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

-------