United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R04-86/014
September 1986
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
SCRDI Dixiana, SC
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PletU~ nad InllfUctions on th~ r~v~n~ ~ffN~ co,""I~/inIJ
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-86/0l4
.. TITL.E ANO SUBTITL.E 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DEeIS ION ?h lQAh
SCRDI Dixiana, SC 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. 7. AUTHOR IS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AODRESS 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
". CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1i';n~l Dnn
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPL.EMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The SCRDI Dixiana site consists of a 2-acre lot and a warehouse in southeastern -.
Lexington County, SOuth Carolina. '!he warehouse, located near the center of the.
property is an abandoned one-story, metal structure. The predominant land use in- the
areas adjacent to the site are woodlands and light residential development.
Approximately 1,193 people use water supply wells within three miles of. the site. South
Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI) leased the site from G.M.T. in 1978 for
drum storage of industrial wastes. Instances of poor handling practices, leaky drums,
and exposure to the weather allowed numerous discharges to the environment prior to drum
removal. In August 1978 a waste management permit was denied to SCRDI by the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCOBEC) because of poor waste
management practices. A suit was filed by SCDBEC against SCRDI during the same month.
Removal of all surficial drummed waste and visibly contaminated soils was performed by
SCRDI. The Ground Water Protection Division of SCDBEC completed a detailed ground water
monitoring program in Autumn 1982 and confirmed ground water contamination underlying
the site. -No significant site-related surface water, sediment, air, or surface and
subsurface soil contamination have appeared. Potential sources of future contamination
at the site are former drum storage areas and suspected spill areas. Contamination is
presently moving offsite primarily via shallow ground water in response to the hydraulic
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL.YSIS
~. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
SCRDI Dixiana, SC
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: VOCs, PARs, PCBs, PCE,
organics, pesticides, inorganics
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CL.ASS (TIIi.r R~pO't) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 62
20. SECURITY CL.ASS (T/li.r pag~) 22. PRICE
None
!PA ,- 2220-1 (R... .-711
P".VIOU' EDITION I' O..OIoETE
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-86/0l4
SCRDI Dixiana, SC
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
gradients in various interconnected aquifers. The primary contaminants of
concern include: VOCs, PABs, PCBs, PCE, organics, pesticides, inorganics.
The selected remedial action includes: extraction of contaminated ground
water; treatment of contaminated ground water to alternate concentration
levels; discharge of treated ground water to surface water (regulated by
South Carolina's NPDES Discharge Permit; no action on soils. The estimated
capital cost for this remedial action is $751,250 with O&M estimated at
$2,128,100 for a 30-year period. O&M may require anywhere from 3 years to
30 years to accomplish.
-------
REX:ORD CF DEX:ISION
REMEDIAL AIlI'ERNATIVE SELECTlrn
Site:
SCRDI Dixiana Site
Lexington County, South Carolina
!
tbcuments Reviewed:
- SCRDI Dixiana Remedial Investigaticrt
- SCRDI Dixiana Feasibility Study
- SUnrrary of Remedial Al ternati ve Selectioo
- Responsiveness SUnrrary
- Staff Recatmendatioos & Reviews
Description of Selected Remedy:
"- Extract contaminated groundwater
- Treat contaminated groundwat~ ~. alt"~te concentration levels
- Disdlarge treated groundwater to surface water"" (regu1.ated by.
South Carolina IS NPDES Discharge Penni t)
- No action crt soils
""~(... . .
. '. ..~, ~. .
"0.-..... ~...., '-
,...J ' .
Declaratioos:
The selected remedy is consistent wi. th the Catprehensi ve Ehvironrrental
Response, Catpensatioo, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERClA), and the
Natiooal Contingency Plan (40 ern Part 3(0). I have determined that the
extractioo and treatment of groundwater contamination ~ subsequent discharge
to state authorized limits ~ no action for soil ca1tamination at the
SCRDI Dixiana site is a cost~ffective remedy and provides adequate"
protectioo of public health, welfare, and the envirooment. The State of
South Carolina Department of Ehviromnental Control has been consulted and
agrees with the approved remedy. Future q>eratioos and maintenance
activities, to ensure continued effectiveness of the remedy, will be
ccnsidered part of the approved actioo and eligible for Trust Fund
rrarl.es far" a period of ooe year.
I have also determined that the actioo being taken is appr~iate When
1::2lanced against the availability of Trust Fund nonies at other" sites.
-------
-2-
In additioo, the gramdwater extractioo, treatment, and discharge is ncre
cost-effective than other remedial actions and is necessary to protect
public health, ~lfare and the environment.
SEP 26 198&
~f~
Regiooal Administrator -'
tate
..' t "
'I' . ., "
'- '
-------
Record of Decisim
&l'rrrary of RatEdial Alternative Selection
SCRDI Dixiana Site
Lexington Camty, Scuth Carolina
Site I.ocatial am Description
-'
'!he SCRDI Dixiana site is located iJ1 southeastern Lexington ColU'lty, South
Carolina, at 330 54' 13" N::>rth latitooe and 810 3' 47" West longitu:1e.
Principal access to the site is £ran Ballard Court, located off u.S. 321,
2.1 miles scuth of the interd1ange of u.S. Interstate 26 and U.S. Highway
321. A vicinity nap am a schematic draw:in3 of the site and inprovements
are ShONn in Figures 1-1 and 1-2.
'!he site OCI1Sists of a two-acre lot and a warehouse. '!he site is bordered
00 the north by Ballard Court and CD the rerraining three sides'l::.!i
undeve1~ wooded prcperty. '!he prcperty is relatively flat ~th a very
slight slcpe to the sootheast. Maxinum elevatioo difference across the
site is tw:> feet. '!he ware1n.1se, located near the center of the .pr'q)erty
is an abanda1ed ale~toIY, netal structure. VegetatiCD surro.uxling the
wareha.1se calSists of sparse ~ and grasses. Mld1 of the area has been
disturbed as a result of previoos waste storage activities 'lthich occurred
over the entire lot and soil rerroval and site activities.
'!he Q:ngaree River is loCated :apptpxinately 2 miles east of the site and
flews oortbNest to southeast. 'l'No unnamed trib.1taries of Dry Creek, .
~ch Elrpties. into the Ccngaree River,. are located 1000 feet southeast and
2000 feet northeast of the site.
There are approxiJrately 200 pezmment residences located within 0.5 mile
of the site as of 1982,.. ,. .(See IFigure,l~2). 'lhe closest residences are
the Ballard and li:>lland hates ~ch are located approximately 350 feet
east of the site. Other nearby residences i,ncl\rle the Green 'AUley
M:>bile fbne Park located C\R>roximately 500 feet north of the site.
Yamg's Mirket is situated across U.S. 321, approxircately 700 feet \ESt
of the site.
The predcmi.nant land uses in areas adjacent to the site are wood;Lands and
light residential developtent. A nunicipal landfill is located roe mile
to the north. 'lhe edge of the Colmnbia metropolitan area begins at. the
City of Cayce, aaxoxinately 3.5 miles north of the site.
Aca:>rding to the Mitre Hazard Ranking System (HRS) report, approxinately
1,193 people use water supply wells within three miles of the SCRDI
Dixiana site. ~ ~lls located within 350 feet east of the site 'NeI'e
fornerly used: however, these residents have since been oormected to the
City of Cayce Water supply. '!he nearest active water supply ~lls used
for drinking water are tbJee of the Green Valley M:>bile Hare Park located
aA?I'oxinately 500 feet oorth of the SCRDI Dirlana site, and Yoong's Market
located approxinately 700 feet ~t of the site.
-------
--
"..- ~ -
~---
"
"
80UIIC.:
U.8.CI.8.
'.11.
1
I
8CAL. .. '..T
1111
I
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1-1
.,;. ..
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON CO.,' SOUTH CAROLINA
c:IRNL:~
LD c::J:R..~
0" H8IIitu1CIn ~
-------
)
\ \
,,,:'-"'~'-'-'''---' ~ "",-
He;? ;~~~~,~~:i~,~- .::: . . -_.~ ...!.>
'~~~;-~ ~ -. ";r- .\~f
-------
-2-
Other active water supply wells inclooe Belle Meade Subdivisioo located
approximately one mile sootheast of the site arxl the Silver Lake ~bile
Hare and R:>lling MeadCMS ~ile Park banes located approximately ooe and
. one-half miles to the sootheast. 'Ihere are 200 lots in the Belle Meade
Subdivisia1 and 210-260 taps at R:>lling Meadcws. It is not krlc7.1n exactly
hc:::M rrany taps there are at Silver lake, rot it is assumed to be 200.
'Ihere nay also be a ffiM danestic wells abo.1t one and a1~ miles
sooth of the site. '!be Lloydwcod Camunity, located approximately 1500
feet sootheast of the site, is camected to the City of Cayce o"eter supply.
Site History
'!be samI Dirlana Site was leased £ran G.M.T. Associates by South Carolina
Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (samI) in the sunner of 1978 for drun
storage of industrial wastes. In late 1978, approximately 1,100 dr\m; of
waste naterial incllXiing paints, solvents, P1en:Jls, acids, oils, and dyes
were stored on the site. Instances of pJOr bantling practices, leaky
drums, and exposure to the 'Neather allowed numercus disd1arges to the
envircnnent prior to drum reroval. A list of 22 hazardous substances
identified by samI as having been stored at the site is sho.n in 'nIDle 1-1-
01 July 21, 1978, s:RDI fonrally requested a waste nanagernent. pemdt £ran
Scuth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCIEEC).
'!be penni.t request was refused 00 August 22, 1978, because of poor waste
nanagerrent practices at the samI Dixiana Site. In Au9JSt 1978, SCIEEC
filed a suit against SCRDI. Parova1. of all surficial drurtmed wastes and
visiblYoa'ltami.nated soils were perfonned by SCRDI ~ Septenber 1978
am JUne 1980. en May 23, 1980, a South Carolina State Circuit JUdge
famd SCRDI in contenpt of. a ccurt. order. 'lhis resulted in the oatpany
being placed in receivership. . .
On Jlme 17 am 18, 1980, SCImX:' s Groundwater Protection Di visicn and
Industrial Solid and Hazardcus Waste Section deteImined the. degree and
extent of subsurface ccntaminaticn using soil odor and color as i.n:ti.cators.
l)Jring the JUne 17 ahd 18 investigation, a nan~g' \„ell (Well lA) 'foBS .
constrocted in a test hole drilled WeSt, of the property to a depth of 39
feet. Sanples were taken fran this well, the warehouse weIr", the purtp1o.Ise
well, and £ran boo residential wells east of the property (H:>llarxl and
B:11lard wells). 'Ihe results of analytical tests perforned 00 graIl'1d\tater
sanples indicated a potentially serious problem. 'D1e amers of affected
residential wells were advised on July 3, 1980, to seek alternative water
saJrces, and a nore intensive groundwater investigaticn was inplemented by
~. .
'!he Groundwater Protecticn Division of sa:mx: carpleted a detailed
gramdwater nonitoring program in Auturrn 1982. Site~pecific subsurface
infoncation fran the SCL'flEx: investigation is limited to the zone extending
to approxirrately 35 feet below gramd surface. Water was encountered at
depths ranging fran 14 feet to 15 feet. Groundwater sanpling was perfonned
by SCI:IiEC in August and Septemer 1980, Ck:tober 1981, and August 1982.
Contaminaticn of the gramdwater urner1ying the site was confirmed. 'D1e
SCRDI Dixiana Site was listed in the lhited States Environmental Protection
Agenc.y's (EPA) Naticnal Priorties List of 418 sites released in Decerrber 1982.
-------
TABLE 1-1
DRAFT
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN STORED
AT SCRDI DIXIANA SITE, LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Substances Identified by SCRc5cD
No. of
Drums
W at er-Trichlorobenzene
1-1-1, Trichloroethane
Chloroform
6096 Phenol, 4096 Tetrachloroethane
Ethyl Acetate
Acryla m ide-Styrene
Benzene
Butanediol
Hydrogen Peroxide
LX305-3 Lithium Compound
DX2113-1,3, Dioxane
5196 Toluene, 4896 Ethyl Acetate
Toluene (Dirty) .
Hexane (Dirty)
Acetone (Dirty)
Methylene Chloride-Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Freon-TMC
Pyridine
TX 1055, 1060 Trichlorobenzene
TX 1055, 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
1
6
4
1
1
11
1
4
1
1
1
8
3
2
1
2
11
2
3
1
1
1
. Taken from RAMP, Versar Inc., 1983.
-'
Chemical Abstract
Number
12002-48-1
11-55-6
61-66-3
108-95-2, 19-34-5
141-18-6
19-06-1
11-43-:.2
101-88-0
Unknown
Unknown
123-91-1
108-88-3, 141-78-6
108-88-3
'. 110-54-3
" :61-64-1
75-09-2, 67-64-1
127-18-4
75-09-2
Unknown
110-86-1
12002-48-1
120-82-1
-------
-3-
'!he EPA requested a Renedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) for the SCRDI
Dixiana Site. Versar, Inc. ~s subccntracted by NUS to prepare the RAMP,
-m.ch was su1:mi.tted in N:>vember 1983.
In May 1984, following review of the RAMP, the EPA obligated initial
fundin3 for a Remedial Investigaticn/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to be
perfonted by the NUS O:>I'pOration Raredial Planning Office (RfMPO).
'!he RI, begun in May 1984, confirmed that the site did net oontain.'bJried
wastes. It also ca1finted that ca1taminated gramdwater is present at
the site. Further investigation has oonfirmed that 00 significant
site-related oontamination has appeared in surface Witer, sediments, or
surface and subsurface soils. 'D1e RI has also oonfinned that airborne
caIt.ami.nants are 1'X)t a proolem at the SCRDI Dixiana Site.
NtE OCIIpleted the RI site investigatioo in 0ct.ciJer 1985 and sul::mi.tted a
Draft RI report to the EPA in March 1986. '!he RI assessed the nature and
extent of oosite and offsite
-------
--~---~.
-4-
Risks fran other potential exposure pathways are negligible at this
site. Soil ingestion by intruders, and dermal contact with contaminated
soil have very 10« associated risks because of the 10« levels of
contamination observed in the surface soils.
Investigations of the groundwater regime beneath the SCRDI Dixiana Site
reveal a catplex sequence of sand, silts, and clays. Soils have been
grouped into eight distinct units within the upper one hundred feet of
sediment underlying the SCRDI Dixiana site. '!bese units are labeled A
through H. '!he units are characterized on the basis of soil type am
vertical location beneath the site. Five of the units function as aquifers
(Units A, C, D, F, and H). Three units are semiconfining (Units a, E,
am G). The units, in descending order, have been labeled A through H.
Figure 4-8 presents a generalized cohunnar section of the deposits underlying
the site. Groundwater and/or soils in Units A through F s~ signs of
contamination. Thus, they are the aquifers targeted for the conceptulization
of a remedial action.
'!be entire SCRDI Dixiana site is located in an area outside of the 100-
year am SOo-year floodplainsJ therefore, the site is not subject. to a
s~ificant flood risk.
Nature and Extent of the Problem
'!be contaminants detected in the groundwater beneath the site are
precbninantly volatile organic ccmpounc1s along wi th several non-volatile
organic carpounds. Maxinun concentration of individual contaminants
approached 1 part per million in the groundwater. '!be groundwater
contamination present beneath the site is limited to the shallow water
bearing units, with organic contaminants detected at a maximum depth of
approximately forty feet below the ground surface. The greatest number
of contaminants and highest concentrations of cx::rrpOllms were distributed
in the upeJ:TOC)St transmissive units (A, C, and D) extending dONn to
approximately fifteen to twenty-five feet below the ground surface.
Laterally, the groundwater contaminants in Unit C extend fran the SCRDI
Dixiana site to the east in the direction of two residential wells.
'!bese. residences are not currently using their well water for datestic
purposes - they are presently supplied by the City of Cayce water system.
Although not identified in the remedial investigation, contaminants in
Unit D may extem southward and eastward fran the site. Fran conversations
with Mr. Joe Rucker, SCIEEC District Engineer, active water supply. wells
were found to be located at three locations south and southeast of the
site.
All three locations are a mile or m:::>re fran the site, and all of the wells
appear to be producing fran the H aquifer (no records of the screened
interval were available).
Extent of Surface Water/Sediment Contamination
Surface water and sediment sanples were collected fran nearby streams
and fran areas with major poming that could be affected by site
runoff. Prior to the scmpling activities performed by NUS, no extensive
-------
~ '
EL. -170' (MSL)
z
o
~
c
is
811
:8
811
A:
A:
o
II.
Q
811
to-
U
118
..J
...
.
8:
811
II.
5
o
c
AQUIFER
C/D
AQUIFER
F
~Q"OUND SURFACE
A (10 - 15' )
UNDIFFERENTIATED, SANDS, SILTS, CLAYS
(SM, ML, CL )
. (1')
KAOLINITIC CLAYS (eL - CH )
C (1.3') UNDIFFERENTIATED, SANDS, SILTS, CLAYS
(SM, ML, CL )
(MOST CONTAMINATED ZONE)
D (1.7)
SANDS, SILTY SANDS
rsp - SM )
E (2.5.)
KAOlINTlC.a. A YS
. (Cl - CH )
F (I.")
SANDS, ClAYEY SANDS,.
DlSCONTINOUS ClAY LAYERS
(s.., SP, SC )
G (-4 - 5' )
KAOlINTlC ClAYS
(Cl - CH )
H (50+)
SANDS, SILTY SANDS, ClAYEY SANDS
(SP, SM, SC)
HYDRAULIC DATA PRESENTED IN RI.
DATA USED IN MODELING
PRESENTED ON TABLE 4-1.
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION FOR
MODELING WITH PROGRAM BESTWELLS
FIGURE 4-1
[!j~~~
OA HIIIiNton Company
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
. LEXINGTON CO., SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
-5-
sampling of surface waters of sediments had been performed at the site.
Surface water sampliD;;J was performed Atgust 28-31, 1984 and July 8-12,
1985. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 1-7 and 1-8. Table 1-2
Sl.lTll1arizes the organic contamination detected in sediment samples collected
in the vicinity of the SCRDI Dixiana Site in Atgust 1984 and July 1985.
There was a single occurance of trichloroethene, 1,2 - dichloroethene, and
Arochlor 1260 at this location in Atgust 1984. .'
Surface water samples exhibited no organic contamination. Surface water
samples were not filtered prior to laboratory analysis: hence, the
absence of organic chemicals in surface water samples indicates that
they are not present in either dissolved form or as adsorbates on
suspended sediments.
Extent of SOils Contamination
Table 1-3 sl.l'llna.ri zes the Hazardous S\.Dstances List (HSL) organic
contamination detected in soil samples collected at the SCRDf Dixiana
Site. This table incllrles results fran both surface soils (55 series)
and subsurface soils (SO series). Chemicals detected represent several
classes incllrliD;;J chlorinated aliphatics, ncnocyclic aranatics, phthalate
esters, polynu=lear aranatics, pesticides and PCBs. It should be noted
that the siD;;Jle occurrence of PCBs (PCB-1016 at 25 tg/kg at 50-003) and
'm:>nocyclic aranatics (toluene at 5.3 tg/kg at 50-012) were detected in
the subsurface (at 5 fex>t depth), and were the only two organic canpoU1ds
detected .in subsurface soil samples.
'!he surface soil contamination i's"very iim~ted-. ""'!he Qfily carcinoge~ic
volatile organic chemicals detected were tetrachlorethene (PeE) and
methylene chloride. All methylene chloride 'value~ reported are qualifed
with an N, meaning that there is onlyp~~unptive evidence of the presence
of the materials. PCE was detected' in three samples at a maximum "
concentration of 460 tg/kg. Twb- of- these' samples were coJ.lected fran the
northeast corner of the warefioUse where sPills were reported and where
the grmmdwater contaminatIon Was m::>st evident.
on the basis of analytical results, no pattern of soil contamination
appears to exist. '!he results also indicate that in addition to the
volatiles, low levels of phthalate esters, polyaranatic h~rocarbons
(PAHs), and pesticides are randanly distributed. It is possible that
these chemicals are not associated with the wastes previously stored on
site. PAHs, such as acenaphthene and pyrene, are created by the canbustion
of organic matter and are constituents of vehicular emissions. Phthalate
esters, su=h as Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Di-n-butylphthalate, and
Diethylphthalate, are widespread in the environment. They are thOlght to
be created naturally, as wells as by man. The pesticides, 4,4'-DJJl',
4,4'-DDE', and 4,4'-DOD, are reported at very low levels and are only
tentatively identified. '
-------
----=--------- ----
~
.
,""
;;':.
'..
.
o
I
2000
. t
!CALE IN FEET
c.:,- :....
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SCADI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON CO., SOUTH CAROLINA
IAMPLII COLLECTED. Y NUl CORPORA T'ON 'N
AUQU8T 1..4.
FIG U A E
1-7
~NU!L
I-L.....j ~
OA.M8IIO~~
-------
~_.,., .'
- --':"";;.." '" ~ 'I-
- . "'1/>
.-4'" ,
......-:
./ ..
. ,-
. -- I
.....- '.....:~...
- -
r.- -
" ,-
, ,
:.."
:~ ~
\
. .
J,
'..
, ,
.. ... ~~~-
-,/- ~ ~~
...-:-. "'; ~/
.-. "(' f"'/
-. .' f~/
~,(", //.?,.-; ,
- - . ~:'. /
. . /
,,' /
.: !-
LEGEND
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
..
"\ ,,~<..~
'/
h
, "
-------
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OP ORGANIC SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
SCRDI DIXlANA SITE
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Compound
Trichloroethene
1,2- Dichloroethene
4-Methylphenol
Endrin ketone
Methoxychlor
Arochlor-1260
..: ~ ."
DRAFT
Range (l1sUkfd/' of OccUlTences
.'
3.9/1
14/1
570/1
5.3/1
26/1
.50/1
" ,'J- .:.
.
--
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
-'
Compound
Surface SoU (85)
Range (}!g/kg)/
, of OccUrrences
Subsurface SOU (SO)
Range (}!g/kg)/
, of Occurrences
. Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
52 - 230/7
2-460/3
5.3/1
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthala te
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-ethyl phthalate
200 - 1800/3
330/1
400/1
Pyrene
Acenaphthene
200/1
. 4000/1
. I . '- .
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Arochlor-1016
4-14/4
4.2-14/2
15/1
oJ 'I.....
",.:" .
.'
~
25/1
Benzoic acid
Cyanide
1600/1
380/1
-------
-6-
Extent of Groundwater Ca1taminatioo
'Ihe nature of the past waste storage operatialS at the site leads to the
oonclusion that possible soo.rces of gramdwater contamination are ccnfined
to spill or drun leakage onto surface soils, with sUbsequent migrations
to the water table.
.'
Groundwater sanpling was oonducted by NUS in August, 1984, and October
1985. Sarrples ~e collected and analyzed to detennine the nature,
concentration, and extent of oont.am:inatioo in groorxlwater underlying the
fCIDI Dixiana Site. In August 1984, sanples ~e collected fran: ~lls
installed during 1980 by the SCI:HEX:: the p.mphouse well: the warehouse
~ll: and fran danestic wells adjacent to the SCRDI Dixiana Site. . 'Ihe
same ~lls ~re resanpled in October 1985 along with newly installed NUS
ncnitoring ~lls. 'Ihe locatioos of the ~lls and the results of analytical
testing are shc:wn in Figure 1-9.
""
The contaminants detected in the groundwater beneath the site are
predaninantly volatile organic catpOJI1ds along with several non-volatile
organic a:rrpourrls. M:ix:inun ooncentratioo of inti vidual CD.'ltaminants
approached 1 part per millioo in the groundwater. 'lhe groundwater
cantaninatioo present beneath the site is limited to the shallOlri water
bearing unit, with organic contaminants detected at a naxi.nun depth of
a~roximately forty feet belOlri the ground surface.
HSL Chemicals detected nest predcminantly'in' site ncnitoring ~lls ~e
volatile a:rrpourrls. Within this group, halogenated aliphatics (Le.,
chlorinated ethenes, ethanes, and rnethanes) were detected nest frequently
and at the greatest oancentratians'. Table 1-4 presents a sumnary of the
occurrence of organic chanica! cootamination in both m::nitoring and""
residential well 'Sanples.'lhe fblland residential ~ll, located imnedi.ately
adjacent to the site (approxin'Btely 150 feet fratr the warehouse and
screened in an interval estimated" between < 30 and > 70 feet), exhibited
volatile contaminaticn during sanpling ca1ducted in Auq..1st 1984 and
OctOOer 1985. Carpounds detected nest frequently in groundwater sanples
~re: 1,1, 1 -trichloroethane, Trichloroethene, 1,1, -dichloroethene,
Carbon Tetrachloride, and QUorofonn.
'!be semple obtained £ran M:>nitoring Well 3B (SCDHEX:-3B), located in the
northeast oozner of the site, contained the highest concentratioos of
chemicals during 00th ramds of sanpling. 'Ibta1 volatile organics ('!'VO)
in this well, catpUted as the 8\.In of the individual volatile CXItpOUl'1d
ccncentrations, ~re 1910 U9/l and 1065 ug/1 during roonds 1 and 2,
respectively. Sarrp1es fran the fo1lardng ~lls also ccntained relatively
high levels of volatile organic Chemicals: *-4 (1411 ug/1, '1\10): SCI:EEX:-
6 (141 ug/1 TVO): SCIHEX:-lA (701 ug/1 TVO): MW-5 (122ug/1 TVO): ~ -
3A (75 ug/1 TVO): and MW-l (69 U9/l TVO).
c: ". :..
Several non-volatiles inclu:iing !bene1, Bis (2-ch10r0ethyl ) ether , Diethyl
phthalate, Benzo(a)pyrene and N-ni.trosodiphenylamine were also -detected
at lOlri levels in gramdwater sanp1es at the SCRDI Dixiana Site. Of these
-------
SCDHEC-I 10/2t185
1,1,1' TAI,"'''''I
It<
I,I-OI-IN'
I,I.O.-IIU
'" TONI
Me
NOT FDA DESIGN OA CONSTAUCTION USE.
LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS ARE FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY PURPOSES ONLY.
'0 0
~-
SCALE
50 100
---' ----I
'HrEE!
N
8CDHE~- IB ./U/..
2 8..11 14
8(Nl ""
fOl "'1"( I'
T. .nrN.' ,.
1,',I-'fIIl-"'" .40
',',1-'11'-_"(, \..
1'-01-"'" .'0
':'-01 AN' ,
1el ,.
I.'-Ol-.N' 4'1
1,'-01-118' "0
C.UT '10
(lIlOllO ..
Me i.o
P"NOL 10.1
flll1"'P"'" 10..
8([[ 10..1
1,1,1 -,.,....
PC(
~~~~: III
It I'
./U/84
It
"
"
OJ
.0.
HOLLAND WELL 1012t185
SCDHEC-38 10/UI.5
, J[fllNn ...
Itlll-YI'-ANI 1'01
1,1- 01-"", 110 J
Pel "OJ
TCI '1.1
',1-01-("( laJ
I,I-DI-IHI .......
C. TIT 1'0.1
_-6
.
WAREHOUSE
:!\:~:~:~'.::~
I, t,t,Z'UTIII........!
..1-01-1Nt:
I,Z-Ol-I..I
"V ::;:g:::~
TCE
CHLOItO
:-IIIUI
Me
1(1'\11
PC,
T. '('t lIN('
C. T[T
. If')) P
DIU" PH'H
ICf.(
!W...OA
MW-a 10128/85
1.1.'-'fII'-""
.. I-OI-(N(
. .
..
MW-5.10/28/85
1,1,1-""'''.[
per
I t. 01-["(
'.1(1
..
U
.0
10
M
MW-. 10/28/85
1,1,I-YIII-..1
per
1.'-01-"'"
e ftT
("LORO
Icrf
'1 OJ
lor..
110..
".
...
14
.
.
A
~
"
'40.. N
'10 ....
ORGANIC GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON CO., SOUTH CAROLINA
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~~
--------16'~
LEGEND
1.I,I-'IIC"lOROffHAHI:
. ,I,Z.'It.C"L08IOI.TttANf:
It 1.2.z-n TltACHLD"C'E,,.UlI
1,1- OIC"''''OI,"I-
1.2 - nl(.HU)r.CI1HL-E:
1.1- D8C"lCROfTHAW
I,I:.OI("LOACIT.....
rlt'CHlr,.",Hf "'I
Cl'4l0ROFOItll
2-luT.HOHf
"'('"1'LUt( CHU)A.DI:
8[1r4nlrlr
Tf1'Rl.CHlOROE:THE:tI(
TQUI ..."l(N('
C."BON TlU.CnLORIO(
8E:1rI!O '~)P1'A["(
DILTH'L PHTHilUI.
.''5 C I-CHLOROITH"ll 11111[.
N-NI,IO,OO.PH(..,... AWIHf.
ESTIMATED aUANTITY 8ECAUSE ALL
QUALITY CONTROL CRITEAIA WERE
NOT MET.
PAESUMPTIVI EVIDENCE OF MATfAIAL
TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION
WELL INSTALLED PRIOA TO 1118
SCDHEC MONITOAING WELL 111.0 I
NUS AI MONITORING WElL 11/85 I
NUS AI PIEZOMETEA I tl85 I
NOTE: ALL VALUES IN UI/1
FIGURE 1-9
'-~rINUS
;___1 _J COFPORAH...JN
o A Hallthur10n C()lnp.1oy
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 1-4
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
SCRDI DIXJANA SITE
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Compound Monitorin~ Wells Residential Wells
Ran2'e/ It of Occurrences Rangel It of Occurrences
Ketones
Acetone 240/1
2-Butanone 10-14/3
Monocyclic Aromatics
Total xylenes 4-31/3
Phenol 20/2 5/1
Toluene 17/1
Benzene 5-6/2
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Methylene chl~~i~e 140-690/3
Chloroform 2-64/6 5/1
Carbon tetrachloride 10-310/6 5/1
1,1- Dichloroethene 2-470/6 5-9/2
1,2- Dichloroethene 3-49/3
Trichloroethene 28-130/5
TetrachJoroethene 23-600/3 5/1
1,1- Dichlroethane 190-430/2
1,2- Dichloroethane 7/1
1,1, I-Trichloroethane 5-560/8 22-32/2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5/1
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane 25/1
B is(2-chloroethy l)ether 20-53/3
N -nitrosodiphenylam ine 20/1
Benzo(a)pyrene 20/4 20/1
Diethyl phthalate 20/1
Note: Units are \.Ig/I
Blanks - Not Detected above detection limit
~ '/:~ . .
-------
-7-
ally phenol is Knc:Jwn to have been stored on the site. A1thalate esters
am p::>lynuclear araratics are found widely in the envirooment fran both
anthropogenic and natural sources. Values rep::>rted for diethyl phthalate
and benzo(a)pyrene are at the detectioo limits am are oonsidered as
estine.tes because Bare quality control criteria '-'/ere oot satisfied. 'Ihis
rrakes the reported values of these t'NO oatpOUnds suspect. '!he cnly
detection of N-ni trosodiphenylamine also falls into this catego:ry. .
Inorganic chEmicals enc:amtered at elevated levels in SCRDI Dixiana 5i te
well sanples inclooe arsenic, cadmium, nercu:ry, niCkel, zinc, am chranium.
('!his assessnent is made in relation to Anbient Water Q1ality Criteria for
these elements.) Arsenic WiS detected in m:xri.toring wells MW-10, 5~-
6, 28, am JA. Mercury was found at elevated concentratlCl1S in SCIEEX:-6
and 4, and cnrond.um at scnmc-JA, 38, and 5, am at MW-10 and 11. Nickel
was elevated in wells *-10 am 11. Mditiooally, the punphouse 'Nell 'eS
hicj\ in chranium, cadmium and zinc.
Ccntamination of Groundwater in Residential Wells
Organic contamination was detected in gramdwater in ale of t\1o'O nearby
residential 'Nells located downgradient of the site. '!he CD1tarninants
appear to be related to those encamtered at the SCRDI Dixiana Site;
however, it has not been determined what pathway the migrating contaminants
have taken to contaminate the residential 'Nell water. '!he screened
interval of the residential well is unJaicwn, yet the RAMP reports that
the screen is probably bet'Neen 30 and 70 feet below the gromd surface.
Presently, the ~ residences are hocked up the City of Cayce water
SYStem. '!his significantly minimizes the risk fran ingestion or use of
cootaninated groundwater.
'IW:> p::>ssible flow paths of transport cculd accamt for the detectioo of
contamination in the residential 'Nells. First, natural groundwater
transport mechanisns in both a vertical and lateral direction oould be
respcx1Sible for the observed contamination in the residential gramdwater.
fb'ever, . it shculd be noted that the flow of groundwater in the deeper
aquifer (45-50 feet) is to the SOJth and SCAltheast, yet. the contaminated
residential well is east of the site. Also, deep wells on the site show
little contamination, or the contami.natioo present is at or near the
detectioo limits for each catpOOl1d, Whereas the residential well
groundwater shows greater concentrations of contaminants. Secondly, the
residential well cculd have a poor seal ala1g the well bore bet'Neen the
residential 'Nell screen and the overlying contaminated shallow aquifers.
A poor seal cculd provide a ca1dui t for the vertical migration of o:xltaminants
fram the shallow contaminated aquifer into the residential Witer source.
'!he fact that the residential well is directly downgradient of shallow
contaminated gro.mdwater flow lends credence for a vertical conduit ('Nell
bore) that ~d transport contaminated groundwater into residential 'Nater.
-------
-8-
O:mtaminant ~ili ty O1aracteristics am Migratim Pathways
'!he chE!ni.ca1s identified at the SCRDI Dirlana Site have been subdivided
into the follaring categories: chlorinated aliphatics: m:n:>cyclic
aranatics: Ketales: polynuclear araratics: pesticides: phthalate esters.
'D1e rationale far this subdivision is the similar structure am envirormental
nobility characteristics of cx:nstituents in each category. 'the chlorinated
alip,atics, ~lic araratics, and keta1es are soluble in water am
exhibit 1017 soil adsorptim coefficients relative to the polynuclecn-
araratics, pesticdes and phthalate esters. 'these qualities result in
greater envi.ramental nobility of theSe oarpounds attribItable to
grC11l1dwater convection. Conversely, the polynuclear araratics and pesticides
are relatively imtDbile in the hydrologic cycle.
Olemical analytical results for soil sanples reveal little o:ntami.nation
and provide evidence of the effectiveness of the earlier rerroval of
oc:ntaminated surface soils. For the soil contaminants, the volatile,
relatively ~ter soluble chemicals are subject to several transport
nechaniBm9. '!he relatively low levels of volatile organic dlE!ni.cals
detected in the surface soil at the SCRDI Dixiana Site are rrost likely
attrlb.Itable to both volatilization am leaching b.i infiltrating"
precipitatioo. '!he gramdwater cxmtami.natim at the site is considered
direct evidence of leaching of the volatile dlemioals fran soil cxmtami.nated
via chemical spills or leaks.
Other oarpounds present in surficial soil, such as ];i1thalate esters am
PAHs, have relatively high soil/sediment adsozptioo coefficients, low
vapor presures, am exhibit ally limited water solubility. 'D1ese dlE!ni.cals
generally display a temency to renain bound to soil. '!hus, they are
relatively imrcbile in .the hydrogeologic (subsurface) darein, although
the same oonsideratians rrake these chE!ni.cals amenable to transport via
erosion of CCI'ltaminated soils particles. 'D1e sporadic occurrence of
these substances am the relatively 100\' CD'lcentratians detected in the
surface soil indicate that major sources of these chemicals are not present
at the site. Substantial migration of these substances is not anticipated
because significant scurces tNere not identified and because they are not
- nobi1,i.zed via rrost enviramental transport mechani.srrs.
\t>latile organics are the rrost ncbile contaminants in the subsurface,
prinarily because of their ability to dissolve in ~ter. '!he site history
am chemical analytical results shOo\' that volatile organic chemi.cals are
the priIrary Caltaminants associated with the site. Because of their
prevalence am inherent nobility, their presence is used to assess the
extent of subsurface migratioo £ran the site.
Groondwater dlE!ni.cal/analytical data indicate that the contamination at
the SCRDI Dirlana Site is located prinarily to the east and sooth of the
site wareha1se.
~ ,
-------
-9-
The local geology facilitates contaminant ncvement in the subsurface.
Dispersion, or spreading out of the solute because of mechanical mixing
as it is transported by groondwater, causes a reduction in solute
concentration with increasing distance fran the source. In porous media,
like the sediments at the site, contaminant transport (in the direction
of bulk flow) is dependent upon the average groundwater velocity.
However, at the site, the various porous stratigraphic units dem:>nstrate
different groundwater velocities. '11lus as contaminants migrate vertically,
the dispersion process CCI1pOUJ'1ds as groundwater velocities and flow directions
change. These COI'Iplexities may account for the low levels of volatile
contamination detected in wells to the. south, including MW-8 and 9 (Figure
1-9) .
It appears that the bulk of the contamination is still in the upper units
of the aquifer and is migrating to the east in the direction of the
Ballard arxl Holland residences.
Volatile organics do not tend to adsorb to soil or sediments to a
significant degree. Also, biological degradation of volatiles is a very
slow process and is probably not a daninant fate of these contaminants at
the site. on the other hand, anaerobic groondwater conditions may degrade
Trichloroethene and other -parent- chlorinated aliphatic m:>leculesby
reductive dehalogenation.
Generally, base/neutral extractable organics are less IIDbile in the
subsurface than the volatiles. This is true for Benzo(a)pyrene and N-
nitrosodilphenylamine which were detected on site. Though the soorce of
these curpound is not known, it is noteworthy that they were detected in
wells adjacent to the south. side of the warehouse. It is not likely that
these carq;x>unds will migrate readily fran this area because of their
limited water solubility and their affinity for soils.
Contaminants migrating fran the site can reach surface waters/sediments
by two major transport mechanisms: 1) they can be transported as a solute
in groundwater that eventually discharge into surface water: or 2) they
can be transported in surface water runoff, either in solution or bound
to eI'!Jding soil. .
It is unlikely that the volatile contamination detected at location SD-
104 (Figure 1-8 and note Table 1-2) stream sediments are present as a
result of the site, merely because of the distances involved i.e. 1500-2000
feet. However contamination cannot be ignored for that reason. Volatile
contamination of sediments at these distances fran the site would suggest
that it is due to contaminated groundwater discharge to the stream.
Definitive conclusions on that matter must be deferred because of
the lack of environmental sanples fran the period prior to the site
cleanup, that would be used to confirm or disprove the presence of these
contaminants in the surface media fran which they could reach the nearby
streams. Volatiles reaching surface waters are likely to volatilize
fairly rapidly. 'ttle absence of volatile organics in surface water samples
is probably attributable to this mechansim.
-------
-10-
PUBLIC REAL'lH AND ENVI~ CCN:ERNS
'!he RI conducted at the SCRDI Dixiana Site indicates that groundwater is
contaminated. Minor contaminatioo of the soil has also been observed.
. '!he major contaminant transport pathway inpacting 00 potential human and
environmental receptors is the rrovement of groorxlwater under the site.
Contaminants could be transported via groundwater into private drinking
or watering wells. A cat1paratively minor route of transport of contaminants
fran the site is direct contact and pica ingestioo of contaminated surface
soils and other surface materials.
Potential receptors represent those who the site would most likely affect
in terms of acute and chronic health inplications. Based on present site
conditions and data gathered during the RI, there does not appear to be
significant potential human or envirormental receptors as long as
groundwater is not directly used fran the ItO'\itoring wells or the two
nearest residential wells. '!he available data do not indicate or confirm
significant past or present h\.D11an exposure. Other potential receptors
include the following: .
o Nearby users of groundwater for drinking purposes.
o '!hird-party intruders who cane into direct dermal contact with
contaminants present at the site.
o Onsite remediation workers through inhalation of elevated
concentratioos of volatile organic cootaminants during groundwater
disturbance.. or by direct ,-dermal. cor;\~~ct with. contaminated soil.
o Potential receptors represent those whan the site would most
likely affect in terms of acute and chronic health iDplications.
Available data does not indicate or con,firm significant past or
present tunnan exposure. .
Table 1-5 p~sents a J,ist of the contaminants evaluated, the media in
which they were detected, and the number of positive detections. Table 1-
- 6 shows envirormental exposure criteria for the contaminants of concern
listed in Table 1-5. '!he information and data shown in Table 1-5 and
Table 1-6 were included in evaluations and considerations in connection
with the remedial action technologies and alternatives developed in the
FS and the alternative slection in this report.
Enforcement Analysis
A Responsible Party search was conducted in May 1986, for the SCRDI
Dixiana Site and a list containing over 20 potentially responsible parties
(PRP's) was developed.
.- .
~ ,
-------
TABLE 1-5
CONTAMINANTS EVALUATED FOR THE FS
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
Contaminant
benzene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1, I-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
1, I-dichloroethene .!. .
carbon tet~achloride
chloroform
methylene chloride
acenaphthene
benzo(a)pyrene
pyrene
N -nitrosodiphenyla mine
bis(2-chloroethy l)ether
Media in
Which Detected
.J~. ...
MW
MW
MW
RW
MW
MW
MW
RW
55
MW
'.SD
MW
RW
MW.
'!RW' ':'.,.
.1' -:r ,of. J '.
MW
RW
MW
55
55
MW
RW
55
MW
MW
t. }":'
Range of
Occurrences (ppb)
5-6
25
5-560
22-32
5
7
23-600
5
2-460
28-130
3.9'
....2:-41Q
5-9
10-310.
5
2-64
5
140-690
52-230
4000
20
20
200
20
20-53
: ,. , r,
DRAFT
-'
t of
Detections
2/37
1/37
8/37
2/6
1/37
1/37
3/37
1/6
3/32
5/37
-. 1/7
6/37
2/6
6/37
1/6
6/37
1/6
3/37
7/32
1/32
4/37
1/6
1/32
1/37
3/37
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 1-5
CONTAMINANTS EVALUATED FOR THE FS
SCRDr DIXlA:NA SITE
P AGE TWO
!
Media in Range of , of
Contaminant Which Detected Occurrences (Dob) Detec,ions
4,4'-DOT 55 4-14 4/32
4,4'-000 55 4.2-14 2/32
4,4'-OOE 55 15 1/32
PCB 1016 50 25 1/14
PCB 1260 50 50 1/7
arsenic MW 10-59 5/37
cadmium MW 3-33 6/37
chromium MW 10-240 27/37
copper MW 26-1100 6/37
RW 70-380 4/6
iron MW 53-96,000 34/37
." "
RW 3QO 3/6
5W 390-1700 13/13
'"1:"_.> ..
Notes:
M.W - monitoring well
R W - residential well
55 - surface soil
50 - subsurface soil
5D - sediment
5W - surface water
.:: , ". .
-------
T ADLE 1-8 DRAFT
KNVIRONMENTAL UPOSURE CRITERIA 'OR CONTAMINANTS HVALUATED 'OR TilE P8
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTII CAROLINA
Ambient Water
Maximum and Quality Crlteria(3) tJeallh Advisories
Recommended Drinking Protect ion Suggested No Carcinogenic
M8IIImum Acceptable M8IIImum Water Only or Aquatie Adverse Response Pot eney
Concent ra tlon Dally Intake Contaminant Levels for 10-6 Risk Life ** Levels (SNARLs) ractor
Contaminant (mlt/I) (mg/day)((mlt/I)( t) (MCL/RMCL)(mK/I)(2) (mlt/I) (mlt/I) (mlt/O(4) (klt-day/mg)(5) .
benzene 0.006 NR 0.005*/0 0.00067 0.0053 I-D8Y: 0.233 2.9 I 10-2
10-Day: 0.233
1,I,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.025 NR NR/NR 0.00017 2.4 NR 0.20
I,I,I-trlchloroethane 0.560 38/19 0.200*/0.200 19 NR I-Day: 140 1.60 I 10-3
10-D8Y: 35
Long-Term: 35 5.73 II 10-2
1,I,2-trlchloroethane 0.005 NR NR/NR 0.0006 9.4 NR
1,2 -dichloroet hane 0.007 NR 0.005*/0 0.00094 20 I-D8Y: 0.74 6.9 I 10-2
10-Oay: 0.14
Long-Term: 0.74 6.0 II 10-2
tetrachloroethene 0.600 NR N R/O* 0.00088 0.840 10-Day: 34
Long-Term: 1.94 1.2 I 10-2
trichloroethene 0.130 NR 0.005*/0 0.0028 21.9 NR.
I,I-dichloroethene 0.470 NR 0.007*/0.007* 0.000033 11.6 I-Day: I 1.47 I 10-1
10-Day: I
Long-Term: I 1.30 I 10-1
carbon tetrachloride 0.310 NR 0.005*/0 0.00042 35.2 I-Day: 4
10-0ay: 0.16
Long-Term: 0.071 1 II 10-2
chloroform 0.064 NR NR 0.00019 1.24 HR
methylene chloride 0.690 HR HR 0.00019 HR I-Day: 13.3 6.3 I 10'4
10-Oay: 1.5
acenapthene HO NR HR 0.020 0.52 HR 11.5
pyrene HO HR NR 0.0000031 NR NK J 1.5
benzo(a)pyrene 0.020 HR NR 0.000003 J HR HR 11.5
H. nit rosodlphenyla mine 0.020 NR HR 0.0049 NR HR 4.92 I 10-3
"
-------
r'.
. ,.
, ,
DRAFT
TAnl.B 1-'
ENVIRONMHNTAL BXPOSURK CRITERIA POR CONTAMINANTS BVALUATED POR Till! n
SCRm DlXIANA SITE
I.EXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTII CAROLINA
PAGK TWO
Ambient Water
Mulmum and Quality Crlteria(3) Health Advisories
Recommended Drinking Protection SUliesied No Carcinogenic
Maximum Acceptable Maximum Water Only Of Aquatic Adverse Response Potency
Concentration Dally Intake Contaminant Levels for 10-6 Risk Life .. Levels (SNA RLs) Pact or
Contaminant (mtr/l) (mtr/day)/(mtr/l)( I) (MCL/RMCL)(mtrll)(2) (mtrlU (mtrl\) (mlf/l)(4) (ktr-dav/mtr)(5)
.
arsenic 0.059 0.20/0.10 0.050/0.050 0.000025 0.040 I-Day: 0.050 15
10-Day: 0.050
Long-Term: 0.050
cadmium 0.033 0.036/0.018 0.010/0.005 0.010 0.0015 I-Day: 0.043 ".8
10-Day: 0.008
I.ong-Term: . 0.005
chromium 0.240 0.034/0.017 0.050/0.12 0.050 0.0012 I-Day: 1.4 41
10-Day: 1.4
Long-Term: 0.24
copper ND NR 1.0++/1.0++ 1.0 0.0056 NR NR
iron ND NR 0.3++/0.3++ NR NR HR NR
Notes:. - Proposed value
.. - Lowest value is presented. If both acute and chronic values are presented In the reference, the chronic (lower) value Is shown.
+ - Adjusted AD! (USEPA, November 13, 1985)
++ - Secondary Drinking Witter Siandard
NR - Not Reported
Sources: (I) USEPA, May 1984. Summar of Current Oral Acce table Dall Intakes ADls for S stemlc Toxicants. Environmental Criteria Ind Assessmenl Office,
Cinclnnall, Ohio and USEPA, November 13, 1985. "Nltlonll Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals, Inorglnlc Chemicals Ind
Microorganisms." Pederal Rel[lster, Vol. 50, No. 219. '
(2) USEPA, November 13, 1985. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals, Inorganic Chemlclll and Microorglnisms." Pederal
Rel[lster, Vol. 50, No. 219 Ind USEPA, November 13, 1985. "National Primary Drinking Water .Regulations; Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals." Pcderll
Retrlster, Vol. 50, No. 219. ' '
. (3) USEPA, November 28, 1980. "Water Quality Criteria Document.." Pederal Rel[lster, Vol. 45, No. 231; USEPA, Pebruary 7, 1984. "Wiler Quality Criteria."
Pederal Retrlster, Vol. 49, No. 26; and ICP, Inc., December 18, 1985. Draft Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Washington, D.C.
(4) ICP, Inc., December 18, 1985. Draft Superfund Public flealth Evalultlon Manua~D.C.
(5) USKPA, February 1985. Mutal[enlcltv and Carolnotrenlcitv Assessment of 1.3-0utadlene. Washlnrton, D.c.
"
-------
-11-
HOwever, it was discovered, that due to SCRDI activities in the chemical
brokering am recycling business, three other sites in the Columbia, SC
area were involved. 'Ihese other sites include Bluff Road, an NPL site,
and the Dreyfuss Street and Shop Road holdin;;r sites. At one time, SCRDI
used these sites for chemical and waste handli~ and storage.
OUr records indicate that between 3,000 to 10,000 containers of waste
were stored at the Bluff Road Site. Sane of these materials were
transferred to the Shop Road holding facility where waste was stored aOO
transported to either Dreyfuss Street or the SCRDI Dixiana Site. ~
Shop Road holding facility also received waste directly fran generators
before being transported to Dreyfuss Street or the SCRDI Dixiana site.
It was also reported that SCRDI Dixiana also received sane waste directly
fran the generators.
At the present time it is difficult to connect potentially responsible
generators to the site based upon the currently available infonnation.
In an attenpt to make a clearer connection between the generators and the
site, infonnation request letters will be sent to the parties listed in
the PRP search. Once this task is catpleted, notice letters will be sent
and the identified PRP's will have the opportunity to negotiate OR the
Renedial Design and Renedial Action (RDjRA) at the SCRDI Dixiana Site.
Alternative Evaluation
The purpose of the remedial action is to mitigate contamination at the
SCRDI Dixiana site in order to negate potential risks to human health
and the envirorment. Groundwater contamination is the only area of
concern that presents significant risks to the public health and environment.
Soil and sediment contamination are minimal i.e. less that background
levels, thus should not pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Since soil and sediment does not appear to pose a threat the objectives
in developing renedial actions at the SCRDI Dixiana Site were:
o Groundwater Contamination:
- Management of migration
- Prevent increases of contaminant concentrations
- Reduce concentrations of contaminants
- Prevent or minimize further migration of contaminants
-------
-12-
An initial screening of applicable altemativetwas perforned to select
those which best met the criteria specified in Section 300.68 of the
Natia1al Contin;enc:.y Plan (~). Follc:wing initial screening of
technologies, potential remedial action alternatives \tlere identified
and analyzed. '!bese alternatives were screened and the nest pranising
were retained am were developed further. '!able 3 sumrarizes the results
of the screening process. Each of the seven alternatives was evaluated
based upon tec:hinal consideratim, institutia1al issues, envi.rormert.al
issues, public health inpacts, and oost criteria. A oost sU11rEUy is
presented in Table 3. '!be results of the final evaluatim are given
belcw.
Alternative I
N:> lEmedial Actim
tbder the no-actim alternative rerredi.al activities '-OUld not be perfonred
for both the soil and groundwater oontaminatim. '!he soil oontami.natim
does not present a problem to the public and the environment and .therefure
remedial actions for the soil are rot necessary (Technical discussim and
justificatim for no actim en soil oontandnatim is addressed be1.cw
under, "No Action: Soil Contaminatioo".) However, the groundwater
oontami.natim poses a potential risk to the pt,blic health and envircn,ent.
Altha.1gh the site is not considered to be an .imnediate threat to potential
receptors, the potential for migratim of ca1taminants in the Class IIA
aquifer 'AQ11d caltinue to exist. '!he groundwater plume ooold eventually
disd1arge into the surface ~ters am ~ in wells domgradient £ran
the site or oontinue to oontaminate the residential wells 35() feet east
of the site with the potential for oontaminatim of deeper groundwater
nov:i.ng in a sc:uthward directim. Potential oontami.natim release and
pathways would rElt'Bin unchecked. '!be site '4IiCUld continue to be a potential
soorce of future centaminatien. '!here are no ooost.ruction or capital
inproverrents in this alternative. Tine is not:. a criterion. However,
receptors cx:uld be exposed at sane future time if migratim of groundwater
cattami.nant.s were to occur dcMngradient £ran the site.
Regulatory requirements am strategies in camectim with protecti<;Jl/ of
gramdwater exist. 'Ihe aquifer urnerlying the site is classified as
Class IIA, ~ch would indicate that it is of current use and part of a
multiple SCAJrce of drinKiR3 am darestic water supplies for ~gradient
camunities. 1egulatia18 require that such aquifers not be degraded or
oontami.nated. '!his cption 00es not. satisfy any currently applicable or
relevant State or Federal (RCRA) standards for the closure of a site
containing hazardcus naterials and wastes. Based upon the above
ca1Sideratim of public health, this no actim alternative has been
rejected.
.. - ....
~ .
-------
-13-
No Actioo:
Soil Ca1taminatien
The surface and subsurface soils are not extensively contaminated (See
Table 1-3) and the CX)l1taminatioo appears to be exnfined to the site
itself. A large nurtDer of the semple results are qualified with an "N"
signifying presurrptiive evidence of the material at the particular
locatim (See Figure 4-1). As discussed in EXrENl' OF SOIL CXJNl'AtfiNATICN
S~ICN the ally carcinogenic volatile organics chemicals detected
were tetrachloroethene (PCE) and methylene chloride. All methylene chloride
values reported are qualified with and N. PeE was detected in three
sanples at a maximun corx:entration of 460 ppb. The results also irxiicated
that in addition to the volatiles, low levels of P'1thalate esters,
p:>lyararatic hydrocarbons, and pesticides randanly distributed. Phthalate
esters, are widespread in the envircnnent and the pesticides oor, IDE,
DDD, are reported at very low levels and are only tentatively identified.
Toolene, Arochlor - 1016, Benzoic Acid and Cyanide aweared once in
August 1984 sarrpling roond ooly and not in July 1985.
Table 6-6 and 6-7 sUl'lllBrize the risks associated with the dermal absorption
and ingestioo of contaminants in soil at the site. These risk are very
low under the predicted eJqX)SUI'e scenarios. Dernal contact with am
pica ingestim of surface soils can present a slight risk to potential
receptcrs. Trespassing is not known to be a problem at the site, but
assuming that any such activity will occur thrOlghout the site and not
regularly in any one area, risks are less than 1x 10- 5 (9.2 x 10- 6 for
dermal Caltact and 3.9 x 10-6 for soil ingestioo). Th£:se estiDatErl risk
levels are due primarily to the presence of acenaphthene and pyrene in
t'NO isolated soil sarrples. These risks are high because current agency
policy is to use the same potency far these unclassified carcinogens as is
used for benzo(a)pyrene, a known animal carc:imgen. However, reoognizing
that the dermal contact risks presented in Table 6-6 and 6-7 were extremely
conservative (Le. persa1S received their entire lifetime accumulatioos
of soil on the skin fran this site and 10 percent of a contaminant in the
soil is absorbed through the skin), certain adjustments can be made.
A 3 percent absorptioo rate can be used based en I
-------
.;; .
f'.
..:'.'
: ;
'fABLE 3
SUMMAItY 01' I'OTI~NTIAI, UI~M~mAI. ACTION AI.T~UHATIVP.S
scum UlXIANA SIT"
Calegory Allcrnatlve Soli Contamination
No Uelllcdial Action
2 No Remedial Action; Periodic Sile
Inspect ions
II 3 Surrace Capping ("CERC!.A" Cap);
Surrace Grading and Revegetat ion
(Areas A and 0)
III .. Surrace Capping ("RCRA" Cap);
Surrace Grading and Revegetation
(A reas A and 13)
IV 5 Excavat ion or Contaminated Soils
It Areas A /I. Uj Uackrilling;
Surrace Grading and Revegetation;
Onsite LBndrill Disposal
v
,6
Excavation or Contaminated Soils
It Areas A lI. 0; Uackriltingi
Surrace Grading and Revegetation;
orrsite Landrill Disposal
Groundwater Contllmlnatlon
Cleanup Crlterlll
Method
No Remedial Action:.
No Remedial Action; Periodic Groundwater Sampling
and Analysis or
2A: No Remedial Action; Periodic Groundwater
Sampling and Analysis; and Institutional Controls
Groundwat er Ext racl lonrrrea I menl/lnject ion
or Surrac. Discharge; Hydrlulic Containmenl
Groundwater F.xtraction/Tr~at ment/lnject Ion
or su~race Dischargej Hydraulic Containment
Grouild~lterExt ract ionrrreat ment/lnject ion
or Surface Discharge; Hydrlulic Containment
.." I
Groundwater Extract ionrrreat ment/lnjection
or Surrace Dischargej Hydraulic Containment
MCL
MCL
MCI.
MCL
MCI.:
(a):
Maximum Contaminant Levels .
Costs associated with groundwater injection vs. sur race discharge have been Iveraged together ror purposes or this table.
III
7
No Rer:edia1 Action
Groundwater Extraction/
Treatment/Injection or
s~fa.ce Discharge; Hydraulic'
Containr.pnt .
P.cL
lIuellne!lI)
Capital
Costs
(1t,OOO)
-- or 35
755.9
771.5
809.4
786.6
751,250
"
n II A 1''1'
IIII:\I~ IInc(lI)
I'rcscnt
Worth
($1,000)
4B or 305
1,686.5
1,703.5
1,8H.5
1,713.9
1,679,500
-------
\
\
2",
~.~
~---.-----
------ -
~
\
r1tlW'2
MW-J ItIW-'
4.4
55-001-1
MC
55-001-2
4.4' - DOT
8124/84
380
8124184
62N
300J
330J
1600J
NOT FOIl DUION DR CONSTRUCTION USE.
LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS ARE FOR
FEASIBILlfV STUDY PURPOSES ONLY.
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SITE SOILS;
AREAS TARGETED FOR CAPPING
AND
POTENTIAL LOCATION OF ONSITE LANDFILL
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON CO.. SOUTH CAROLINA
50 0
~
50
-'
100
I
~C"LE IN FEET
.
M~
.." PCE
BEHP
OJ- n Bu Ph
BENZ AaD
C~I
DIETH. PHT~
J
N
.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~~ ~~ -:.
- - - - - - - - -:f;,:;"::::":;;--
N
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
BIS 12-ETHYLHEXYl I PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
BENZOIC AaD
CYANIDE
DIETHYLPHTHL ATE
ESTIMATED QUANTITY BECAUSE ALL
QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA WERE
NOT MET
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL
TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION
NUS RI SOIL BORING 161851
.
.
.
4
WELL INSTAllED PRIOR TO 1978
SCDHEC MONITORING WELL fl9801
NUS RI MONITORING WELL 191851
NUS RI PIEZOMETER 191851
NUS RI SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION ,I,
NOTE: ALL VALUES IN ugl"g.
(~
'.
FIGURE 4-1
.::NUS
CORPOHATION
O"."tllitlll'ljl,.f...t.!,..".
-------
T ABLB 6-6
CARCINOGBNIC RISK BSTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOILS
SCRDI DlXIANA SITB
LBXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Maximum Maximum Average Average
Soil Concentration Carcinogenic Soil Concentration Carcinogenic
Contaminant (mg/kg) Risk ~ Risk
tetrachloroetl.1ene 0.460 1.7 x 10-7 0.017 6.3 x 10-9
methylene chloride 0.230 8.9 x 10-10 0.029 1.1 x 10-10
acenaphthene 4.000 .. 2.8 x 10-4 0.125 8.8 x 10-6
pyrene 0.200 1.4 x 10-5 0.006 4.2 x 10-7
DDT/metabolites 0.043 9.0 x 10-8 0.002 4.2 x 10-9
Total Risk 2.9 x 10-4 9.2 x 10-6
(1 in 3,400) (1 in 108,000)
',' I
.~
-------
TABLE 6-7
CARCINOGENIC RISK RSTIMATRS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL INGESTION
SCRDI DlXIANA SITE
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Maximum Maximum Average Average
Soil Concentration Carcinogenic Soil Concentration Carcinogenic
Contaminant (mg/kg) Risk (mg/kg) Risk
tetrachloroethene 0.460 7.1 x 10-8 0.017 2.6 x 10-9
methylene chloride 0.230 3.7 x 10-11 0.029 4.7 x 10-11
acenaphthene !.OOO 1.2 x 10-4 0.125 3.7 x 10-6
pyrene 0.200 5.9 x 10-6 0.006 1.8 x 10-7
DDT/metabolites 0.043 3.7 x 10-8 0.002 1.7 x 10-9
Total Risk 1.3 x 10-4 3.9 x 10-6
(1 in 8,000) (1 in 257,000)
.'
.,
"
-------
Table 6-8
RISK ASSOCIATED WI'IH PAHs BASED ON 3%
ABSORPrION RATE
!
Ca1t.aminant
Risk at Max. Ca1c.
Risk at Ave. Ca1c.
acenaphthEl1e 8.5 x 10 - 5 2.7 x 10 - 6
pyrene 4.2 x 10 - 6 1.2 x 10 ~ 7
'lbtal Risk 8.9 x 10 - 5 2.8 x 10 - 6
. '.
. i
r;: '.':~. .
-------
-14-
In order to meet a total 1 x 10-6 risk goal for dermal absorption, the
following average soil concentrations should be attained (each contaminant
must meet a 5 x 10-7 risk goal, assuning the additivity of risk): .
Acenaphthene
pyrene
.024 ItYJ/kg
.024 ItYJ/kg
'!he action level to meet a total 1 x 10-7 risk goal 'NOuld be ap order of
magnitude lower. '!he action levels presented above are significantly
lower than those expected in urban or rural areas. Background levels of
total PARs (in ItYJ/kg) in soil are presented in Table 6-9. '!he data in
this table reveal that the levels of PARs found at the SCRDI Dixiana Site
are well within a "normal" range for many areas, and therefore may not be
site-related. Furthermore, there is no danger of the soil contaminants
migrating throUJh the ground and further contaminating the groundwater
aquifer. Contaminant levels fran the ground to the rcost shallow aquifer
were predicted using a conservative transport l1'Odel. Taking into account
toxicological factors, permeabilities, and the thickness of the aquifer,
verical migration of the soil contaminants did not add to the aquifer
contamination or increase the risks.
In sl..lm\ary, the soil contamination is minimal throUJhout the site and
does not require any remedial action. '!he primary route of exposure at
this site is throUJh the potential ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
'!herefore the remaining discussion on alternative evaluation and selection
will focus on a remedial action that 'NOuld alleviate the groundwater
contamination at the SCRDI Dixiana Site.
Alternative 2
No Remedial Action; Periodic Site Inspections
Under this alternative, existing groundwater contamination 'NOuld not be
remedied. Contaminated groundwater 'NOuld be left in its present state.
All aspects of this alternative are the same as those described under
Alternative l, with the exception of periodic sampling, analysis, and
report preparation concerning groundwater quality in the shallow subsurface
beneath the site. Sampling analysis, and report preparation 'NOuld be
performed semi-annually.
No remedial action with respect to groundwater contamination 'NOuld mean
that migration of contaminants 'NOuld continue and associated pathways
would remain unchecked. A no action alternative has no construction or
capital improvements, ~t sampling and site vists 'NOuld mean that the
site and groundwater contamination will be monitored an not go unnoticed.
However no remedial action on contaminated groundwater does not satisfy
any currently applicable or relevant State or Federal (RCRA) Standards
for the closure of a site containing hazardous materials and wastes.
Costs associated with this alternative, \o,Ould be limited to semi-annual
site vists, sampling of nt:>nitoring wells, and reports of findings No
capital or maintenance costs would be associated with this alternative~
Operating costs were estimated at $23,240 for ~ars 1 throUJh 30.
-------
Table 6-9
BACCGROUND LEVEIS OF 'lUl'AL PABa IN ng/kg
UX'ATICN
Center of 1:.Own, at highway
O1tlying sectioo of town, 1i~t
traffic, 400 m. fran nBin highway
Open cn.mty, 700 m. £ran nain highway
Alpine meadcw, 1600 m. elevation
.. '
cx:N:ENrRATICN
110 ng/kg
21 ng/kg.
5 ng/kg
4 ng/kg
-'
-------
-15-
Present worth is estimated at $220,000. Similar to alternative 1, no
remedial action on grOl.D'1dwater contanination provides no additional
protection to the public health fran contaminants in the groundwater
other than what is currently in place. Based upon this consideration of
public health, this no action al ternati ve has been rejected.
Alternative 2 A
.'
No Remedial Action:.. Institutional Restrictions
on Groundwater Usage: Periodic Sampling and analysis
Just as in Alternative 2, this alternative involves no remedial
action with respect to grol.l'1dwater contamination, leaves contaminated
groundwater in its present conditions, and inclLrles periodic inspections
of the site and surrounding area. '!he major difference between
Alternative 2 and this alternative are that the alternative includes
institutional restrictions on usage of groundwater within one an one-half
mile radius of the site, and offsite groundwater roonitoring as well as
onsite roonitori~. 'tt1e area within a one-half mile radius of the site
would be set up by local authorities as a zone inside which no .groundwater
withdrawal would be allowed (Le. resticted zone). Existing wells within
the zone would be condemned (or, if condemnation is not viable, p\blic1y
identified as potentially harmful to human health and the environment.
However, the EPA is currently l.I1certain about the long-term effectiveness
of institutional controls as a means of restricting groundwater use.
'!his posture stems fran the Agency's limited experience with such controls
and the current lack of criteria against which their effectiveness can be
judged, as well as uncertainty over the ability of a PRP or state to
maintain or continue extended response actions, and lrlcertainty regarding
Superfund's ability to oversee and fund additional response actions in
the future. As a result, the Superfund program generally does not
encourage groundwater remedies with long timeframes. Based on these
considerations, this no action alternative has been rejected.
Al ternati ve 3:
Soil Cootamination Surface Capping: ("CERCIA CAP") :
Surface Grading and Revegetation
Groundwater Cootanination Extraction/Treatment/
/Surface Discharge: H}draulic Contairnnent
'!his alternative involves the placement of a seal, or cap over contaminated
areas. Contaminated soils would remain in their existing places and be
covered by the cap. Sealing/Capping is a carm:>n remedial technology for
isolating contaminated materials. Under Category II it would meet CERCIA
goals but would not attain other applicable or relevant standards (Le.
RCRA CAP). Based on the earlier discussion justifying no action for soil
contamination, this alternative remedy is not necessary. '!he benefits
of reduci~ risks to the ptblic health and environment, are not substantial
enough in terms of cost and practicality, therefore this action is rejected.
For groundwater contamination, extraction and treatment to alternate
concentration levels (ACLs) for individual contaminants will be selected
and discussed under Alternative 7-Reccmnended Alternative.
-------
-16-
Alternative 4
Soil Contanination: Surface Capping
(RCRA CAP"): Surface GradiDJ and Revegetation
Groundwater Contanination: Extraction/Treatment/
Surface Discharge: H}draulic Contaminant
,
This alternative involves the construction of a seal cap over .contaminated
areas, canpared to Alternative 3, this surface seal would have roore
striDJent design specifications, and would meet RCRA goals. However,
due to the explanation in No Action Soil Contamination and the Alternative
3 section this alternative was rejected. Groundwater oontanination
cleanup rationale will be deferred to the discussion on Alternative 7.
Alternative 5
Soil Contamination:Excavation of Contaninated Soils
Q1site Disposal: Surface GradiDJ and Revegetation
Groundwater Contaminatioo: Extraction/Treatment"
Surface Discharge: H}draulic Contaminant
This alternative inclu:\es excavation aoo rerooval of contaminated soils
and then disposal in a landfill to be constructed on the site. However
due to minimal soil contamination, excavation of soils, as with surface
cappiDJ is not necessary at this site. 'therefore this alternative is
rejected as a viable remedial action.
Alternative 6
Soil Contamination: Excavation of Contaminated
and Offsite Disposal:
Surface Grading & Revegetation
Groundwater Contamination:Extraction/Treatment/
Surface Discharge
soils
This alterntive represents a roore canprehensive remedial measure than
preceding alternatives as contaminated soils would be renoved fran the
site and disposed of in an offsite pennitted hazardous waste landfill.
However this alternative was rejected for the same reasons as explained
in Alternatives 3, 4, am 5. The groundwater contamination alternative
will be discussed in the following section.
-------
-17-
AI ternati ve 7
Groundwater Extraction/Treatment/
Surface Discharge
'!his alternative has been selected as the reccmnended alternative action
for the SCRDI Dixiana Site. In this alternative, grOlmdwater and entrained
contaminants are extracted using deep well technology, contaminated
groll'1dwater is treated at an onsite water treatment system and treated
groundwater discharged to the surface. '!he objective of this alternative
is to reduce the concentration of contaminants in the groll'1dwater to
levels where potential risk to hllTlan health and the environment are
reduced to acceptable levels, and to hydraulically control the migration
of contcrninants in the grOlmdwater. '!he intent of extraction and treatment
of groundwater is first to attain the allowable levels for each individual
contaminant present beneath the SCRDI Dixiana site, and secondly, to
attain an alternate concentration level (ACL) for the cambination of all
effluent ~undS fran the treatment system so that the cunUlative risk
is 1.0 x 10-. '!he AC1.s applicable to groundwater used as a .source of
potable water for this renedial action, are presented in Table 4. '!he
ACLs represent allowable lifetime exposure to a contaminant thrOlgh
ingestion. Exposure limits are adjusted for bodily absorptioo associated
with ingestion and reflect the technological and economic feasibility of
rem:>ving the contaminants fran the water supply using the best available
. technology. '!he ACLs also inclooe a margin of safety to protect sensitive
populations.
W9lls with sutrnersible punps 1«>uld be utilized in this alternative to
extract contaminated' groundwater. '!he design of this syst~~uld. entail
a detailed hydrogeologic investigation. '!he Feasibility S~y presents a
canputer nodel for the design of a water treatment system for this site.
'!he design takes into account the hydrologic properties of the contaminated
shallow aquifers and its observed leakage and apparent hydraulic connection
with the deeper aquifer (See Figure 4-8) ~ ..'!he treatment facilitY,1«>uld
be constructed onsite and operated for a period of approximately 30
}lears. '!his is dependent on the treatment process, flow rates, performance
of the system determined fran groundwater rronitoring, and desired levels
of remediation. In Table 3-1 theoretical concentrations are tabulated for
each of the contaminants based on operating the system for 3 I'IDnths and
upwards to 10 }lears. '!hese values are postulated since it is uncertain
what affect the system 1«>uld have on the chemicals taking into. account
the "flushing" action created by the extraction punps, dispersion and
natural attenuation. .
The treatment process will inclooe air stripping and carbon adsorption.
Risk associated wi th inhalation of airborne contaminants fran the stripper
colunn will be minimal. 1btal risks at the nearest possible receptor
(residential wells) will be approximately 1 x 10-6. (See Table 6-5).
-------
r,
..'.' .
.;.;
TABLB 6-4
CARCINOGBNIC RISK BSTIMATRS ASSOCIATBD WITH INGBSTION OP GROUNDWATBR
SCRDI DlXIANA 81TB
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Monitoring Wells Residential Wells
Minimum Mean. Maximum Minimum Maximum
Contaminant Concentration Concentrat ion Concentrat ion Concentrat ion Concentration
.
benzene 4.1 x 10-6 2.4 x 10-7 5.0 x 10-6 ND NO.
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 4.0 x 10-6 1.4 x 10-4 NO ND
1,1, I-trichloroethane 2.3 x 10-7 1.6 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-6 1.5 x 10-6
1,2-dichloroethane 3.9 x 10-7 1.4 x 10-5 ~ ND NO
tetrachloroethene 3.9 x 10-5 3.1 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-3 8.6 x 10-6
trichloroethene 9.6 x 10-6 2.4 x 10-6 4.5 x 10-5 ND ND
1,I-dichloroethene 8.4 x 10-6 9.2 x 10-5 2.0 x 10-3 2.1 x.l0-5 3.8 x 10-5
carbon tetrachloride 3.7 x 10-5 9.3 x 10-5 1.2 x 10-3 1.9 x 10-5
chloroform 4.0 x 10-6 8.0 x 10-6 1.3 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5
methylene chloride 2.5 x 10-6 4.9 x 10-7 1.2 x 10-5 NO NO
benzo(a)pyrene 1.6 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-3 ND NO
n-nitrosodipheny la mine 7.0 x 10-8 2.8 x 10-6 ND ND
bis(2-chloroethy l)ether 6.5 x 10-4 9.8 x 10-5 1.7 x 10-3 ND NO
Total Risk 7.6 x 10-4 4.9 x 10-4 1.3 x 10-2 2.2 x 10-5 7.7 x 10-5
(1 in 1,300) (1 in 2,000) (1 in 78) (1 in 45,000) (1 in 13,000)
Notes:
"
.
- Means calculated by adding all detections (all non-detections were assumed to be zero) and dividing by total' number of
samples (37). Therefore, risks from mean concentrations can be less than the risks from minimum concentrations
because the mean can be less than the minimum detected value.
- The contaminant was detected only once, and therefore is included with the maximum risks to present a worst-case
scenario.
Not Dctectcd
-------
Tl'.BLE ~
1.L~r: "21l.':i: CO~,1CE: 7':'~.':: I():~
L~VI:LS/ i'L':'E~1'.':'I'.T::; 7
Chemical
Proposed Ace (1)
Basis
AP.nzem
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachlor.oethane
1,1,1 - Trich10rethane
1,1,2 - Tr.'ichloroothane
1,2 - oich10roethane
Tp.tracl11oroothene
Trich1orO':th~np.
1,1 - Dich10rocthene
. Carhon tetrach10rioe
Ch1orofoJ:'TI\
l~thy1ene cl110ride
Acenaphth~ne
Benzo(a)pyrcne .
Nitro~crliDI1~nylamine
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Ars~nic
Cc""\o~ i lM
ChrCMiulT\
Cop?,!,:
Irf)n
S
0.2
200
0.1)
5
0.7
S
7
5
0.11
5
(2)
0.003
7.1
0.01
50
J.O
50
1,000 (3)
300 (3)
p~\CL
~
~'\CL
CAG
pt'1CL
C!\,:;
pt-1C!T,
i!~"CL
pMCL
CAG
CAr,
CAG
A\'T:?C
CAG
r-\CL
. 1>1Cr.. .
t1CL
ST:X'7R
sa.m
. ~~'J? -
(1)
( 2)
pMCL - Propo~Ched to ensur.e
a!1sthetic acceptability of. drinking water. (taste, 0001:', etc.). HO'Never,
th8Y '....ould also provide pr.oter.:tion.",oainst pot0.ntial adverse 'h~~lth
pf.f.cctr; f.r.011 th0 ::;;"rne contami.nants.
_.....J.
. ,'.
,~=== ::-':',:..~.;~-_:: ". ._~..a._.-',~'~-==-----
-- -- ----~-- - - ----- ----
.. . ~', - - . --,. - -. - - ~ '--r ,- - . ,
.._~1.,.- :::-::: ---:-~:-',
-------
-----.--- -- -
".
.'
, ,
T1'"BLE 3-'
TIIEoRf:nCl\l CONT I\MINANT CONCENTltA nONS AfTER
J, 6, 12, 2', ANI) 120 MONTI IS or GltOUNOW A TElt TltEA TMENT
FOR AQtJlrEns cll) ANn r - SCROI OIXIANA SITE
(nI\SED ON PUMPING RATE OF '.2] 1/5)
(ug/I)<2) (ug/I)<2) (ug/I)<2) (ug/I)<2) (ug/OW
u&ll TheoreticaJ Theoretical Theoretical Theorer,ical Theoretical
Maximum (ug/I)< I) Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Detected Weighted Alter] Months After 6 Months After 12 Months After 2' Months After 120 Months
Conc. Mean Conc. Flushing Time Flushing Time Flushing Time Flushing Time Flushing Time
Benzene 6 j 3.9 3.0 1.8 0.6- 1.8 x 10-'.
Toluene 17 6.1 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
X ylenes 31 7.6 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 25 6.& 5.3 '-2 2.5- 0.9- 2.4 x 10-4.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane }60 61.7 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
1,1,2 Trichloroethane 5 5 3.5 2.} 1.2 0.3- 3.4 x 10-6-
I 0 I, I Dichloroethane 430 60.4 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
1,2 Dichloroethane 7 5.2 4.0 2.] 0.7- 0.08- 1.2 x 10-9.
max used
600 6,U 61.7 58.2- 51.8- "1.1- I 6.5-
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene 130 22.1 18.5 -; 15.9 10.8- 5.3- 0.0174.
1,2 Dichloroethene "9 10.8 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
J, J Dichloroethene "70 77.9 69.0 61.0 "7.0- 29.0- 0.6-
Carbon Tetrachloride 310 87.5 76." 66.6 50." 29.0- 0."-
Chloroform 64 15.7 9.7 5.9- 2.2- 0.3- 4.2 x 10-8.
Methylene Chloride 690 17.J 7.5- 3.2- 0.6- 0.02- 3.4 x 10-14-
Phenol 20 10.9 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
Methyl Phthalate 20 10.9 DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC DNEC
N -ni trosodiphenylamine 20 10 9.6 9.J 8.6 7.3 2.0-
bi s-( 2-chloroethyl)e t he r 53 16.1 10.4 6.2 2.3- 0.3- 2.lx 10-8-
Notes: "
(I) Weighted mean average derived from OfM calculation }/6/86 in AppcndiK D of feasibility Study.
(2) Theoretical flushing times derivcd from equations in Appendix D of feasibility Study.
ONEC Contaminant conccntration in groundwater does not eKceed MCL or AD! concentrations on Table Ii.} of feasibility Swdy.
Contaminant conccntration in groundwater does not exceed ACL concentrations for a cummulative Ix 10-6 risk.
III~/l =. "" g/I
-------
TABLE 6-5
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OP
VOLATILE ORGANICS IN RESIDENTIAL WELLS
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE .
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Maximum Concentration
In Residential Wells
- (m5t/m3)
0.032
0.005
0.009
0.005
0.005
1,1,1-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1,1-dichloroethene
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
Total Risk
-'
Carcinogenic
Risk
6.0 x 10-8
3.5 x 10-7
1.5 x 10-6
7.6 x 10-7
.4.1 x 10-7
3.1 x 10-6
(1 in 324,000)
-------
-18-
Extraction, treatment and surface discharge groundwater are u::\IIILAlly used
techoologies in remedial actialS. M=>ni taring the progress of cootami.nant
. extraction is prcbably the JroSt critical factor affecting the overall
reliability of this alternative. The design of the equipnent should
inclooe sufficient redundancy and spare parts to pennit uninterrupted
operation. Design, oonstructim, and testing of the treatment system
~d require abcut one year to CCIIplete. Once the design is CXltplete,
the system CDJld prcbably be installed in 60 days to 90 days and becane
cpratiooal in 60 to 90 days after installatim. A period of experimental
cprations ~uld be required to "time" the system and establish a reliable
cperatim.
If injection of treated grO\mdwater is inplemented at the site, then
South Carolina WQUld be the pennitting agency and the South Carolina' s
cleanup criteria fer rejecticn will apply where that criteria is ncre
stringent them the aforementioned AQs. Also surface discharge 'NOUld
require a permit fran applicable South Carolina State Agencies. SUrface
discharge WQUld be to a nearby surface water point sour~ am/or .the
effluent can be disd1arged on the site soils based on the hydraulic
capacity of the subject area. land applicatim tedmologies inclUding
infiltratim basins,tiling fields,and irrigatioo will be oonsidered during
remedial design. .
An extractioo/treatment alternative '-OUl.d reduce the threats to groundwater
pathways that currently exist at the site. Arr.i other risks will be
associated with those performing the investigatim, well installatioo,
and operating the treatment system. This W01ld be a Category III actim
that '-OUl.d meet. CERCIA goals and attain all applicable or relevant Federal
public health or enviramental standards, guidelines and/or advisory
docunents. Costs associated with this alternative are presented in
Table 3. The costs are theoretical and depend on the design of the
system and the effectiveness of the treatment prcx:ess. Theoretical costs
are given in Table 3-2 far the system in operatioo for periods less than
30 years. Although Alternative 7 costs ncre than the no action alternatives
1 thru 2A, the p.1blic health and envircnrental benefits, arxl.engineering
- practicality justify the additiooal costs. Based on these considerations,
alternative 7 was selected as the remedial alternative actimfor this
site.
Alternative SUggested By Public at Public Meetings
The alternative r~lll.ended by several residents of Lexington Cotmty was
Alternative 1. No actioo alternative for both soil and groundwater. . The
najority of the participants at the meeting deferred to the judgement of
both the Federal, State and Coonty Officials who were undecided.
Alternative 1 is envircnnentally unacceptable since the groundwater
ccntaminatioo will caltinue to be a threat to potential receptors
downgradient fran the site. The alternative is politically unacceptable
because it W01ld not meet the cleanup criteria established by the EPA or
State of South Carolina.
'- '
-------
-
TADLE 3 -2,.
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS.
(DASELINE VALUES)
Soil Contamination:
No Remedial Action
Groundwater Contamination:
Extraction and Onsite Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater; Groundwater Will be Cleaned (0 AC L
Levels and Reinjected or Discharged
Capital
Prescnt Worth Expenditures Costs..
($) ($) ($)
3 Months 784,000 75~,250 34,600
6 Months 815,500 751,250 .69,250
12 Months 878,500 751,250 .138,450
24 Months 974,000 751,250 253,600
120 Months 1,441,500 751,250 1,043,600
(10 yrs.)
360 Months 1 ,679, 50'0 751,25"0' r-',
2,128,10Q.
(30 yrs.)
,.
' ..
..u,.'.
, . ..
I..
. ,.i.. '.I' !' ~
.
Injection wells and surface discharge costs were averaged together for
purposes of this table.
**
~. ,. Costs have not been discounted for purposes of this table.
These costs are for the actual cleanup of the site during the
These costs are not the O&M cost that are necessary following
the remedial action.
remedial action.
the 'completion of
. - - - .. . - - .- - -.. ---
-------
-19-
Advance 'lechnology Alternative
1he following technologies were reviewed in the Feasibility Stlrly:
Incineration, Solution Mining, Microbial Degradation, In-si tu treatment
of groundwater, Permeable Treatment beds and Precipition, Flocculation,
and Sedimentation. In order to determine the feasibility and the
implementabilityof any techniques listed above, a ~ar to a t~ ~ar
stu::\y would be required, after which a ptblic meeting and the t:ament
period would take place. Since these alternatives would ential an additional
delay and it is the EPAs policy to attain acceptable levels of cleanup at
a site within the shortest time possible, than rapid restoration of the
site is a top priority along with cost effectiveness. For this reason
these technologies were not considered further.
Oammunity Relations
1he levels of concern were not high as a result of the public meeting held
to present the findings of the RIfFS. 1here were two cxmnents aily, fran
the 20 + people at the meeting. Also the EPA received two l&tters fran
concerned citizens regarding the investigation and public meeting. Q1e
letter written by a PRP just agreed with a no action alternative and the
. other letter written by an environmental organization rejected all the
alternatives and demanded the detoxification of the contaminants onsite.
COOSISTENCY WITH CYmER ENVIRC.HmNTAL lAWS
It is EPA Policy to give primary consideration to remedial actions that
attain or exceed applicable or relevant Federal environmental or public
health standards.
State and local standards should also be considered: however State
standards that are m::>re stringent that Federal Standards may form basis
for the remedy only if the result is consistent with the cost effective
remedy based on Federal standards. 1he State may also pay the additional
cost necessary to attain the State standard(s). '!he envircnnental or
PUblic health laws which may be releveant or applicable to the site are:
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
'!he RCRA requirements for groundwater cleanup levels will apply
to final action at the site. Any requirements for soil rem:>val
and dispoosal are not applicable.
- Floodplain Management Executive ~er 11988 (E.O. 11988)
'!he purpose of this chapter is to implement Executive ~r 11988,
May 24, 1977, 42 F.R. 26951 entitled Floodplain Management. '!his order
requires the evaluation of potential effects of actions taken in a
floodplain to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minUnize the impact of
floods on hunan safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve
the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. -
~ ..
-------
-20-
'!he entire SCRDI Dixiana Site is located in an area beyond the 50o-~ar
floodplain boundarY7 therefore, the site is subject to min~l flooding
(Flood Insurance Rate Map 1981.)
- Clear Water Act (CWA)
The action proposed at the site by this document will comply
with the requirements of the act since there is no surface water
contamination attributable to thi~ site. -'
- Occupational Safety and "health Administration (OSHA) requiremnts.
Any applicable OSHA requiremnts will be addressed during the
detailed design phase of the selected alternative. OSHA
requirements address such concerns as on-site worker safety and
health. All alternatives can be designed to be in fully canpliance
with all OSHA requirements.
- GrO\,mdwater Protection Strategy (GWPS)
'!he GWPS is an applicable standard for this site. '!be cleanup of
the groundwater to levels reccmnended by Region IV Office of
Groundwater Protection would require approx~tely 10 years to
accanplish. The selected alternative will guarantee clean water
for user of the groundwater.
- Department of Transportation
oor requirements for hovements of hazardous wastes will address
the residue fran the spent carbon adsorption cell after treatment
of the waste.
- Other
There are no other known applicable laws, relevant Federal laws, or
regulations which apply to this site.
Reccmnended Alternative
In canpliance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances ~llution
Contingency plan (40 CFR 300.68), the alternative recarmended in this
docl.lDent is an alternative which will resolve the environmental problem
at the site and will adequately protect the plblic health and welfare.
The no-action alternative for groundwater contamination only, does not
adequately ensure that the pli:>lic health, welfare and the envirorment
would not be degraded further. '!he alternatives which would implement
surface caps or excavation and disposal were not applicable to the
conditions at this site because of the min~l soil contamination being less
than background levels. The cost figures in Table 3 present the baseline
capital and average present worth cost for each alternative. '!he
reccmnended Alternative 17 is the roost cost effective remedy and affords
the site surroundings the greatest protection to public health and
envirorrnent.
-------
"'I
-21-
~atia1 and Maintenance (0 & M)
This remedy can require anywhere £ran 3 years to 30 years °to accarplish.
This time limit depends on the cperatim of the system, the effect of the
treatment process on the contaminants, and the natural attenuatim and
degradation of these contaminants. The cperating costs will be far the
iJrplementation and the operatim of the purtps sytens msite, and maintenance
of that sYStem. When the remedy is carpleted, the cost required Will be
to maintain the rest.cred site, and pericxlic narltoring to insure the
perrranence of the remedy. The State of Sooth Carolina will be responsible
far this latter cost after one year £ran ~en the remedy is carpleted.
The State of Sooth Carolina will not be respcl1Sible for any O&M costs
before the renady is catpleted. The State funding will be needed for
site maintenance and m:nitoring after cleanup. The State will fund its
prtion of the remedial effort £ran it's own "Superfund" and O&M and
legislative allocation as needed.
It is r-..
-------
South Caroli~a Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia. S.C. 29201
Board
Moses H. Clarkson. Jr., Chairman
Gerald A. Kaynard, Vice-Chairman
Oren L. Brady, Jr.. Secretary
Barbara P. Nuessle
James A. Spruill, Jr.
William H. Hester, M.D.
Euta M. Colvin. M.D.
. Commissioner
Robert S. Jackson, M.D.
S~r 25, 1986
.'
Mr. Dennis J. Man;raniello
Remedial Project Manager
Emergency & Remedial Response Branch
US EPA, Region rJ
345 courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Draft Record of Decision (roD)
SCRDI Dixiana Site, I.exin;Jtcn cmnty
. ... . .
'- .
Dear Mr. Man;raniello:
on September 24, 1986, representatives £ran this office and the
Grourxlwater Protection Division met with Mr. Ralph Jemin;J am ycurself to
n; c:rouss the proposed remedial action alternative seven (7) in the draft
Record of Decision (roD). In this rPtDedial action alternative for the
SCRDI Dixiana Site, EPA .proposes to extract and treat the contaminated
qrourxiwater ansite by us~ air strippin; am carbon adsoIption to
alternate concentration levels before surface discharge. In the meetin:J,
clarifications were reachecl on O&M costs in relation to State
participation, surface dishcarge, and the need for additional studies to
completely define the extent of contamination in the qrourxiwater aquifers.
'!his office c:xmcurs with the proposed alternative in that the onsite
contaminated soils 'NCUld be left in place and that it might be" beneficial
to consider the utilization of treated qrourxiwater on site to flush 0It arrj
remain:inq soil oontaminants duri.rx1 the 0CLU"S8 of the remediation. '!be
surface discharge of treated qrourxiwater sha.1ld be explanded to include a
point source discharge to surface waters CUXVor land application which
could include infiltration basins, spray irrigation and tile fields. It
was reca.lIIl~ in the proposed alternative that the captial costs on the
PL~ ~ial alternative be funded at 90% federal funds and 10% state
funds. '!he operatirq costs will caver the inplementation and operation of
the pump systems on site, air strippin} system, cartxm adso%ption system
and the maintenance of these systems. DJrirg the remediation of this site,
operatiIg costs will be 100% federal fumed. one year after the site has
been remediated, the State with its own furx:!s will maintain the restored
site and conduct periOdic mnitorirg to ensure the permanence of the
~ation. 'Ibis office concurs that durirr;J the ~ial design of this
site, additional studies will be perfoImed to completely define the extent
of contamination of the qrourxiwater aquifers. With these clarifications in
min:i, this letter can be cxmstrued as as "confiJ:mation of approval" letter
on the proposed ~al action alternative seven (7).
-------
Mr. Dennis J. Man;aniello
.september 25, 1986
Page 2
If there are arty questions on this subject matter, please contact me
or Bob Sentelle at (803) 734-5200.
sincerely,
,ryf~;f ,
fP~ R. Ullery, P , Director
Division of site ineerirq &
Response Activities
an-eau of SOlid & Hazarda1s
waste Management
!
JRU:elf
00: Bci) Kirg
Bci) Sente1le
Coleman Miles
Raynad Rnox
Ed McDcwell
. I. ~ -''''
...:. ; ........~
...:.;.y.. - -)
- -. ..
r
.,.
-------
/
~(4.
.:::::z
Dlte
From
Subject
To
'10."'. .
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .~ IIUMAN SERVICES
Public H~alth Service
Agency for Toxic Substancn
ana'Disease R.e~istry
Memorandum
SEP 1 0 1986
Acting Director
Office of Health Assessment
Review of Revised Feasibility Study (July 1986)
Addendum to Comments on SCDRI-Dixiana Site (SI-86-141)
.'
Mr. Casimer V. Pietrosewicz
Pubic Health Advisor
EPA Region IV
."
".". .
'..,11"
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Agency for Toxic Substances and D"isease Registry (ATSDR) previously
reviewed and commented on the Proposed Remedial Alternatives for the
SCDRI-Dixiana Site in a memorandum dated June 20, 1986.- On July 29, 1986.
- -
Hr. Robert C. Williams. _P..~.. ATS?R. .Office of Health Assessment, visited
the site and attended a public meeting where the remedial-alternatives for
the site were discussed.
also issued in July 1986.
A Revised Draft Feasibility Study (RDFS) was
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region IV, is preparing a Record of Decision for this site and has
requested ATSDR's comments on the RDFS.
DISCUSSION
ATSDR's review of the Draft Feasibility Stpdy concluded the description
and characterization of groundwater contamination within the operable unit
was-inadequate. We further concluded that to commence groundwater re:edi-
ation activities at this time would be premature without further investi-
gat ion.
The RDFS agrees with these conclusions and states that "addi-
tional site investigations will be necessary to further define those site
characteristics which will directly influence the detailed planning and
design of the selected alternative."
to remediation of this site.
We believe this is a sound approach
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Casimer V. Pietrosewicz
Six remedial alternatives are presented in' the RDFS.
As discussed in our
previous review, we do not feel the No Remedial Action or No Remedial
Action with Continued. Periodic'Site Insoections alternatives provide
sufficient protection of public health.
From a public health perspective,
we have no serious disagreement with the remaining alternatives.
Yith the
caveat that additional site investigations will precede' a~tual implemen-
tation, we believe the remai~ing alternatives should provide sufficient
surety of public health protection. " "
" ,
Our concerns with the No Remedial Action with Continued. Periodic Site
Insoections alternative center on groundwater contamination, as opposed to
soil contamination. Soil contamination at this site does not appear to
pose an imminent health threat to those residing nearby. This is based on
the low level concentrations reported in the RDFS and o~servations of the
site made during the ATSDR site, visit. If access to the site is restrict-
ed, the potential for human exposure to contaminated soil would be
minimal.
).,:& t-'4 4v
Jeffrey A. Lybarger,
H.D.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3036S
Date: " *~! * 'J"J>
Subject: SCRDI Dixiana Site, Revised Feasibility Study
From: Chief, Ground-Water Technology Unit «
To: Dennis Manganiello, Project Manager
RAS, Waste Management Division
In my memorandum to you dated June 30, 1986 (copy attached) our primary
recommendation for remedial action at the subject site was Remedial Action
Alternative No. 3. This alternative involved placement of a CERCIA-type
surface cap over the area of contaminated soils, and extraction, treatment and
re-injection of contaminated ground-water. It has since come to our attention
that another alternative has been formulated in the revised Feasibility Study
which involves no action with respect to contaminated soils while retaining
the ground-water clean-up proposal. Since much of the contaminated soil
material has already been removed from the site, we support the omission of a
CERCLA-style surface cap from the proposed remedial action.
Otherwise, our recommendations as contained in the June 30, 1986 memorandum
remain unchanged. The alternate concentration limits (ACL's) provided in
Dr. Ken Orloff's memorandum which were attached at that time should be used as
ground-water clean-up goals.
If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Bernie Hayes at
X3866.
Gail D. Mitchell
-------
Ccjmunity Relations Responsiveness
Sumnary
SCRDI DIXIANA SITE
Lexington County
Cayce, South Carolina
Introduction
For the public record, this summary documents concerns raised during the
ccmnent period on the feasibility study. Concerns raised during the
comment period from July 29, to August 15, were responsed to by the
Remedial Project Manager of the SCRDI Dixiana site.
At the July 29 public meeting the Lexington county residents and administrators
were very interested in the investigation of the site. The information
repository was placed at the R.H. Smith Library, Cayce, South Carolina.
The following two connents were made at the public meeting:
1. One resident stated that he lives one hundred yards east of the
site and there is no problem with both the soil and groundwater
around the site.
2. One of the members of the SCRDI Comnpany stated that the
municipal landfill north of the site is the real problem and
should be investigated inmediately.
Aside from the presentation given by the EPA, the above comments were the
only points raised during the ninety minute public meeting. The comment
period for the site went from July 29 thru August 19, 1986, two letters
were received from concerned citizens. These letters have been copied
and attached to this report.
Letters and Responses addressing Comunity Concerns
1. One letter was from a tax paying citizen who is president of the
Citizens asking for a Safe Environment (CASE) and she urged
detoxification (on site) of the contamination at the SCRDI
Dixiana Site. She did not believe that the techniques listed in the
remedial alternatives for the site would alleviate the serious
condition at the site.
RESPONSE: A copy of the EPA response letter to this concern is attached.
To summarize the response >the EPA takes the position that the
remedial alternatives evaluated and selected were the most
cost-effective and beneficial to the public health and
environment. Detoxification, as opposed to air stripping and
carbon absorption, would entail some alternative technologies
that would not be practical to implement and may not detoxify
all the contaminants.
-------
2. Another letter was from the president of the SCRDI Company who informed
the EPA that he hopes this "nightmare" would lift someday and would
like to sell a antiques and old books at Dixiana. Whether he means
to sell antiques on the site ground itself is uncertain at this time.
RESPONSE: The EPA response is attached. In summary, the response explained
the schedule of the anticipated cleanup of the site and recommended
that no one should conduct any type of retail business at the -
site which would attract other nearby residents and people
passing by the site.
Remaining Concerns
Assuming that the most recent groundwater sampling indicates that no
contamination has reached residential wells, the public should periodically
be reassured of the potability for their wells until cleanup activities
are completed. This can be accomplished by FITs or ESDs with minimum
additional expense. Care should be taken to inform residents of the
results of this periodic testing.
-------
-
rlUKd
III
Q'hce 803 786-7309
Home 803 754-5285
lIax G. Gergel
P.O. BOX 176
'ATE PARK, S.C, 29147
Fluka ChemIcal Co,p.
980 South Second St'Ht
Ronkonkoma, N- Valli 11779
PrIG".516-467-0980
Max G. Gerget-
Technical Sales and Promotion
, OFFICE: 18031 786-7309
RESIDENCE: 180317'40'.
IF NO ANSWER: 18031 2'6-3
P.O. 80. 176 Stat. Pm. South Carolina 29147
--_._--~ - . .
'.
----.---u. ...- "
August 8. i986
.'
Mr. Dennis Manganiello
U. S. Environmental Protection
Region IV
3~5 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30)65
Agency
'.'
. .~::.
'. ,
Dear Mr. Manganello,
Thank you for the help you have given me, Mr. Chase and
my attorney Mr. Foard. Some time this nightmare should li1't
and we should be able to sell antiques and old books at Dixiana
which is what we are hoping to do-and why Chase ,and, I pay the
taxes. I am 65 and out of chemistry except as a writer and
consultant.
Sincerely,
~~
Max G. Gergel
~, :....
-------
Adventures in Making Fine Chemicals
Reviewed by Stephen C. Sllnson
For Max Gergel's friends in the
chemical industry, there is good
news and bad news. The good news
is that Gergel remembers and trea-
sures his friendships. The bad news
is that he's blessed with total recall,
and he's telling everything.
"The Ageless Gergel" is the second
autobiographical volume in what
Gergel threatens will be a tetralogy.
The first was "Excuse Me Sir, Would
You Like To Buy a Kilo of Isopropyl
Bromide?" published in 1979. For
all the off-color stories in the
present book, Gergel might have
called it "The Blue Max."
Max G. Gergel was born July 24,
1921, in Philadelphia, where his
mother, who lived in Columbia,
S.C., was traveling at the time. This
is one. secret that this gracious
southern gentlemen with an un-
mistakable accent has not revealed
in his writings to date: He is a closet
Yankee. Gergel graduated in chemi-
cal engineering from the University
of South Carolina in 1942. In 1944,
he founded Columbia Organic
Chemical Co. to produce laboratory
reagents and industrial fine chemi-
cals. He retired from the company
in 1977 and now consults, chiefly on
halogens and alkyl halides.
In 1961, an academic friend invit-
ed Gergel to present a seminar on
"How To Lose One's Shirt Running
a Small Chemical Company." This
impromptu string of ribald, self-
deprecatory anecdotes became the
The career of an
entrepreneur running a
small chemical business
is replete >vith both
hazards and humor
"The Ageless Gergel" by Max G.
Gergel, P & M Publishing Co., Box
176, State Park. S.C. 29147, 218
pages, $15
Stephen C. Stinson, who writes for
C&EN in New York, admits to being an
unreconstructed gergelophile
thrifty. We also excelled in prepar-
ing chemicals so toxic that only the
desperate, staffed by the ignorant,
would care to make them."
He remembers the final distilla-
tion of a batch of ferf-butoxycar-
f
bonyl azide by employee Ed Hunt-
er. "Alas, the joint of the dropping
funnel was defective, and too much
crude material flowed in.
"Promptly the chemicals, the
flask, all the apparatus on the table,
the table, the room, and part of the
ceiling flew in a thousand direc-
tions. Ed had been in the doorway,
holding an empty cup, which he
planned to fill with coffee in an ad-
joining building. He sailed in a par-
abolic arc. the run H
-------
c
I
PIT: 41JD-ER
Mr. Max G. Gergel
P.O. Cox 176
State Park, G.C. 291-V7
Dear Mr. Gergel: ;-.-
The remedy selected for the GCRDI Dixiana cite is cproundwatcr extraction,
trcatr,icr;t and discharge to acceptable limits. This remedy can ta":;c up to
10 years to complete. I recormencl that you do not establish any kind of
rusint'ss at. the site. This would result in additional tralfic and people
entering the site perimeter that vxxild ctlierwise not occur. There is
still ccntarination on the site and third party intrudes s.-iould t«
discouraged and not encouraged to come into the polluted area.
If you have cny questions Mbout thit» response or the site investigation
and decision, please do not hesitate to call me at (404) 347-2643.
Sincerely
Tennis -^' Mancanielao
Ker«xiial l^roject
L'rtrcuncv' and Remedial
Rcsponae Branch
4VD-ER 4WD-ER 4WD-LR
MM/SANIELLO JENNINGS MCCOE1-1ICK
rT TO; AI>iJ; 9-17-86; 2643
-------
August 9, 1986
Mr. Dennis Manganiello
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Agency
-'
Dear Mr. Manganiello:
As a tax paying citizen in South Carolina and as President of
for a Safe Environment (CASE) whose membership is over 6,000,
urge you to use detoxification (on site) of the contamination
Dixiana Site, Lexington, S.C.
Citizens As'hng
I strongly",.
at the SCRDI
None of the short-term bandaid treatments mentioned as alternatives on this
site's EPA Fact Sheet are in fact solutions. None of the alternatives destroy
the contaminants - air stripping only takes the poisons out of the groundwater
and puts it in our air; and, the offsite landfill disposal alternative only
removes the poisons from one area and dangerously transports it to another
contaminated area (this landfill is usually already leaking itself).
All 'of the listed alternative procedures are a great expense to American
taxpayers and the problem is certainly not remedied in any way, only moved
from one element to another - a game of checkers!
Thank you,
~~~H~
Rt. 1, Box 35
Wedgefield, S.C. 29168
-------
"
I
I .
i
!
I
I
I
I
,.
I
. .
! .: \':- . <:. :
'.
. .
I1ET:
~\'D-ER
V,ft. Carol D. Boykin
r.t. 1. Dox 35
W~~9~field, S.C. ~9160
::~~. "
,
- .'
".. . .
rt:.>U t.ts. Doy'Kin:
. ~'..::~..~.~
In responDe. to your letter to me dated August ~, 1~S6, the alterr.ative .
::clcctecj to r~y tJ,e SCP.DI Dix1al1a site is Gra:ndwnter Ext.raction/rrea~
SUrface Discharge to saf.,~ limits. After A bwo y,-ar study the IPA bel1E:ved .
that this dt'ciuion ai1Lodics nn acticn that 'NCl'ld achi~ve the !astest and .
c;re~.tcst bcncf.j t to the p.1blic h('alth Gnd env.ircnnemt.. Tho:: r~cti is' ','
t.:cl"Ju.CC1l1y !canible ~nd cost.-effective. It will rmove potont.ia.l httalth
ris)~n to the rCHic!~nto near tht. site. The troat.n~nt. prcasss inc:ludesair. .. .
strippirag and carbon ndsorptiat filters. Dot.h of tJ\Osc systems will ....-:.: ...:
bring nLo.1t acceptAble C31DcharCJc limita to both th.: anlbicnt. air. and. '...
'. ~: .
!1ur!ac:e ~t£'r. :",;.' :.<~., :.. "
. . '. . . ~ .','. " "
Alt.ernativc;.:t.cchnologies to c~toxify the C'OI~tion w~e st.uJied ~:.;';<:.';
scrcenc'(1 with the other alt.ernat.ives. The follCMing technologies were ,"; ~
reviewed in the F~sibi.lity Study: Incineration, SolutiCl1 t-1ining, "'~crc:bial
L't.~Qd.3ticn. In-situ trcat:n.!nt of grourdwl'1tcr,' Permeable Tr~tment. l'.aIs "'..'
.U1d Precipitation, l"lcx:culat.ion, and Sodimen~aticn. In order to det.ermIJ1e,
the feasibilit). and the iZTplancntability of lIny techniques listed a1::ovc,:.:
a year to a two year study. 'WOUld be required, after Which 8 p.1blic neetiJ1g:
ltond. the ~nt period ~1ld ~"\ke {'lace. Since thftiE: nlt.f%nativc6 wculd" ,
entail an ac'\d1tiClUll delay, it is EPA's policy to attain accceptable..,'''',::'': .
levels of clet~UI'" at a sito ".,ithin the shortest t.i1re possible. Tht!,rapi~:.;
restcratim of tJ\e site is 8 top priority along with c:ost-effc..'C'tiveness~: .::':.
"'or this. reason th~se technologies WGl"C not c:cnsidered fttrthcr. '.' .,'." ",.:,'-.::.-, .
. . . . ":',' "''''/'(:' :.
If. you have any quest.1ms about. this rusFcl\.ucr the SCRDI Dixiana site' '. .":
. investiCjatioo, pleasE! Coo It hcsitat~ to call me at. (404) 3~7-2643., .."."
'. .
sincerefY J7
------- |