAD 15 MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVED,
4 AND ALL INDUSTRY AND BUSINESSES PLUS THE 44 WHO
5 WERE IDENTIFIED. WE THINK WE CAN HANDLE THE COST
6 IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS IN THE NORMAL
7 PROCESS. WE, TO THIS POINT, HAVE HANDLED THE COST
8 . INCURRED IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESS, AND WHAT WE
9 BASICALLY HAVE IS WHAT WE HAVE AND WHERE IT STANDS
10 AT THIS POINT.
11 OUR BUDGET IN THIS COUNTY IS $33,550,000. WE
12 SPEND $14 MILLION DEALING WITH THE CRIMINAL
13 ELEMENT, NOT THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THAT TONIGHT
14 BUT, I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE MOST OF IT GOES. AND THE
15 BALANCE OF IT WE GET 21 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR -- THE
16 23 CENTS ON THE LOCAL TAX DOLLAR THAT GO TO SCHOOLS
17 AND OTHER THINGS, AND 84 CENTS OF THAT GOES TO FIRE
18 SERVICE AND AMBULANCE SERVICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,
19 PUBLIC WORKS AND THOSE TYPE THINGS. SO WE'VE
20 HANDLED IT VERY WELL, AND WE THINK THIS IS THE BEST
21 ANSWER IN THE LONG RUN.
22 WHILE I'M UP, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND
23 SOMETHING NOW. WHEN YOU SAY "INDUSTRIAL WASTE,"
24 YOU USED THAT WORD A WHILE AGO. FOR A LONG TIME,
25 THERE WAS NO DEFINITION BECAUSE OF THE
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
60
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
REGULATIONS. WHEN RULES AND REGULATIONS CAME TO
BE, WE FOLLOWED THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT ANYTHING TOXIC OR
HAZARDOUS HAS BEEN PUT IN THE LANDFILL. WE BELIEVE
THAT WHAT'S GONE IN THERE HAS BEEN WITHIN WHAT IS
CALLED THE MSW CATEGORY AS DEFINED BY LAW. THIS
WAS SOLID WASTE WHICH DOES INCLUDE SOME PLANT AND
INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE WASTE, BUT IT IS NOT
TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS. AND WE DON'T BELIEVE IT'S
EVER BEEN IN THERE.
UNLIKE A LOT OF COUNTIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA,
WE'VE ALWAYS MONITORED THAT GATE AND MONITORED WHAT
WENT -- THAT'S THE REASON THERE'S BEEN SUCH GOOD
RECORDS SINCE THE COUNTY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN IT.
THE RECORDS HE TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING PREDATES THE
COUNTY BECOMING INVOLVED AND OPERATING.
SO UNDERSTAND WE COMPLIED WITH WHAT -- NOT
JUST ME, BUT WHOEVER WAS IN GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME
COMPLIED WITH THE EXISTING LAW. WE, YEARS AGO,
WHEN WE FIRST IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM WITH THE
DRINKING -- WITH WELL WATER, WE WENT IN THERE WITH
THE CORPORATION -- THE CITY OF CAYCE, AND THE
COUNTY ENGINEER SUCH AS THAT. AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO
DID LIVE IN THERE, WE RAN CITY WATER TO THEM.
THAT'S THE REASON THERE ARE NO DRINKING WELL —
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
61
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 DRINKING WATER WELLS IN THAT AREA, SO WE TOOK CARE
2 OF THAT A LONG TIME AGO. WE IDENTIFIED THAT EARLY
3 ON.
4 METHANE GAS — AND I HEAR YOU CONCERNED ABOUT
5 THAT, BUT THAT'S AN OCCURRING PROCESS IN LANDFILLS
6 BUT IT'S ALSO A RECURRING PROCESS OTHERWISE.
7 METHANE GAS IS NOT A HAZARD TO ANYBODY'S HEALTH,
8 BENEFIT OR WELFARE UNLESS IT'S ALLOWED TO
9 CONCENTRATE IN LEVELS BEYOND THAT WHICH IS SET BY
10 THE PARAMETERS OF THE TESTING PROCESS.
11 AND THE WAY YOU FIND OUT WHERE YOU PUT THE GAS
12 RECOVERY SYSTEM IN, AND THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF
13 DIFFERENT THINGS THAT GO NOW BUT, ACTUALLY, ONE WAY
14 IS WE GO AT NIGHT AND DO AN INFRARED X-RAY PROCESS
15 OF THE LANDFILL TO SEE WHERE — HOW HIGH IT CAME UP
16 BASED ON THAT X-RAY PROCESS.
17 WE THINK WE'VE GOT THE METHANE GAS PROCESS
18 HANDLED EARLY ON. IN FACT, WE MOST PROBABLY GOT
19 INTO THE RECOVERY SYSTEM DOWN THERE -- REALLY, IN
20 MOST LANDFILLS IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN SUCH COUNTIES,
21 WHICH HAVE 55 COUNTY LANDFILLS, WHICH I DON'T
22 UNDERSTAND WHY ANY COUNTY WOULD WANT MORE THAN
23 ONE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S 355 (SIC) OF
24 THEM IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT THAT'S HOW
25 MANY THERE ARE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
62
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA I
BUT WE THINK WE'VE HAD THAT UNDER CONTROL FOR
QUITE SOME TIME. I'VE LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD HAVE A REASON TO QUESTION IS
THE COMMENT MADE BY YOU, TERRY, ABOUT LANDFILL
BURNING.
I'VE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1985, BEEN IN
21 STATES. MY COMPANY OWNS AND OPERATES 16 -- 18
LANDFILLS. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BURNING LANDFILLS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN UNCOMMON THING, FOR A
LANDFILL TO BE ON FIRE. THERE MIGHT BE — I MEAN,
I'M NOT AWARE. I'M NOT SAYING THERE AREN'T ANY BUT
I'M NOT AWARE THERE ARE ANY, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTH
CAROLINA.
IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURFACE WATER
CONTAINMENT AND THE SURFACE WATER CLEANUP, IN
ADDITION TO THE STUDIES IN THAT AREA THEN WE NEED
TO PROCEED WITH THAT ANP GET DONE.
I WOULD CLOSE MY COMMENT AT THIS POINT ON THE
BASIS THAT I THINK WE'VE TAKEN PROPER AND PROVED
STILL NOT TO WASTE THE DOLLARS, THE TAX DOLLARS,
SPENDING MONEY IN ACTUAL CLEANUP AND GET THE REMEDY
IN PLACE.
THERE IS A PIPE DOWN AT THE OLD PALMETTO WOOD
PRESERVING SITE THAT WE THINK WE CAN HOOK INTO TO
GET DOWN TO CAYCE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BY SOME
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
63
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 PRETREATMENT PROCESS, THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED. I
2 DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS POINT THAT
3 WE NEED TO PRETREAT.
4 MR. TANNER: NO, WE HAVEN'T YET.
5 MR. SPIRES; RIGHT. OKAY. BUT WE THINK
6 WE HAVE A METHOD AND A WAY TO HANDLE ALL THAT. AND
7 HAVING SAID ALL THAT I THINK WE HAVE, AT THIS
8 POINT, FROM WHAT WE INHERITED HAVE MOVED IN A VERY
9 QUICK AND RESPONSIBLE MANNER, AND I THINK WE'VE GOT
10 THE PROCESS WELL IN HAND.
11 AND AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH YOU'VE ALWAYS
12 HEARD RUMORED ABOUT HOW BAD E.P.A- IS AND ALTHOUGH
13 AT TIMES THEY HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT IN MY OPINION, I
14 WOULD ALSO HASTEN TO SAY THAT I THINK IT'S BEEN A
15 GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH DHEC AND THE PEOPLE
16 WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH AT THIS STANDPOINT IN THE
t
17 TESTING PROCESS.
18 AND, AT THIS POINT, CAYCE-WEST COLUMBIA IS
19 INCORPORATING WITH THE COUNTY, AND I THINK WE'RE
20 GOING TO GET THIS THING DONE AND I THINK WE'RE TO
21 DO IT MOST PROBABLY FOR LESS COST THAN ANY OTHER
22 SITE OF THIS SIZE THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE 21
23 STATES I'VE BEEN IN AND OUT OF SINCE 1985.
24 THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I'D MAKE AT THIS POINT
25 IN TIME, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN MY OPINION.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
64
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WE'VE WAITED, BECAUSE OF ALL THESE TEST
2 PROCEDURES. IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE SEEPS OUT THE
3 SIDE AND TO GET THE BENEFIT -- GET LESS METHANE
4 GENERATION AND LESS WATER IN THE PLUME, THAT'S GONE
5 DOWN SINCE WE PUT THAT OTHER CAP ON. WE NEED TO GO
6 BACK OUT THERE AND DO SOME ADDITIONAL TOP COVER,
7 NOT NECESSARILY WITH CLAYS, BUT WITH SOME OTHER
8 MATERIALS INCLUDING SOME TOP SOILS, AND WE NEED TO
9 GET IT VEGETATED OUT. BECAUSE IF WE CAN GET IT
10 VEGETATED OUT AND GET A STAND — A GOOD STATION ON
11 IT, WE'RE GOING TO GET AN EVAPORATION PROCESS TO
12 TAKE PLACE WHERE IT WILL EVAPORATE AND GO OUT. IT
13 WON'T CONTINUE TO SEEP DOWN INTO THE GARBAGE AND
14 HAVE A CONTAMINANT PROCESS.
15 AND WE -- I THINK WE HAD DOWN IN CAYCE WE PUT
16 -- WE HAD FOUR ACRES UNCOVERED FOR QUITE SOME
17 TIME. SINCE WE GOT THAT 4C ACRES FINALLY COVERED
18 WITH AN AMOUNT OF CLAY, IT PUT ALL THAT IN PLACE
19 AND TRIED TO VEGETATE IT. THE AMOUNT OF WATER
20 GOING IN THE PLUME PROCESS HAS GONE DOWN. IS THAT
21 CORRECT, TOO? I MEAN, WHAT I'VE READ ABOUT IT,
22 STUDIED ABOUT IT, SAYS THAT -- OKAY. IT'S GONE
23 DOWN.
24 IF WE CAN GET BACK IN THERE AND GET A BETTER
25 VEGETATIVE COVER IT WILL BECOME MORE ATTRACTIVE,
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
65
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 WE'LL GET LESS METHANE GENERATION BECAUSE IT CUTS
2 OFF THE MOISTURE TO THE GARBAGE, THAT'S GOING TO GO
3 DOWN. AND WE'LL HAVE A LESS CONTAMINANT PROCESS TO
4 WORRY ABOUT, AND WE'VE GOT THE PUMP PRETREAT OR
5 PUMP AND CIRCULATE THE PTOW'S.
6 AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE BELIEVE THE CAYCE
7 PLANT CAN HANDLE THE PROCESS WITHOUT ANY
8 DIFFICULTY. THE PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE HAS
9 BEEN REMEDIED. IF YOU REMEMBER SEVERAL YEARS AGO
10 WHEN I WAS IN THE TRUCKING BUSINESS, I HAULED OFF
11 ALL THAT STUFF THAT WAS SITTING DOWN THERE ON THE
12 SIDE OF THE BOILERWOOD (PHONETIC) COMMUNITY --
13 REMEMBER WHEN RICHLAND COUNTY GOT THE COURT ORDER
14 AND SAID I COULDN'T GO THROUGH RICHLAND COUNTY IN
15 THE TRUCK NO MORE AND THEY TRIED TO LOCK ME UP
16 BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE
17 PERMISSION TO HAUL THE STUFF?
18 WELL, ALL I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT SITE
19 IS ALSO BEING REMEDIED. WE GOT THOSE THREE SITES
20 VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, IN MY OPINION, IN THE END. IF
21 IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE SITE NEXT TO BOILERWOOD,
22 WHAT ELSE WE'VE GOT GOING ON, ALL THOSE WOULD BE
23 TIED TOGETHER AS FAR AS PUMPING OUT IF THAT BECOMES
24 A NECESSITY IN HANDLING THE PROCESS TO MOVE
25 FORWARD.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
66
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 I THINK WE'VE DONE WELL WITH THE ENGINEERING
2 SIDE OF IT, I THINK WE'VE MOVED RESPONSIBLY. NOW,
3 I KNOW YOU EXPECT ME TO SAY THAT, BUT I THINK THE
4 RECORDS, IF YOU WILL LOOK INTO THEM, WILL ALSO
5 VERIFY WHAT I TOLD YOU.
6 MS. LARKEE: WHAT KIND OF ROYALTIES ARE
7 YOU TALKING ABOUT?
8 MR. SPIRES; GAS WAS RECOVERED SEVERAL
9 YEARS AGO WHERE HE WOULD RECOVER METHANE, HE WAS
10 GOING TO SELL IT AND HE DOES SELL IT TO THE ASPHALT
11 PLANT ACROSS THE ROAD. HE DON'T SELL IT OVER THERE
12 ANYMORE?
13 MR. GENSAMER: SENDS IT DOWN TO...
14 MR. SPIRES: SENDS IT ALL DOWN TO
15 MR. GENSAMER: GASTON COPPER.
16 . MR. SPIRES; SENDS IT ALL DOWN TO GASTON
17 COPPER. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO TAKE METHANE OUT
18 AND THEY CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS. YOU CAN USE IT TO
19 FIRE GAS TURBINES, TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY AT SOME
20 SITES. I MEAN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT
21 CAN BE DONE WITH IT.
22 MS. LARKEE; WHAT KIND OF MONEY ARE WE
23 TALKING?
24 MR. SPIRES; IT'S -- THE MONEY IS NO BIG
25 THING. IN FACT, QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S BEST THAT IT'S
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
67
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 BEING DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S SAVING THE
2 TAXPAYERS THE COST TO PUT IN THE GAS METHANE
3 RECOVERY SYSTEM AND TO RUN THE SYSTEM ITSELF. AND
4 AS LONG AS HE'LL STAY AND OPERATE IT, WE'LL BE THE
5 BETTER OFF BECAUSE THAT'S THAT MANY LESS DOLLARS WE
6 HAVE TO PUT INTO IT IF HE THINKS HE CAN MAKE A
7 PROFIT OUT OF DOING IT.
8 ANYTHING THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN DO —
9 UNDERSTAND, I'M IN FAVOR OF PRIVATIZATION AS FAR AS
10 A LOT OF PROCESSES GO. WE NEED MORE THAN WE'VE GOT
11 NOW. AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT WILL STEP
12 FORWARD TO DO THAT, I'D RATHER THEM DO IT AND TAKE
13 THE RISK THAN IT BE BORNE BY THE TAXPAYERS OF
14 LEXINGTON COUNTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER
15 I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER.
16 . MR. GENSAMER; JUST ONE. DAN GENSAMER
17 AGAIN. I OWN AND OPERATE THE PAR TEE DRIVING RANGE
18 ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL, AND I WOULD HAVE A MUCH
19 BETTER COVER-UP THERE ON TOP OF IT VEGETATIONWISE
20 IF I COULD GET SOME WATER TO IRRIGATE WITH. LAST
21 YEAR I GOT WIPED OUT WITH THE DROUGHT, WHAT LITTLE
22 COVER I HAD UP THERE. AND WHAT'S STOPPING ME IS I
23 HAVE NO MEANS TO WATER THE AREA THERE.
24 AND I HAVE NOT — I'VE TALKED TO THE ENGINEERS
25 AND EVERYBODY, AND NOBODY'S GIVEN ME A REMEDY
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
68
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 BESIDES BUYING IT FROM CAYCE. AND I DO USE CAYCE
2 WATER FOR MY TEE BOX AND OTHER AREAS, BUT I CANNOT
3 AFFORD TO USE THE WATER OUT ON THE RANGE. IF I
4 COULD GET SOME WATER AT A DECENT PRICE I WOULD DO
5 THAT, AND IT WOULD SAVE EVERYBODY THE PROBLEM
6 BECAUSE I CAN GET GRASS TO GROW IF I CAN GET
7 WATER.
8 I JUST CAN'T AFFORD THE WATER. MY WATER BILL
9 DURING THE DROUGHT LAST YEAR WAS OUTRAGEOUS. I PAY
10 DOUBLE BECAUSE I'M OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, SO I
11 REALLY PAY A LOT FOR MY WATER. I'M VERY STINGY
12 WITH IT.
13 SO IF WE COULD ADDRESS THAT IN THERE, THAT
14 WOULD BE ONE REMEDY — EVEN WITH THE AREA THAT
15 LOOKS LIKE IT'S VEGETATED ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF YOU
16 WALK THROUGH THERE YOU'LL FIND OUT IT'S NOT VERY
17 WELL VEGETATED. THERE'S A STREAM RUNNING THROUGH
18 THERE, BECAUSE—- THERE'S JUST PATCHES OF IT OUT
19 THERE.
20 MR. SPIRES; MRS. NICHOLSON TOUCHED ON
21 SOMETHING A WHILE AGO. YOU SEE, WE WOULD LIKE TO
22 DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE COVER. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO DO
23 SOMETHING MORE ABOUT THE SIDE — THE SIDE SEEPAGE.
24 BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CONTAMINATE THE
25 TESTING PROCESS, WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO COME BACK
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
69
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 IN AND DO SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT HELP THE
2 VEGETATIVE COVER OR DUE TO THE SIZE BECAUSE WE
3 DON'T WANT TO AFFECT IN AN UNNATURAL WAY THE
4 SEDIMENT AND THE OTHER TESTING PROCESS.
5 THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WE NEED FOR -- WHATEVER
6 THE PROBLEM IS, WE NEED FOR THAT TO BE MADE BY
7 E.P.A. SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME --
8 WITH OUR PROGRAM IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PROCESS
9 AND THE SIDE SEEPS. AND IF IT'S GOING TO COST
10 SEDIMENTATION PONDS, THEN THE SEDIMENTATION PONDS
11 IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS AND LOOK TO. IF
12 YOU GET INTO SEDIMENTATION PONDS THAT CONTROL YOUR
13 SURFACE WATER, THEN THAT WILL DEFINITELY BECOME A
14 CONTAMINATED SOURCE OF WATER.
15 THE ONLY CONTAMINATION IN WATER IS GOING TO
>
16 CAUSE WHAT'S CALLED "LEACHATE," IS WHERE THE RAIN
17 WATER COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE GARBAGE ITSELF. SO
18 IF YOU CAN SHED IT, EITHER THROUGH THE EVAPORATION
19 PROCESS OR SHED IT WHEN YOU GET INTO YOUR
20 SEDIMENTATION PONDS, IT NEVER BECOMES A
21 CONTAMINATED PROCESS AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
22 SPEND VERY EXPENSIVE DOLLARS TO DEAL WITH IT.
23 THAT'S THE REASON WE NEED WHATEVER YOUR FINAL
24 RECOMMENDATION IS AS PRUDENTLY AS POSSIBLE BUT AS
25 QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE NEED FOR THOSE SOLUTIONS
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
. - 7 0
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 TO COME FORWARD SO WE CAN START EFFECTING THOSE
2 OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT WILL HELP THE OVERALL SITE IN
3 RELATIONSHIP TO GENERATION OF LEACHATE, THE SIDE
4 WALL SEEPS AND THE VEGETATIVE PROCESS.
5 SO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO RECIRCULATE OR
6 WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, IT DON'T
7 MATTER HOW MUCH WATER HE PUTS. IF WE DON'T GET
8 GOOD SOIL ON TOP OF THAT SITE, HE'S STILL NOT GOING
9 TO HAVE A VEGETATIVE COVER.
10 MR. TANNER; LEGALLY I'M MOVING THE
11 PROCESS ALONG AS FAST AS I CAN RIGHT NOW. PART OF
12 IT INVOLVES
13 MR. SPIRES; I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT,
14 BUT I'M JUST STRESSING TO YOU HOW IMPORTANT I THINK
15 IT IS. SO LET'S DRAW SOME CONCLUSIONS SO WE CAN
16 MOVE FORWARD.
17 MR. TANNER; WELL, WE'RE WORKING ON .IT AS
18 FAST AS WE CAN. SOME OTHER QUESTIONS?
19 MR. PARKER; TERRY — LANE PARKER AGAIN.
20 I'D LIKE TO COMMEND LEXINGTON COUNTY WITH THE WAY
21 THEY'RE HANDLING THIS PROCESS, GOING AHEAD AND
22 EXPEDITING THIS THING, YOU KNOW, ABOUT GETTING
23 THESE COVERS -- THE SITUATION REMEDIED.
24 ONE OTHER QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU IS I
25 KNOW THE ALTERNATIVE 4(A) WAS THE RECOMMENDED
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
71
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA~
1 PROCEDURE THAT YOU -- THAT THE E.P.A. RECOMMENDS
2 FOR THIS.
3 USING THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE THEORY, WHICH IS
4 THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT UNTIL IT REACHES THE
5 GRAVE, NO LONGER A DANGER TO ANYBODY ELSE, WOULD
6 THIS THEORY 4(A), WOULD THAT ACCOMPLISH THAT
7 THEORY?
8 MR. TANNER: ACCOMPLISH THE THEORY
9 THAT...
10 MR. PARKER: IN OTHER WORDS, FROM THE DAY
11 THE CONTAMINANT IS BORN TO WHERE YOU FINISH UP WITH
12 ALTERNATIVE A, THAT IT WOULD BE NO LONGER A DANGER
13 TO ANYBODY -- THE SITE, YOU KNOW, THE
14 CONTAMINANTS?
15 MR. TANNER; THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WE'RE
16 PROPOSING WOULD KEEP THE SITE SAFE — NOT ONLY
17 TODAY BUT TOMORROW AS WELL
18 MR. PARKER: THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING-
19 ABOUT. WE'RE SPEAKING FROM THE DAY IT'S BORN AND
20 THE NEXT DAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SPEAKING OF.
21 MR. TANNER: YES. AND THE ALTERNATIVE AS
22 WELL INCLUDES MONITORING. WE WANT TO GO BACK AND
23 MAKE SURE THAT THINGS HAVEN'T CHANGED AND THERE'S
24 NOT ANY -- NOT SOMETHING LEAKING OUT THAT WE DIDN'T
25 SEE BEFORE.
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
72
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
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
MR. SPIRES; I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO GO
HOME NOT UNDERSTANDING. WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY
ALREADY PUTTING IN ALL THESE WELLS. WE PUT 32
WELLS UP; OKAY? THE PROCEDURE FOR WELLS AND HOW
OFTEN THEY'RE TESTED IS WHAT?
MR. BROOKS; QUARTERLY.
MR. SPIRES; IT'S BASICALLY QUARTERLY.
SO UNDERSTAND, WE'VE PUT ALL THOSE WELLS IN WITH
ALL THE EXISTING WELL SYSTEMS, AND THIS IS NOT
TALKED ABOUT ONCE A YEAR OR BIANNUAL PROCESS.
THESE WELLS AND THIS PROCESS OF TESTING IS AN
ONGOING THING OCCURRING ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DOGGONE EXPENSIVE, BECAUSE THE
ANALYTICAL DATA YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS
EXPENSIVE. AMEN. IT IS.
AND WHEN YOU DO IT THAT OFTEN, IT IS VERY
EXPENSIVE. AND IF YOU DO IT THE RIGHT WAY,
EVENTUALLY A SITE WILL — THE THEORY IS THAT THE
SITE WILL FINALLY START GIVING OUT MUCH LEACHATE
AND IT FACTORS IN BECAUSE IT BASICALLY TURNS ITSELF
INTO A BENIGN STATE, ONCE THE DECOMPOSITION
BASICALLY OCCURS AND FULFILLS ITSELF. AND THAT'S
HOW YOU GET THE SITE SAFE WITH ALL THIS OTHER
PROCESS.
MR. TANNER; IT WOULD CERTAINLY
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
73
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 STABILIZE. ONCE IT DOES STABILIZE, WE CAN REDUCE
2 THE TEST TO MAYBE TWICE A YEAR OR ANNUALLY.
3 MR. SPIRES; THAT'S RIGHT.
4 MR. TANNER; I WOULD AT THIS TIME LIKE TO
5 HEAR FROM MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN UP
6 TONIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS ANYTHING THAT
7 HAS BEEN A LITTLE HESITANT TO BRING UP?
8 MR. GENSAMER; I'VE GOT ONE OTHER THING.
9 MR. TANNER; OKAY.
10 MR. GENSAMER; I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY I AM
11 AT THE SITE EVERY DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM TEN
12 IN THE MORNING UNTIL TEN AT NIGHT. .AND IF ANYBODY
13 WOULD LIKE TO COME VISIT, I WOULD GLADLY SHOW THEM
14 THE TOP PART OF THE SOIL. YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME
15 TO COME VISIT.
16 . MR. TANNER; YES, MR. NICHOLS?
17 MR. NICHOLSON; WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY
18 MOVING THE OLD DUMP TO THE NEW DUMP, WILL THERE BE
19* WARNINGS ON THE DAY — YOU MENTION HERE "SHORT-TERM
20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HAZARD." WOULD THERE BE
21 WARNINGS SAYING THE DUST MIGHT BE BAD? OR DO WE
22 HAVE TO SORT OF WATCH?
23 MR. TANNER; NO, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
24 SNEAK ANYTHING PAST ANYONE. WHAT WE WOULD DO WOULD
25 PROBABLY INVOLVE TRENCHING, OR THERE'S A SPECIFIC
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
74
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 TERM FOR IT WHERE YOU DRAG BUCKETS ACROSS THE AREA
2 THAT CONTAIN THE SOIL AND DRAG IT INTO ANOTHER
3 AREA, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH BACKHOE OR TRUCK OR
4 WHATEVER.
5 MRS. NICHOLSON; WOULD YOU HAVE TO REMOVE
6 THE CAP ON 321 IN ORDER TO ADD STUFF, OR WILL YOU
7 BE TUNNELING IN THE SIDE OF IT TO ADD?
8 MR. TANNER; WELL, WE'RE NOT SURE AT THIS
9 TIME. THAT'S OPEN. WE MAY WELL DECIDE TO SEND IT
10 TO THE BRAY PARK DUMP AND BYPASS THE ISSUE OF
11 DISTURBING THE EXISTING CAP AT ALL. IT REALLY
12 DEPENDS. WE WOULD TAKE EVERY MEASURE POSSIBLE TO
13 CONTROL THE DUST. I -- BECAUSE I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY
14 MOVED ANYTHING LIKE THIS, I'M NOT SURE. WE MAY
15 VERY WELL RUN ADS. I DON'T KNOW. WE WOULD DO
16 EVERYTHING TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT
17 NO RELEASES OCCUR, WE DIDN'T THROW CONTAMINATED
18 DUST INTO THE AIR.
19 MR. PARKER; TERRY, IF I MAY, IT'S
20 GETTING LATE. MOST DEFINITELY ON THE CLEANUP SITE
21 LIKE THAT, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. YOU
22 HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW UNDER CFR-1910-120, WHICH
23 IS THE RIGHT TO KNOW. YOU'LL HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO
24 GO THERE.
25 THEY HAVE — THEY HAVE TO FURNISH YOU EVERY
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
75
LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA
1 DOCUMENT, EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT SITE AS A
2 PRIVATE CITIZEN. YES, IT WILL BE CONTROLLED DUST
3 AND EVERYTHING ELSE, LIKE WET SOCKS THAT WOULD BE
4 IN IT. VERY ELABORATE PROCESS.
5 MR. SPIRES: THE TRUTH OF IT IS IN THESE
6 PROCESSES THERE'S GENERALLY NOT ANY ACTIVITY
7 RELATED WITH MOVING A SMALL SITE INTO ANOTHER
8 SITE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU PUT IT IN THE BRAY PARK
9 DUMP OR YOU BRIDGED IT, AS IT'S CALLED, OKAY, FROM
10 ONE SITE TO THE OTHER AND EXTENDED *OUR COVERED
11 CAP. THERE SHOULD NOT REALLY BE ANY ACTIVITY TO GO
12 ON THAT WOULD CAUSE ANYBODY IN THE AREA TO BE UNDER
13 ANY DISCOMFORT WHEN TURNED OFF.
14 MR. TANNER: OTHER QUESTIONS?
15 (NO RESPONSE)
16 . MR. TANNER: WELL, I GUESS IF THERE ARE
17 NO MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL CLOSE UP FOR TONIGHT.
18 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, AND YOU HAVE MY PHONE
19 NUMBER ON THOSE FACT SHEETS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING
20 ELSE THAT COMES UP IN YOUR MIND A LITTLE BIT LATER,
21 GIVE US A CALL. THANKS AGAIN.
22
23 (THE PRECEDING WAS CONCLUDED AT 8:49 P. M.)
24
25 * * *
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
-------
76
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF LEXINGTON
SS:
I, LORI S. MORTGE, CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
(GA) AND NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA AT LARGE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE WAS HEARD AS HEREINAFTER SET OUT;
THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID REPORT IN SHORTHAND THE
PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND OFFERED IN THE SAID
PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED PAGES,
NUMBERED 3 THROUGH 75, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A TRUE AND
CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF THE
SAID CAUSE TAKEN DURING THE SAID HEARING.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO AFFIXED MY
SIGNATURE THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994.
X.S.
LORI S. MORTGE, CCR (GA) AND NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 2/2/97
HANWELL REPORTING SERVICE
------- |