United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-87/026
September 1987
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Palmetto Wood Preserving, SC
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
fPt- mid 1",lIUetiOlU eM tit. fell.". Mfon eom"I.1t1r1J
t. RaPORT NO. 12. 3. "ICII"INT'S ACCeSSION 1110.
EPA/ROD/R04-87/026
.. TITU AND SU8TITU I. "II'ORT DATI
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 30. 1987
Palmetto Wood Preserving,' SC e. I'IR~O"MING OlllGAN,ZATION COOl
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AUTHORISI .. 'IIII~OlllMING ORGANIZATION R&'ORT NO.
.. 'IR~OlllMING OlilGANIZATION NAMI AND ADORISS 10. 'lilOORAM &IoEM.NT NO.
11. ,,,""ANT NO.
12. SftONSORING AGINCV NAMI AND ADOlillSS 13. TVl'e O~ Rll'OlilT AND '1'''00 COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SI'ONSOlillNO AGINCV COOl
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
tI. SUI'I'\.IMINTAR., NOTIS
1.. AATRA«;T
The Palmetto Wood preserv.ing (PWP) Site is located in the rural community of Dixiana,
South Carolina. The 5-acre site is a decommissioned wood preserving facility which
operated between 1963 and 1985. PWP began operating in 1963 using a fluoride-chromate
acsenate-phenol (FCAP) and an acid-copper-chromate (ACC) process. In 1980, Eastern
Forest Products t90k over and switched to a chromate-copper-arsenate (CCA) process.
Operations consisted of impregnating wood with a CCA solution under high pressure, and
allowing the wood to drip-dry under normal conditions. Beginning in December 1981, the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) received
complaints of green liquids running off the PWP site during heavy rainfall. Subsequent
soil sampling conducted by SCCHEC indicated the presence of high concentrations of
chromium. pentachlorophenol (PCP) and dinitrophenol residues were also detected. Well
water sampling showed no evidence of contamination. In April 1983,. a private well was
found to contain high levels of chromium and copper. As a result of the findings,
SCDHEC issued a Consent Order requesting Palmetto Wood Preserving to determine the
extent of soil and ground water contamination. primary contaminants of concern include
chromium and arsenic.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: extraction, filtration and
onsite treatment of contaminated ground water with discharge to a nearby stream;
(See Attached Sheet)
7. KI" WORDS AND OOCUMINT ANAC. 'ISIS
.. DISCRIPTORS b.IDINTI~IIAS/OI'IN ENDeD TEAMS c. eOSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Palmetto Wood preserving, SC
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: chromium, arsenic
tL DISTRIBUTION STATIMINT 18. seCURITY CI.ASS (TIW R..pOrrJ 21. NO. 01' PAQ.S
None 50
20. SICURIT., CI.ASS (Thu paPI 22. 'AICI
None
11'. ,- 2220-1 (It... .-77)
~".YIOUI .OITION'1 O.IO"'.T.
".,~, ~ . ,';. ';",J».
., .; ~ -' '?:, ,. .,,'.';' ,.-<' .~,' .,lm~
-------
INITRUCT10NS
1.
IlIPOIlT NU"'R
In5lft ,lie I:;PA report number. it a"... Oil the cower 01 tM publ-.-atiolL.
UAYI II.ANIe
2.
3.
IIICI"INTS ACCISIIOIII NUM8lR
~ for .. by r.u:h report mipint.
TIT'" AND SU8TIT",
Tide should indicat. I:lcarly and brieny the subjft:t I:o.er.a~ 1Jt" t/ll: n:pon. and be di"f'by...1J prumin...n,ly, ~I """"1"". II' \I~d, In ~nlali.:r
type or otherwise subordinate it to main 'itl.. W1tc1l. r~port i. pn:pared in moft' ,hlln "M volume, n'pe:!' 'h... prmlllry "'II.'. adlJ "",hllm'
number and indud8 subtide lor tll8 specilJc title.
RlPORTDATI ,
Eadt ,.,... sb8D carry . date illcllcaliq.t last month and ycar, Ind~-ate IIw h;ui." un ,..hi&:h il .a~ ...,I«tcd (e',K" .MIle'''' iuu... .aIr ..{
.",... diU. of ".,.,.tioII. ,ft',J.
..
s.
L
"'RPOR"NO ORGANIZATION COOl
1Aa.. blanL
AUTHOR"J
Gjye namecsl ill I:lHIvcntionai order (John R. /)tN. J, Robf.'" Dtw. ,'Ir.), Li."t authur'J al'lilkallun il' it JUTI.'''' 1"IIm 'hI.' I",furmi", ,,'pn..
zaDo'"
7.
L
",RPOIIMING ORGANIZATION IlIPOIlT NUBell
..... if p8dorminl orpnization WIsba to -... 'hl5 numbor.
...RPORMINO ORGANIZATION NAMI AND ADDIlI.
Gjye IWDI, Slnet, city, stat.. and ZIP code, List no more than ,wo le..b 01' an u,pnil.aliulllil hilnn'hy,
..
1& 'ROGRAMILEMINTNU...R
U. tll8 propamelement number IUId8r whh:h the report Wil." pnpared. Subordilllilt: numbt:~ mOl)' tw i""luu..'\I in 1I;I'l.'lIlh,,,,,,,,
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUM8IR
rn.. COIInet or pant number under which report WID plepIRd.
12. SPONIORINO MINCY NAMI AND ADDRISI
Inctude Z1f c:ocI8.
13. TV" Oil RIPORT AND ...RIOD COY'RID
Indicate ifttcrim f1aaI. 'k., and il applicable. data covered.
,.. SPONSORING AG~NCY CODI
Insert appropriate code.
1S. """-IMlNTA.." NOTa
EDter iDlormation not included elsewhen but II.'uJ. sum ...,,;
To be published ill, Supenadn. Supplclll8nU. etC.
,.. A88TRACT
IncJuda a briel (200 IIIIOI'ds or Int) lactual summary of tile mOJt Jilftili...anl Infurmalinn l.'unla,"",11II Ih,' "'1'"11, II Ih,' "'1""1 ,'''111;&111\''
sipificant bibtiopaplly or titeratun suney. mention it here.
Prepared ill I:oopenitiun Wllh, I'r.an!tlallull "I, 1'n.""'III,'\I ;&1 ",,,,I~'"'II''' Itl,
17. KIY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Select Irom the Thnaurus of J:::npnecrin, and Se.:it:ncilil.' 'ft:lln!ll Ihv prup:r au'hu",...1J ,...,mJ Ihal IIJt:n"fy Iht: ma,,,r
concept or the research and are sulficWntly 5pe1:IJiC and pndsc 10 be IUIIIJ a!ll Indl.'~ t:ncrics fur t;atalul'lnll.
(1)) IDENTlrtERS AND OPEN.ENDED TERMS. U. identiOln lor proJCCt nanM. 1:uc1e namt:J, t:'4u1pmt:nt "''''\llInillu'~, ...It:. UW"I"n.
endad terms wrinen in clcscriptor lorm for those subjtcu lor which no dwM:nptUl t:loists.
(c) COSA TlI:II::LD GROUP. field and poup assipme.u ... to be takt:n !'rom the I96S ('OS" 1'1 Suhw...1 (';&I~'llury List. Sinl.'ll 'he mil'
jority 01 docunt8nu an muJtidllcipiinary ift natUR. the Primary l'ieldJGtoup as.\iplrm:nt"l wIll ~ \J1I.'ulit; lJi""'lplint:. ;&l1.'li111' hllmall
endeawor.o, type 01 pbysical object. The applicationCs, wiD be ClOSHclt:rt:nL'Cd with ,,-,,'unwry I il.'ld/( ;'UUI' .."llIn",...1I1\ Ih;&1 wllIl'ullu~
the primary posainat.,.
1L DIITRI8UTION STATEMINT
Oet\ote releasability to the public or limitation lor rea.wns other than ",:...urity lur t:"ampk: "ltt:II.';&"'" I:lIhlllll"''':' ""... allY a~ailallllll)' III
Ibe public. wllh address and pn...c.
11..20. SECURITV CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the Nalional T~l:hnicallnlo'mation SL'rYh.'C.
21. NUM8ER Oil 'AGIS
Insert tbe total number of paps. includiat this one and uMumb8rett pIIP'. bUI ul:lulh: IJhmbuliun 11\1, II ;&IIY.
, 22. "'ICI
IftS8rt the price _t by the National rechfticallnlormation St:ML'C vr 1m: Government I'rintinr 01"01:1:. II' knuwII,
I'. ,- 2220-1 (Rn. .-m (Re_M)
... .-. - ---.--.,-_.. .-_..'. '
._.~ -........--..---~. -_.
.----------....,..-.-- .-_.. .--_..
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-87/026
Palmetto Wood preserving, SC
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
installation of a municipal water line or new well for a private residence;
excavation, onsite flushing and onsite replacement of contaminated soils,
with onsite treatment of flushing solution. The estimated capital cost of
the remedy is $1,393,000 with annual O&M of $176,163.
. - ~~ --, -~- -.-
--- - _'4 ---~'~-~'----
... ..~ .~- ._-
.\" ~".:'';' ;c. '~.~-;,- ,;~< :~<,j .:", .<.-",:-:';-:c '"'}', -.; j-,"_J,.~.,< .".'~ -"'-',-"--
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
. ~
Site:
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Dixiana, Lexington County, South Carolina
Statement of Purpose:
This document represents the selected remedial action for this Site
developed in accordance with CERCLA as amended by SARA, and to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
. The State of South Carolina has concurred on the selected remedy.
Statement of Basis
This decision is based upon the administrative record for the Palmetto
Wood Preserving Site. The attached index identifies the items which
comprise the administrative record upon which the selection of a remedial
action is based.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY:
*Groundwater remedial activities will consist of the following
elements :
. ',I.
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater
- - On-site treatment of extracted groundwater
Filtration of groundwater
- Discharge of treated groundwater to off-site stream
- Groundwater remediation will be performed until all contaminant
concentrations fall below the Safe Drinking Water Act standards or
criteria are reached
- Installation of a municipal water line or the drilling of a new
wells for the Watts' residence, with the potential for other local
residents to hook up, will be installed prior to implementation of
the remedial alternative
. ,-'-';~~'-~~\'~ .~. ,~.~-;::: -~';:.:>.;~, ,':. :::.::;," ~; 1 -;.>-" .
" J' ~
~'.> . ,-,,~ ';:,.:~."1-,' Cc' \~~:' :-~-;..c:; '~.?,~,':",: :-',~,:~:!:.~~":~;".;~-.:~~ -: ;::-7,', ,--:'7.. :::'::-';-'.~ <.:.,~, .::; ~ ,-:..,:.
-------
- .. .'''-
---.
":
-,
-2-
*Soil Flushing/Extraction
Contaminated soils on the Sit~ will be decontaminated by removing heavy
metal ions via ion exchange. This is source control measure to mitigate
the thre@t of off-site migration (via air pathways or groundwater) of
metal contamination.
-Excavation of contaminated 80i18.
-on-Site flushing of contaminated sol1 to remove Arsenic and Chromium via
:':"_"~':.:' an acidic: vater 801ution. .._.~ ~ '_'h--:~"~_:":: .'- .. ...,... ... ._-
. ..' -.
-Treatment of soils in a two-stage system.
..' .
. .
..
'. - .' ... .
-Testing for decontamination verification and that 80ils are processed to
original buffer capacity.
. '.
-Flushing solution is pumped to on-site water treatment facility for
processing and recirculation through the soil unit.
-The treated material is transported back to the excavated area where~
natural aeration is supplemented by tilling and compaction.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference for treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Finally, it 1s
determined that this remedy utilizes permanent solution and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate when balanced
against the availability of trust fund monies for use at other sites.!"
Date
9/.30/117
, . I
. ..
'.
"0
'.
':
::.-i
-
"'~:'- '" '.:"- ~ :-.~.. ~:';. O-'~"~" : ';~". '", .:'/:'~~o \.),:-">,'. _r.,~ -~r::.-,:'.' '~,~." "
--J>~«::tt >~
-------
. ~
- ~
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE. SELECTION
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
'" .' ~~.,: ';_~I:;':,['>" ',>
- .~~- . -'. ~
"" -~-~ -~...-. - -
'<\~I'L--'CJ:. ',,-:~ ',,:.~.;
. ">. >-,:~..<;:.':.~": -,:,"",., ;'.... <.. '-'
~. .',t.:, :,~,: -u '." . .'.' "~. ,'.:~. "
, -,1 ".,y',:: ). ',',".,. .. .,':.~: :;~'.'7:'- ',,'
. ',I.
.::'--," -','c. ." ~ 'l-':'~
~., "- ,~: ~'"
-------
- ~
"
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1.1
1.2
Site 'L~cation and Description
Site History
2.0 Enforcement Analysis
7.0
8.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Current Site Status
3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting
3.2 Site Contaminants
3.3 Air Contamination
3.4 Soil Contamination
3.5 Groundwater Contamination
3.6 Surface Water and Sediment Data
3.7 Groundwater Discharge to Wetlands
Clean-Up Criteria
4.1
4.2
4.3
Public Health Assessment/Consultation
Groundwater Remediation
Soil Remediation
Alternative Evaluation
6.0
5.1
5.2
Alternatives for Groundwater Remediation
Alternatives for 50i1 Remediation
Recommended Alternatives
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Description of Recommended Remedy
Operation and Maintenance
Cost of Recollllended Alternative
Schedule
Future Actions
Consistency with Other Environmental Laws
Community Relations
State Involvement
" ; .,. ':->.~ ;,c' ': _:~. -" "Z. ",,~ ,-; -~': ;-~'o .-:- .:',.,4\. '-:'~:f .:-" "r.,,-: :;'~':';-:~ "0. "~~~,-~'..-,~ _.,'<::~-/ ;-:''';''0''0> "-:.:: '-': - ". .
. .
""', . '" '7~' - .c; ~,'.-.' r. . :~,:. - . ,.'
. ',I'
." ~:- -",.'" : ~". ,"" ." .
-------
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure i2
Figure 13
Table 1
Table 2
Table 2,2
Table 3,4,5
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
."'---'---'-_C~-'--
, c. .":,:,"~/ ',:~::"JC~'-.>~:.
LIST OF FIGURES
Vicinity Map
Detailed Site Hap
~neralized Potentiometric Surface - Shallow Aquifer
Generalized Potentiometric Surface - Deep Aquifer
Aerial Extent of Metal Contamination in Soil (0 - I.S~ DeptH)
Aerial Extent of Metal Contamination in Soil (1.5 - 3.0~ Depth)
Subsurface Soil Boring Locations
Location of Temporary and Permanent Wells
Chromium in Shallow Aquifer
Arsenic in Shallow Aquifer
Copper in Shallow Aquifer
Estimated Soil Quantities
Watts Residence Well
LIST OF TABLES
Range of Concentrations of Indicator Chemicals in Groundwater
Indicator Chemicals/Standard or Criteria
Soil Standards and Criteria
.' .
Technologies Considered for Screening
6
Applicable Remedial Technologies
7
8
Applicable Remedial Technologies
Eliminated Technologies
9
Quantity of Soil to Remove Calculations
10
Cost Estimate for Alternative B-3
11
Alternative A-3:
Extraction. Ion Exchange. Discharge
12
Alternative A-3 and B-S State Cost-Sharing
13
Alternative A-3 State Cost-Sharing
14 Alternative B-3 Extraction Soil Flushing
'"\""~'>~-"\7t,-.:/~:~'.: c
- .
..~. :_- "T~ ~ c ~'-'" ;~e, - ';'0<,-;>:';. < ., !
,,_\'J'-~' -'5°,:';..
:'.!',~ . '~~-,,""'-~;I '.'." -:-'0;;'-"': ;'" ..'
~ :~ ,: >, :0;.-. - . c'" - '.
'-' ;",.-""';"; ',.' ,",' ~;.~-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
1.0 Introduction
The Palmetto Wood Preserving (PWP) Site was added to the National Priorities
List (NPL) in September 1983. The Palmetto Site has been the subject of a
Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) performed by the Region
IV REM II contractor, Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (COM). The RI Report, which
examines air, sediment, soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination at
the Site, was issued January 19, 1987. The FS, which develops and examines
alternatives for remediation of the Site, was issued in draft form to the
public on August 26, 1987.
This Record of Decision has been prepared to summarize the remedial alternative
selection process and to present the selected remedial alternative.
1.1 Site Location and Description
The PWP Site is a decommissioned wood preserving facility located at latitude
33 degrees 55 minutes 06 seconds north and longitude 81 degrees 03 minutes 09
seconds west in the rural community of Dixiana, in Lexington, County, South
Carolina (Figure 1). It is 0.25 miles northeast of 1-26 and 1.34 miles
southeast of 1-26 Interchange Number 115 on Route 129/Dixiana Road. This area
is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of West Columbia, and 6.4 miles southwest
of Columbia, South Carolina. The Dixiana area lies in South Carolina's upper
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. This area is characterized by generally
flat to slightly rolling land with many low, wet areas and slow-moving streams.
The PWP Site occupies approximately 5 acres of land, of which 3.67 acres is
owned by George K. Bellinger of South Carolina (Figure 2). The remaining
parcel of land is owned by South Carolina Electric and Gas. PWP began
operating in 1963, using a fluoride-chromate-arsenate-phenolt(FCAP)'and an
acid-copper-chromate (ACC) process. In 1980, new owners, Eastern Forest
Products, took over and switched to a chromate-copper-arsenate (CCA) process.
During the treatment process, wood was loaded onto a small, narrow-gauge
railcar and moved into a pressure vessel where the material was pressure
impregnated with the solution. The wood was then removed and allowed to dry,
either in a drip shed or in the storage yard areas.
During the period of operation, the Site consisted of the plant structure and
equipment (the pressure vessel, narrow gauge rail line, solution storage tanks,
drip shed, storage and office building). When the company ceased operations in
1985, all equipment (including pressure cells, piping, narrow gauge rail line
and above ground storage tanks) was removed from the Site to an unknown
location.
-------
TMl STATE Of SOUTH CAROLINA
PALMETTO WOOD
PRESERVING SITE
PALMETTO WOOD
PRESERVING SITE
\\
_»___,
:•««•/«•
Dlxlant
II
VICINITY MAP
FAiMEJTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
^4W^i&^^^
-------
-3-
-It 0
- I
0.00
o
c
. \\i
0 .
u . lT8Ia..
a u
MIA C
1&8
... )~
..J
f '.00
! \)
g ~
Z 4.00
-
.J
C
m
5.00
'.00
w
. .
a
~ 100' I
ICALI.
.
D
1tOO
.
.,
1111 .
. DETAiLED 81' I ~ MAP
PlQURI 110.
. .
. .
.~
. .-.--...----- or . - _.- -
'-, 'f' ~. . .-' \.0:... ,'. .1',' .~:.,.-....
- :,=''..~.-"~!":'-'-(.:,,,,"",~",,.~' "..,
. i' 'y
....._~;!-~ ",:_-"~""", .'~.l :......t':'~,.o:..,",."..'" '-". ~....
-------
-4-
1.2 Site History - Permit and Regulatory Histor~
During December 1981 and occasionally during 1982, the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), received complaints of
green liquids running off the PWP Site and puddling on the adjacent property
and roads during heavy rains. These complaints came from residents near the
plant site and from the Pallet Manufacturing Company, whose property adjoins
the Site. As a result of these complaints, in February 1982, SCDHEC inspected
the PWP Site and collected surface soil samples on-site, and water samples' from
private wells of varying depths in the immediate vicinity. None of the water
samples showed evidence of contamination. However, two of the three soil'
samples collected on-site showed chromium levels of 2,440 mg/kg and 1,700
mg/kg. These levels were sufficient for "the chromium contaminated soil to be
classified as a hazardous waste" because the 80il leachate measured by' the
8tandard extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test (EPA 1980), had a chromium
extent concentration of more than 5 mg/l (RCRA hazardous waste limit). Testing
of the soil samples also indicated contamination by pentachlorophenol (PCP),
which is listed as a hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261.33 and may have been
used by the previous owners during the wood preserving process. However, the
plant foreman, a long-time employee, stated that PCP had never been used since
it was an oil (fuel oil) based preservative. The foreman stated that
dinitrophenol, a water soluble product had been used. This has been confirmed
by subsequent sampling which also showed dinitrophenol residue present along
with the PCP residue. '
In November 1982, SCDHEC re~eived another complaint. The subsequent
investigation revealed that liquid from freshly treated lumber was flowing onto
and puddling on adjacent property. SCDHEC issued a Notice of Violation to the
, company on March 29, 1983. During subsequent conferences between SCDHEC and
plant personnel, the need for, and nature of, on-site improvements were
discussed to minimize further problems. A major plant improvement discussed
was the installation of a concrete drip pad under the narrow gauge rail
tracks. The pad would be curbed and constructed to collect and recycle CCA
drip solution. However, plans to install concrete drip collection pads were
never implemented. According to officials at SCDHEC, no action was taken
because agreement was never reached between SCDHEC and the plant owners on how
to clean up the contaminated soils upon which the drip pads would be'~laced.
In April 1983, a new drinking water well was drilled at the Watts' residence.
approximately 200 feet from the PWP Site. This well was allegedly needed
because the existing well had become dry. During initial pumping of the new
well by the driller, the water turned bright yellow and did not clear up after
many hours of pumping. The PWP submitted a sample of the water to an
independent laboratory for analysis and discovered high levels of copper (0.13
mg/l) and chromium (67.3 mg/l). Following this discovery, PWP began to supply
the residence with drinking water by running a hose from the plant's own
private well to the Watts' residence (Figure 13).
Prom Kay 4 to 5, 1983, private wells within the surrounding area of the PWP
Site were sampled by SCDHEC personnel. The results of the well survey
indicated that only the Watts' well was contaminated (80 mg/l chromium). No
contamination was noted by SCDHEC at the other local area private wells
identified in their survey.
..'.:
-------
-5-
As a result of the pollution findings, SCDHEC issued a Consent Order requiring
PWP to determine the extent of soil and ground water contamination and to
develop a plan for disposing of the contaminated materials. PWP subsequently
hired Law Engineering Testing Company (LETCO) to perform a preliminary
assessment of the suspected site contamination. The results of the study,
released in November 1983, entitled Report of Preliminary Assessment of the
Ground Water an~ Soil Contamination - Phase 1, indicated contamination of s01l
and ground water beneath the main process area of the plant site. Monitor
wells installed off-site in the vicinity of the Watts' Well, however, failed to
detect any evidence of contamination. Resampling of the Watts' well in '
November 1983 did reveal elevated levels of chromium (11.5 mg/l), but these
levels were significantly less than the original analysis had indicated (67.3
81/1). Results of the SCDBEC and LETCO investigations led to speculation,by
SCDBEC and the owners of the plant that vandalism could have caused the initial
contamination discovered in the well. '
Plans for further investigation of the contamination problem were developed by
LETCO, but were never implemented. At the end of 1983, SCDBEC turned over
responsibility for further work on PWP to EPA. At the same time, SCDHEC ended
sampling of private wells in the vicinity (NUS, 1985). In September 1983, the;
Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) with a Hazardous Rating
Score of 38.43. Subsequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
under work assignment number 136-4LB7.0, tasked the REM II team to conduct a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the PWP Site. The,'
Remedial Investigation was performed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), otherwise known as
Superfund. The investigation was conducted. from April to July 1986.
2.0 Enforcement Analysis
The Palmetto Wood Preserving Site was added to the National Priorities List
(NPL) in September 1983 and EPA assumed lead responsibility for the Site at
that time. An EPA contractor completed a Potential Responsible Party (PRP)
search in January 1985. Notice Letters were sent to Potentially Responsible
Parties in July 1985. Two PRPs were found, but were judged not viable by the
financial assessment, therefore, EPA proceeded to implement the RIIFS with
Superfund monies in September 1985.
,"
3.0 Current Site Status
3.1
Hydrogeologic Setting
.'
The Palmetto Wood Preserving Site lies within the Coastal Plain Province and is
underlain entirely by the Middendorf Aquifer System. The subsurface soil and
ground water conditions encountered during Law Engineering and Testing
Company's (LETCO's) investigation suggest two aquifers. For the purpose of the
RI Report, they are defined as the un-confined unit of the sufficial aquifer
(shallow aquifer) where contamination of chromium has been detected and the
semi-confined or confined aquifer system of the deep aquifer. These two units
of concern are divided from the deeper Middendorf Aquifer system, which lies at
an average of over 200 feet below surface in the area, by several confining
beds composed of clay or silty clay. The shallow aquifer extends to an average
depth of 27 feet below ground s~5face at the Site and has a low hydraulic
conductivity on the order of 10 cm/sec. The deep aquifer extends to an
average depth of 41 feet below liound surface and has a low hydraulic
conductivity on the order of 10 em/sec. Water level data collected during
.<~._.< ~-~-
u ~ . .-~~'
,-~. < " ~_-,1 .~:, \ .: .- ,~,
.; ::...- '" '''''--;,,' ~ :: -
'-":'.,,',,;\.,' ~.,~'; -<-:...<:.c. ~...:o ..;..
'. . - ~~. ."'.,
", ":'''~:''~<:'~'::-~':';.'_'-''~''',:'-l; "~~.n,,',- ,.".' 'c, :~..~.'-"....
~ .",: ~:-;~'-"..." ,.<'0
- "'--~'."": ',' .
-, ~ ~,'~. - ".-~', ,,;.../"
,,.,'::--',,
:'-J-;--.i .~j ".
-------
-6-
the Remedial Investigation show that locally, ground
un-confined unit of the surficial is toward the east
shows general flow direction in the semi-confined or
deeper aquifer is toward the east/southeast.
water flow in the
(Figure 3). Figure 4
confined unit of the
3.2 Site Contamination
.
Since 1982, several site investigations have been conducted in and around ~he
PWP Site. The first study was undertaken by SCDHEC in February 1982. SCDHEC
collected surface soil samples and private well water samples. None of th~
water samples showed contamination. However, two of the soil samples showed
elevated chromium levels and PCP contamination.
A second investigation in November 1982 revealed that liquid from freshly
treated lumber was flowing onto and puddling on adjacent property. In April
1983, PWP submitted a sample of water from anew well at the Watts- residence
to an independent laboratory and analysis revealed high levels of chromium.
Again, in May 1983, SCDHEC sampled the Watts' well, in addition to several
other local private wells. The results of the samples indicated elevated
levels of chromium. In November 1983, LETCO released a report on their
preliminary assessment of suspected Site contamination. The investigation
indicated contamination of soil and ground water beneath the main process area
of the plant site. However, off-site wells failed to detect any contamination
and resampling of the Watts' wells showed significantly lower levels of
chromium than the original analysts indicated (11.5 mg/l compared to 67.3
mg/l).
Most recently, the REM II team completed a Remedial Investigation (RI), which
documents the present level of contamination of air. soil, ground water, and
surface water/surface sediment.
The RI study, conducted April through July 1986, determined the presence and
extent of the contamination in the soil, ground water, surface waters and
sediments on the Site and surrounding areas. Samples were taken of each of the
medial to document the source of contamination and its boundaries, the extent
of on-site and off-site contamination, and the presence and location ~f a
ground water contamination plume. Data were collected to characteri!e the Site
and ~upport the analysis of remedial alternatives during the Feasibility Study.
3.3 Air Contamination
The most common sources of air contamination at hazardous waste sites are the
volatilization of toxic organic chemicals and the spread of airborne
contaminated dust particles. In July 1985, an ambient air sampling
investigation was conducted at PWP using an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). The
instrument indicated no response from the existing monitor wells and soils.
During the recent II, Site personnel used an HNu photoionization analyzer for
air monitoring while taking surface soils samples, installing monitor wells,
and drilling temporary boreholes. An action level of 5 ppm was established in
the PWP Project Operations Plan (POP), but this level was never attained during
the field activities.
-------
-7-
-It °
~
E
,,-
\ MW D.
OtOO
81
. 0 It
. c
.
:8
.
. .
0 .
U ~
; 2.00
~
~
...J .
..J .
,f «
.
8 3.00
:8
Z .
0 .
~ .~
-------
III". .
GENERALIZED POTENTIOMETRIC SURfACE-DEEP AQUIFER
. . . ...
~. '.'.. 'ALMETT(J W~D;'''ES!''V1NG'!.ilTI
. .~'; "~"l.~;'~ ~;::.~~';.:;:;;: ~)::"~~~~~;"~
-------
-9-
. ~
. -It 0
~
I
r
Otoo
.
c
5.00
1.00
w
A'
I '00' I
~
.
D
?too
G
-----
cOP,rlt ) 1018./.,
CMltOIiIUM) 10 M./II
-I.IIC ) 10 Mt/I,
-~--~
.
~ .-'" -
. . ~ . , ...11 . .. .
, AE..itlAL i!tTlttr OF-META1. .cCHtA"~TION ~ lOlL ca- .~ 'DEPTH)
~ . .. ... .... ... . _.'
. .-."- - . ....A...' -~ ~~
'. ..a.t ur.,,,,,, WI\I'\I'\ ......."..." .,.,1:
'8Gu"a 110.
5
--- .. . 4 - . - - '.-.. . - - . -. . ." - --...--. . ..- ... -- - ._-- ."-'-' _.- _. -- ".'.. - .". -. -.
;,~~::>.<;,....,~.p:".'"t..~",.!'.';-".~'. ~ ';:'", , ;.".:_-:L.~ ~,: ,"""~'(,''''....~ :::;'.';,.J;S:~"''''',..ljf ~~~.::..;;,.$': -.,",.:........<;:.....~.~~~ ~-?'~~.:~i!:-""':~:J <..'~"; 'C.~.';:.f~F;-':'--:~"l~ '.~~~''''''7<'!:~,.,~.-:''1.'-<~1:.' ~,<:-.;;(-"....,.Ni...
-------
. 0
. c It
. .
. I
0 =
u -
.
III
~ .
.J i
f ....
. '.00
.
~ .
c.t
Z
-
r"
. .
. ~
j
A'
I .00' I
~
-10-
-It 0
I
OtOO
"..
5.00
'+00
..
7tOO
G
D
cop,r" > 10 "./...
- - - - CM"O"IU" > 1.1 ".,..,
---- --- ~.rNIC > 10 ",/ICI
. 111M . '~GU"I NO.
AEIlAL EXTENJ.Of JTAL COHTAMINA~ II son. 11.1-3.0' DEPT)t) :
. ~~.' .-:--:=-_:__-:--....---.'-.-_.,--~-~~-_. --,-~~'---.". ..... , - ~ "- - r __6_._...- --=
,,'_~r ~'.~.;j;'~ ~ ,':" ~ :r~'::'~../~ c;; -,~"';~'~ :"" :.; ":,'~'':~(;~';"..~,f-.,'';:,~,;-''';~$ '. .~-;:.: '~~'fn"',,:":r...~~. ~j.!." 1_~;'~~.'!~ <>;'''..~<,':j(:~5":;'''-';;'~';'<>'''''~~ ~"",'I-:~:~';;"~~';~-:''1~~~:,:d'~-r;-:~:;o~~p,~c)~_~_:r~:;:';~~.,.X~.$-,::'9'''';,',~.! ..,;.~. ~~'"--:~ '.~~O~.,":(1-~~-.. '.;.~ 'i.rp-a..,?p.:~"''-:'''- ;~;..~ ~."':::\1.. "....:,'
-------
rr~
-11-
,
-It 0
I
OtOO
. ~'Ol
. D .It
. c
I \\1
. I
0 .
U . "..al.
- "
. alII c "'1 2.00
&&I
.... .
.... .
f a
. '.00
.
z .
~ .... .
.
. -
.., .
11111.
Z ..00
-
.J ..0.
C
CD
5.00
'.00 .
I'
. .11"
D
E
,
7tOO
G
~ ;00' I
'C~I.
Mill' .. .
aU.SURF, ,:E lOlL IORiNG LnC~t'IONS ','
MURI MO. .
-
i
'IW
~'
,.--..';'.'.;-."~:~:':;'-'>~;; .~~L~~!.~,,' .~~~u~n ~.~.~.~l~lI.. ~ITS .".:''''''::-~-1'~ . - - .~."=..,~..,.-,.=.-=,, -. J
~~~:;~1 '.;..""L~ J""'::.I.:'~Z~.o-~C:;'~;'5;.!\~~". ~'1~.rp'~t:r...! ',1;hr;;:,p.,; .~ -,~i::j ':i~ A%;;?~~~~';'~;~";'\~'~~:~I~'-'~:~~:!:}~,:~-:61/j~~.--:~'>~~1?~:?;.c.~~.~~.t.rJ~.~;':;""~';:,',;:t,;<;"'-~~ l!t...jI:;}:j1:'~~~4~':~ ~":~<;.::~~)! c:?:'; .~.;.~.v1~:J~~.\':',';~' ."~ "f,~...;.;~'i.n;' ':f' \":-:':~~-;"R~~";' ~L-'"".t;,.~;:-'" ""\'!f~': .: .
-------
-12-
in addition to the HNu, a respirable dust monitor was used to monitor airborne
contamination. No readings exceeding action levels designated in the POP were
reached.
3.4 Soil Contamination.
Ketal contamination in s01l, particularly chromium and arsenic, are of concern
as a health ris~ Although elevated concentration levels of copper were far
above background, the Public Health Evaluation (PRE) determined copper
contamination does not pose a health threat. Areal extent of soil
contamination is based on results of the surface s01l sampling plan performed
during the investigation. Vertical extent of soil contamination is based on
the soil boring plan performed during the investigation. The areas presenting
the highest concentrations of contamination were the narrow gauge and drip shed
areas. Less elevated contaminant concentrations were detected in the .area
extending from the eastern border of the storage yard, across the narrow gauge
and drip shed areas towards the east of the Site, along the railroad tracks.
Analytical results from 53 surface soil sampling locations were filed into a
computer program to generate maps showing metal concentrations in soil.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the computer generated areal extent of metal
concentration in soil at two depth intervals (0'-1.5' and 1.5'-3.0').
The Boil data indicated that vertical extent of contamination is variable
across the Site (Figure 7). The highest levels occur at the surface and
decrease in a nearly linear fashion to background levels within the first 12
feet. Ketal concentrations well above background were detected to depths as
great as 17 feet in a number of locations (SB02, 5B03, 5B04, 5B05, 5B06, 5B07,
5B09, SBlO, SBll, SB12, SB17, SB18, and SB21), with one location (SB18)
revealing elevated chromium at 22 feet. The highest concentrations of metals
in subsurface soils are associated with the narrow gauge/drip shed areas.
The range of concentrations in soils of copper, chromium, and arsenic are shown
in Table 1.
3.5 Ground Water Contamination
Analysis of samples from 6 clusters of 12 permanent monitor wells and 21
temporary wells found metal contamination in many of the wells above.'drinking
water or other applicable standards. The ranges of concentrations in ground
water of copper, chromium, and arsenic are shown in Table 1. . The locations of
the wells are shown in Figure 8.
The extent of contamination in water is principally confined to the shallow
un-confined aquifer. Figures 9, 10, and 11 show the extent of ground water
contamination aquifer. Figures 9 and 10 show the worst case scenarios in the
shallow aquifer based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (KCL) for chromium and
arsenic, respectively. Both KCL's were established at 50 ug/l. Figure 11
shows the worst case scenario in the shallow aquifer based on the KCL for
copper at 1,000 ug/l. The highest concentrations of metals occur within the
confines of the Site.
Three monitor wells (KW08, KWI0, and KW12) and nine temporary wells (GW03,
GW04, GWOS, GW08, GWlO, GW16, GW17, GW18, and GW19) indicated elevated chromium
concentrations in the shallow un-confined aquifer. Elevated chromium
concentrations were detected in one private well (Watts' well, located east of
the Site). Although the Watts' well indicates chromium above the MCL, the well
":';'~.'>...
-------
-13-
has an ambiguous history, i.e. not installed under EPA guidance, assumed
screening intervals of 65 feet below ground surface, and conflicting data on
chromium levels from past sampling activities, prudence dictates that the well
should not be used as a potable source of water. One monitor well (MW08) and
five temporary wells (GW03, GW04, GW08, GWI7, and GWI9) indicated elevated
arsenic in the shallow un-confined aquifer. One monitor well (MW16) and three
temporary well~iGW03, GW08, and GWI0) indicated elevated copper in the shallow
un-confined aquifer. The levels of contaminants detected at these wells do not
present an immediate risk, however, the use of on-site ground water in the
future would present environmental and public health risks.
3.6 Surface Water and Sediment Data
During the recent BI, Surface water and surface sediment samples were.collected
from four locations. A fifth sample was collected to provide background data
on surface water and sediment quality in the area. Analyses of these samples
found no metal contamination above EPA maximum concentration limits.
The background sediment sample was collected from a drainage feature at the
discharge point of the pond, approximately 150 feet southwest of the Site. The
sample was found to contain the following metals: arsenic (33 mg/kg) , barium
(80 mg/kg) , lead (130 mg/kg) vanadium (63 mg/kg) , zinc (160 mg/kg), aluminum
(12,500 mg/kg) , manganese (220 mg/kg), calcium (830 mg/kg) , and iron (81,000
mg/kg). In addition, the background surface water sample collected at this'
location was found to contain arsenic (78 ug/l), barium (54 ug/l), chromium (27
ug/l), copper (23 ug/l), strontium (20 ug/l), vanadium (13 ug/l) , zinc (110
ug/l), aluminum (3,100 ug/l), manganese (440 ug/l), calcium (.0029 ug/l),
magnesium (.0086 ug/l) and iron (.077 ug/l).
Surface water and sediment samples collected downgradient of the Site contained
the same suite of metals as mentioned before and at comparable concentrations.
Further, no organic compounds were detected in these surface water and sediment
samples. Because migration is not currently taking place, no remedial action
will be considered for surface water and sediments.
3.7 Ground Water Discharge to Wetlands
. ',..
The ground water beneath the Site is severely contaminated. The sha~low
aquifer has higher concentrations of metals than the deeper aquifer, but some
leakage from the shallow to the deep aquifer is evident. Ground water flows in
both aquifers toward the wetlands east of the Site, and it is possible that one
or both aquifers discharge to this area. At the current estimated flow rates
of approximately 4 m/yr in the shallow aquifer, contaminated ground water may
reach the wetlands in 100 years.
4.0 Clean-Up Criteria
The extent of contamination was defined in Section 3.0 Current Site Status.
This section examines the relevance and appropriateness of water quality--
criteria under the circumstances of release of contaminants at this Site.
Based upon criteria found to be relevant and appropriate, the minimum goals of
remedial action at this Site have been developed.
4',_-,~ --_.----.~~._.~
. .~ ':.':,t-.::,:,:","~""t£( :~~~;, >~ ';;:'~'- .,--::,
. .-- . - ---. ..~.
,:;',:; ~. -c- "',::-:.:;.:-c,,-, '.:'~"<: - ,"-:::; '.: ~.:: -._u ;;:. .;. "'" "~_:". . .
.~.-;.-'~~ ~':> ',: ,;-~'",,:", .
. . .~-' ~.".,..
-------
-14-
TABLE 1
. -
RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS
IN &ROUND WATER
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
REM II
Cnemic&l
Concentration Range (ug/l)a
Arsenic
Chromillll
Copper
NO - 2.200
13 - 110.000
6 - 2.700
I
lased on samples collected from locations indicated in tne RI' report.
Data analyses were performed by In EPA-approved contract laooratory.
Sample results haYI met EPA yalidation requirements.
CHEMICAL
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper'
SOIL
CONCENTRATION
~
CONCENTRATJON RANG~
2.4 - 6.200
4 - 2.200
307 - 3.600
CHEMICAL
Arseni c
Chromium
Copper-
SUB-SURFACE
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION le2m)
5.4 - 970
4 - 1400
3.7 - 1100
,'.;i' .-
: ..8
. .. .
"- "- - .
. .. -
. - .".,-r -. - ..
~,
-------
-1~-
LEGEND
. NEW WiU ICREINED I"-SHALLOW UNCONFINED AQUI'IR
. Nn WIU SCREENED IN DEEP SEMI-CONFINED AQUIFER
- 6 I.ISTINC WILL ICRIINID IN IHAUOW UNCONFINED AQUIPU
o PISTINC WILL ICRIINID IN 011' SDU-CDNFINID AQUIFER.
a TEMPORARY WIU leallNID IN IHAUOW UNCONFINED AQUIPIR
-It 0
,..- ~"11 L::[
D
c
. \\i
0 .
u . .,..... u
-
. AI" "IWII
~a .
&&I
.J )4 .
~ .'11 88.07 .
J
.
a;; .
.
z .
o ft.1 .
~ -
a .
"
z
-
5.00
'.00 "
I.
a
..11
7tOO
,
It
8 a.'.
D
I .OO'~
~ ICALI
.. II" .
:.0" LOCAT1OH t:11 TI~~"Y ~ND PJR~NE"'T wEiu
..", . .
"}::. .; 'PALIiIETTO .WOOD PRESERVING 82TI ~
'lOll". NO.
;l
.
~
,
8
- .. ._4' --
~:t~~i-;r,~~;~i~~~::~,:;)~~:J:~0;~~~o?l,~\.;jii:~~ll:;£~_~~:?M'~~;;~';-i:~e;~~~::,';;."f~~~(y;~-~:;;;.:~~.~;~'~-~-'~:.~~~~';,fr~~:~r;~~\~~;?~;~~:;;~-;~"""~~~ ~'~lc"~:~:~;~;'~~~~;-~';,?~~~'~-::' ~';4-;tJ~~~; ~14~.~~.~.?<1;~~'p~..::'>,~~-""~:...!
-------
-,
-16-
,
-'t 0
,....
0.00
o I..
c
I
. I
0 .
u ~ .,.....
-
. ....
'"
... ~
... i
f . '.C
.
.
z
0
~
U)
z
-
.
5.00
'.00
.,
w
A'
I 100' ~
' 1'.1"'1
I .
clOO
D
1tOO
G
.- -
LEGEND
- - > 10 UG/L CHROa.'UM
. ~., MIl.
. ...~~G".T . CA.'. .c:.I'tA"IO. ~ .IN ,HALoLOW AQUIP!"
. . MUM IfO.
-. . '." . , . . . 9
"'-' ....I::.~. j.~~'.~~ "~.>"~" 'A~_lIf:.!'ft.YiDM ~"~I~~VI~~. fal~', .' '~..:::' .'.' , ,,: .q. ~'.- .",'-:,,'
~:.":'i;-: ~~'\o.:: o~-~-" ~{";."'t'~~.>!f-::";: ~I:;" ';.;P>.=>~.~' f;.-::~ tb':..-;'..,":"'~'~~.,;'':': ~':,[~"{"';:;j, i?~~ .j"t-'~";:;:~' ;.~.'1~:~>;:}f.,~' f' !" ~~,;l"f.';'.~,.':;':-~>j~'" ~l.. "!~"_:o..: ~....: .. ,,;,. "'{';~ ~~ ~l,:;h~~~t.;:;;:.,~.:..t:<..~: )..::>'7.::'';'''~~~':, '2;-p.~~.; '2::>.~:>'~,L:~""?1.:e~1: ~~",,:v;.,~''').~4':?bY'~'.~r-;'7'_=u ",'~J
-------
-17-
-It 0
,,--
Otoo
o
~
.
o
u
=
-
.
8?"."
&ilIA
\\1
u
~
III
.J
.J
f
.
.
el'
.
I
. ..
.
.
.
.
-
.
!
"
Z
-
CJD
.
.J
C
ID
5.00
.
c.
'.00
..
.
....
.
(.a
.
w
A'
I 100' ~
.. .CALI
.
~
- - > SO UG/L ARSENIC
7tOO
,
. '
Rill I
", WOAST CASE '~~NARIO AI 1M .SHALLOW AQUIFER
. . - .. --
0. 8 .."~' PALUETTO WCOD PRESERYINQ liTE
':
FIOURI NO.
,10
- -
~;~~~i~~-:;~~~~:~i~~~;;~,~i.!~~~-~~~'~~:,.~;~..;"~,~~,~¥..~~i.::f"~:,~~~}t;;~~~':~~~tj~.~1~'~~Y..~~1$'~'~~~~~~;~~ ~:i;-~?:b~~~~i.:;;~~,;:~~~;;); ;~~;~;:;~~~-;(~~~~;;;:;~~;1;"rl:~~i:~;~~~~~~;~~~~~~''''
-------
-18-, .
. ~
-It 0
~
I
,--
OtOO
D
. c
I \\i
. I
0 =
u - tn8A" ~
. .11&
1&1 ~.U
..j 418 A .
-' . .
f " I
.
.
.
! }) .
,. .
-
. (,., .
CD ~
Z
-
..0
'.00
1+00
el.
.
liD
.
.
A'
I 100' I
~
. .
CUI
D
LEGEND
- - >'000 UG/L COPPER
?tOO
,
RIM. .
WORST C~SE leENARIO Cu IN IHALLOW AQUIFER
'IGUR. "0.
11
t up
. _.- .' -- . ." -
~,.~%~/~,,~.~.:{~.~~.:t'~;_;"T~~',~ l. .,~ ?".,;.:~=,::>]~r.~~j£~",,~~:"'"oiv~: ~}"?--==':: ~:~~i. ~"~\':j,.~. '.~~~J~""'ti;:;:~....-=r.~ ~~~;o_..t~';i 'tt.<: ~~';;". ":}.; ~7;'~\~>~fK'4.-'f.::.. :-:-.;;'i.r..:""S{!}.{;..~::I,~' ;;:~--:'f'~ -~,~A't...:!'::":'d.:-::J.~,::,:~~~}"{":~~ :";::;-':;~?t ~~~. ':~-~~4"'.7::c.~ ~~~..~ o;.j~~;~'-url\ ".,~''''
-------
.- ~ -.- - -".- -.--
-19-
T~LE 2
. ,
.- ,
INDICATOR CHEMICALS
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
REM II
Contam1 nant
Site-Specific Maximum
ugl1
Standard or Criteria
ugl1
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
2.200
110,000
2,700
50a
50a
1,OOOb
aSafe Drinking Water Act criteria.
baased on taste and odor effects
ug/l . micrograms/liter
.' .
,
~
,"
. .
0'
.'.
. '. .
o o. .. . . ..
.. -. '.. ~.~
- , 0 ~ - --< ~~
0-- - ~ - - - o._~..o 0
- _.--- 0--._0. .- ~.- -. - _.-
': , '. ..,. - : 3':' ~" -.".", . ! ,~..'.~
-------
-20-
Public Health Assessment/Consultation
Environmental Pathways
Contaminants found in surface soil can travel off-site via surface runoff and
wind erosion. Those found in the subsurface soil can leach into the ground
water beneath t~ Site. Those found in ground water can seep to wells and be
withdrawn for hUman consumption. They can also reach the surface through seeps
and springs.
At this site, the primary contaminated media are surface soil and ground
water. Although the 8ubsurface 80il i8 contaminated, the contamination
decreases rapidly with depth and there is little likelihood of human contact
with it.
Human Exposure Pathways
Human exposure can occur through inhalation of contaminated dust, ingestion of
contaminated soil, dermal contact with the soil, or through drinking
contaminated surface or ground water. Consumption of contaminated fish or
vegetables is sometimes possible although this exposure route does not appear
to be a concern at this Site. Because the media which have been contaminated
are surface soil and groundwater, which is used as a water supply by some
people in the area, dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion of soil and
ground water were evaluated as human exposure pathways. The concentrations of
metals found at the Site do not pose a dermal threat at the soil and wate~
concentrations measured. Therefore, this exposure pathway was eliminated
Health Evaluation
There have been no reported instances of health complaints or concerns by
persons living nearby with the exception of complaints about the runoff of the
green liquid in 1981 and 1982. Neither the RI nor the Public Health Evaluation
(PHE) mentioned any health effects of the Site on the nearby population.
Discussion
',I.
The RI documented the fact that the surface of the Site had been cont'aminated
by the solutions used in the pressure treating of lumber. Th~s material had
been allowed to drip onto the soil, be washed from the Site by surface runoff,
and percolate into the ground, reaching the water table. The arsenic and
chromium levels were high in the soil in the work area where the treated lumber
was allowed to drip dry. Since the valence of chromium has a direct .
relationship to its toxicity and since the report did not state which valence
state was reported, it is assumed that the +6 state was reported. This is the
most toxic fora of chromium. Risk evaluations of the possible effects caused
by the levels of these chemicals found on the surface were performed. These
showed significant cancer potential levels for children playing on the Site or
for future industrial workers on the Site if it is redeveloped. The
concentration of copper found in the surface soil was not high enough to be of
concern.
Chromium was the contaminant with the highest concentration in the ground
water. Both arsenic and chromium concentrations in the shallow ground water
on-site are high enough to render the water unusable. The high arsenic
concentration was confined to the shallow ground water on-site. Contaminant
- ....- '-- -. .
. -"'.', -- ~..- "'
", ~." .: 3'.::. c..;..:.".,,-.~. :,':::~ '. ""<'~~::~'(>;;'-':J,,;~~::,~J~,
-------
. .
-21-
transport projections indicated that it waS possible for the arsenic
concentrations in nearby wells to approach the EPA primary drinking water
maximum contaminant level; although at this time, the levels or arsenic are not
high enough in the nearby wells to be of concern. Chromium, at the level
detected in the nearby Watts well, is high enough (8600 ug/l) to be a public
health concern. The EPA primary drinking water standard for chromium is 50
ug/l. None of the other private wells sampled in the area showed high levels
of chromium. Th~re is no primary drinking water standard for copper in the
United States. The secondary limit for copper (1.0 mg/l) is based on taste,
not on health. Copper was found in ground water in temporary wells and in
permanent monitoring wells at concentrations which exceeded this secondary;
limit (2.7 me/I maximum); however, this is less than the European limit of 3.0
81/1 for water which has been in contact with plumbing for 16 hours.
Health Consultation from the Public Health Service Arency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Based upon the data and information provided, it is the opinion of the ATSDR
that the health threat based arsenic soil clean-up criteria of 1 ppm ,
recommended by the contractors in the Public Health Evaluation is unrealistic, '
unachievable and grossly overconservative for this Site. It is the ATSDR
opinion that the allowable health based soil clean-up criteria should be around
200 ppm if the Site is to be considered a potential future residential area.
If the Site is to be considered for industrial use or continue to be rural,'
then the allowable health threat based level could be set even higher.
4.2 Ground Water Remediation
In determining the degree of ground water clean-up, Section 121(d) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that the
selected remedi~l actions establish a level or standard of control which
complies with all "applicable and relevant or appropriate regulations" (ARARs).
This remedy is a cost-effective remedy which achieves a level protective of
human health and will remove the threats this Site poses to the environment
The remedy will meet appropriate requirements, and is cost-effective. Finally,
the remedy utilizes permanent treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. . ',.
4.3 Soil Remediation
The Public Health Assessment in the R1 Report determined that risks to human
health as a result of exposure to on-site contaminants via inhalation,
ingestion, and dermal contact are very low under present use conditions at the
Site. For potential future use scenarios, the risk is slightly higher.
Therefore, remediation or institutional controls will be necessary to assure
that an increased risk to human health is not posed in the future.
Since the health-based clean-up level for chromium is above background levels
for this chemical ~t the Site, this value (approximately 600 me/kg would)
probably be an appropriate clean-up goal. Levels ranging from 1 me/kg to 50
mg/kg of arsenic have been seen to occur naturally in soils.
._._~- _.--- -_o~_. '-"-'._~"'--'_v_-'_.~,-~~ ._,..~.~. ".....- _.'~ .'" -.-
. .
.r -, -, -. - -.
. v-., _. v< -
"'-"~'(':':'.'';'':'':.".;-'' :;'";. . ;~~:'-~"..->' ,': , ).-,
.,.0. "~<",;....', ',".-'~-~_.~"," ~'-;'"":'-"-""" '~'-
-------
-22- .
tAil.! 2.2
. ,
-.'
10IL STARI)AlU)S £HI) QITE1lA
'.a.LHETTO WOOD PRESERVING 1m
DlnANA, SOUTH CAJ.01.1HA
UK 11
A1'I1).eI
....eI Cl.a.up ...lch ....eI 1011a Jacql'o_.. Co8aOD laDle
10...1 C1.aDup 108..1 . CoDc.DCl'aUOU for 1011
.K!ka u!ka ..Ita aa!q
.r..D1c 200 1... tUIt 1 1... tUD 6 1-50
10
1... ChaD 6.3
ChrOlaI- - 627 5 1-1000
22
14
Copp.r Roc. 1... ChaD 10 2-100
be.1th 1... ChaD 20
1'1.k 1e.. Ch.D 10
a
ro110v1D1 ElA'. curr.Dt &u1e1.l1D.. for carclDol.Dic l'1.k a......eDt.
.
CODc.lttr.tlou of ..t.1I ID Ncqroultcl ...p1.. IC01, 8101-001, .1tcI
S101-o04. . .
C
Llael..y, W.B., Chemic.l Equilibrium ID Soliel., JOhD Wi1'y aDei 10Dl, I.v
York, 1'7', 24, 44'.
rollcnr1q tb. AI.Dc1 for 'l'oz1c 8U..t.DC.. .DeI Di..... ...I.tl7. S.pt_ber
10, 1'87.
d
'\
'\
.
.
.f
. . ..
'.
. .
.
. .
-..-.. '. '.
",
'. . '". .
" -
.
.'- -, - .
-------
."
-23--
Based upon the data and information provided in the Public Health Evaluation,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease" Registry stated that the health
threat based arsenic soil clean-up criteria of 1 ppm recommended by the
contractors in the Public Health Evaluation is unrealistic, unachievable and
grossly overconservative for this Site. The allowable health based soils
clean-up criteria should be around 200 ppm if the Site is to be considered a
potential future residential area. The EPA Headquarters Hazardous Site Control
Division Directo, concurred with this rationale during a September 9, 1987
consul tat ion . -
5.0 Alternative Evaluation
The purpose of remedial action at the Palmetto Wood Preserving Site is to
mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water, and to
reduce potential risks to human health and the environment. The following
clean-up objectives were determined based on regulatory requirements and levels
of contamination found at the Site:
. To protect the public health and the environment from exposure to
contaminated on-site soils through inhalation, direct contact, and
erosion of soils into surface waters and wetlands;
. To prevent off-site movement of contaminated groundwater.
. To restore contaminated ground water to levels protective of human,
health and the environment.
....
An initial screening of applicable technologies was performed to identify those
which best meet the criteria of Section 300.65 "of the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). Following the initial screening of technologies, potential remedial
action alternatives were identified and analyzed. These alternatives were
screened and those which best satisfied the clean-up objectives, while also
being cost-effective and technically feasible, were developed further.
Table 3-8 summarizes the results of the screening process. Each of the
remaining alternatives for soils and ground 'water remediation was evaluated
based upon cost, technical feasibility, institutional requirements, and degree
of protection of public health and the environment. A cost summary.is
presented in Table 10-13 State Cost-Sharing.
5.1 Alternatives for Ground Water Remediation
Alternative A-I:
Slurry Wall and Cap
Unlike other ground water alternatives in which contaminated water is removed
and treated, the purpose of this alternative is to prevent contaminant
migration by containing the plume.
This alternative involves the installation of a circumferential slurry wall
around the perimeter of the ground water contamination plume. the slurry
trench would be excavated down to the layer separating the shallow aquifer from
the deep aquifer (approximately 35 feet below ground surface). The backfill
material would consist of a mixture of excavated soils and bentonite clay. The
permeability of the walls would be minimized. The low permeability of the
underlying layer separating the two aquifers minimizes vertical movement of the
ground water. Because the slurry walls would be keyed into this layer, the
. .~_.,._..- -,,-. ..-._-- _._.~~"
'. c -' ~~: :,','.;,' ,-:-.. " '0.;.', ~ .', ,~:,';'~",k" .~ r.~c.:;.~.~~:';"-'" ::~».~~:~,: ._'/::"-'..r;:;'.';,~ -"..--: '".~.'J' ",.,~:~~..".: , ,,-,-,,:' -,
-"'...:-' ,,~" ,.-,,-:,~',"J'~ ,'1-';:~,.,~. ,;".._'""O"'-'-",'.-.u'.. -:--~.'." ",c:..-~'c-'r..
", C"~' .; . p.
. ',> 1~., '., < : '-::
. ",'. .,-- ,"
-------
-0
.
-24~ .
TABLE .3
,
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR SCREENING
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
REM 11
Possible Technology
£11minated (E)
or Retained {!l
I. Ground Water TSD Tecnnolo~ies
A. Passive Ground Water Controls
1. Impermeable barriers
a. Slurry Wan
b. Grout Curtain -
R
£
c. Sneet P111n9
E
B.
Active 6round Water Controls
, 1. Ixtrlct10n we11s
2. SUDsurface Drains
R
R
If Screened Out
Reason for
Doing 50 .
More. costly and less
effet~~Ye tnan slurry
walls
Inadequate wall. long
term affect1veness and
not 111'4'.al1y
1mpennecle
0'
.. - .,
'l:~,"'~"..~\', ,',.: ~. .~'" ,c-:.:. :/J
-------
. .
-25- .
TAbLE ~
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR SCREENING
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE.
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
REM II
Possible Technology
c.
&round Water Treatment
1. Oxidation/Reduction
2. Precipitation
3. Fi 1tratton
4. Reverse Osmosis
5. Land Treatment
6. Ion Excnange/Sorptive Restns
7. Carbon Adsorption
D.
8. Insitu &round Water Treatment
&round Water Disposa1
1. Discharge to Surface Water
2. Reinjection into &round
. 3.1»&IIIP to Local Wastewater
Treatment Plant
4. Subsurface 5011 Absorption
II. Soi1 TSD Tecnnologies
1. Extraction (Soi1 Flushing)
2.
Solidification/Stabilization
3.
Attenuation
"- .-" ',' - ~~._-~..,.'~ ""Co- - ~~.. ... ~.... _.~-
; ....:, ~ "- -,~;<..:~ (~o~ .;ti .~")~:,':~- :' -,;::,cr ;,:,...,: l..:'L'o ... :,':~-~.~" f.:: -".'", -~",,_c,'~., 'i,_.,:~~;~ ~\', . ,. '.< .":''',,":'
E11m1nated (E)
or Retained (!l
If Screened Out
Reason for
Doing So
R
R
R
E
Too expensive; not a
proven tecnnology for
n1gn flow rates ana
non-precious metal
recovery
Not appl1caDle fDr n19n
~etal contaminants
E
R
R
. ',I'
E
Not a proven tecnnology
R
R
R
R
R
E
CrVI does not stabilize
in tnis process.
Contaminated a~el is to~
. IJtensive for pro:~s~.
Cc~tam;nwte~ soil is
E
c.., "..'-",'),.",:.'". J . ~,:_" ,::,:;:".~- ~-'. '.-.- ,
'-'-;: :--,. O'.:~ ". """," "J' -:. \':
~' c-'.;:"<,,, :~'c' .;~;".o
-------
-26-
. ~
TABLE S
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR SCREENING
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
REM II
.\
Possible Technology
4.' Capping
Eliminated (E) .
or Retained l!l
R
5. Vegetative Cover R
6. Excavation and Offsite Disposal R
7. Partial Excavation witn Onsite
Disposal E
8.
Onsite Containment/Encapsulation
Vitrification
R
E
9.
~
c. '.~] .' :;'c ~:: -,
" ~. - " ",
'-.~'~~. . ,- .
'..' ...-C..,"
If Screened Out
Reason for
Doing 50
Not applicable.
Limited offsite
contamination ..
justify partia
excavation.
Expensive, nigh
energy requ1re-
menU, unproven
.1.
-------
-27-
TABLE
,
. ,
APPLICABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SiTE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
.
REM II
Remedial Technologies
Cannents
Ground Water Containment and Recovery
. Slurry Wa11
. Extraction Wells
May require pressure re1ease
well or impermeable cover.
Construction must De done with
care to avoia cross contami-
nation of underlying aquifer.
Uncertain design of well point
system. 510w extraction of
ground water.
. Subsurface Drain
Effective for low volume
extraction of grouna water.
Ground Water Treatment
. ','>
. Oxidation Reauct10n
. Ft1trat1on
Not appliCabl, alone~
Not applicable alone.
. Precipitation
. Ion Exchange
, ~
Ground Water Disposal
Not appliCable 110ne.
Mal not be appliclble 110ne.
. .
. Surface Water Disenarge
Effective for low volume
discnarge rites.
.'
.
.~? t, '>
" .~". -", :'~~.e3';--; '''~;~;:'~~-;':.r;;~::.''; ~ 3i~~~~"L'~-": ~ -~:-~<~:;, ::",
;.; ,;::i :'" \ . '~',: . 7_;: :>':~:;r':..
-,~.~}~..- "Y'ci;' ~.',.-:~~:~';'.';:.~=,~,
. -'-"~ - ~ .
,,' ,f :,:;. :;'.~. :i::';'~ ,:., . ' -, '
. ,"-~'- ',.~~-' _.: 4. -'c
- - ... . - .. ... - -- . -~ _. . ..- ~ .,
-~ . ''-; ,_...:: ,; :;",,:, '"': :; .~; ".' '''~ :. ',." _:~;., " ':'; 'r-'~:'" :":'- ;;.:0."" -:",:,'c .~~~ : ',,, --.' - ~. u.
-------
. .
-28-
TABLE i
.
APPLICABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
REMU
Remedial Technologies
CCllllftents
$011 Storage/Disposal
. Extraction/Soil Flushing
. Surface Capping
. Ons1te Containment/Encapsulat10n
Expensive. effectiveness.
dependent on triataD111ty tests.
Hot entirely effective 110ne.
. Excayation/Offsite Disposal
Expensive. Contaminated 5011
remains ons1tl.
Expensiye
NCP required Ina1ys1s.
',I'
~
. ...... . ---._~ .'- .. ... . d -
..~-,~~~. --'-+-'~' ..,'"
- ~ ~ v~.~.:';.,:~::~~,~~'~ ~."'-~~ ~- ':-':~-:"';,' ~:- :'~" -r.;~ ~~:-., ~ '.~': .' }.-- ~ .
, :- .,~"":"',-::'.:- ('T ',-:.;, -o,.:,-,;...::.,'o~.:'~C':,;" -. ~ ~:: :';: ;':::'i ,:0 '.-':~'". \'~~'
,,,;~j,
-, - :~.~.. -,\: ~~y.;-:;~{::.,:,>.:'-:'-':, ):'.,/,"' :';'~".:"~~,~;: >,:;':~~::_~.'.:~: .-,,~ :" '~:-~;'" t:,~.:,<
-------
. .
.
-29- .
TABLE 8
. ~
ELIMINATED TECHNOLOGIES
. PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
REMJJ
Technologies
Reason for Elimination
Ground Water TSD Tecnnologies
. Activated Carbon Adsorption
. Injection Wells
Expensive and uncertain
effectheness
Injection wells currently
banned in South Carolina. May
not be compatible with hydro-
geologic characteristics.
. Wastewater Treatment Discharge
More expensive with no added
benefits commpared to surface
water discharge.
Expensive. The three closest
POTws wi11 not accept'treated
water.
. Subsurface Soil Absorption
Soil TSD Technologies
. Vegetative Cover
Does not effectively meet
remedial objectives, not
applicable alone
'\
. .
.
."
..
. ~ '.
.. .
. ,
,;,'c~-~:--.; :,,,::'r\--:~i".e-;",~~,_:,->:'
.., . . . . . '" ..
> ,~~ -:-: I~: \,;,,~'._~-;":\;:;~:. '.'~-',.:';~ ~-~. -'~'"~',. :",.,<~~.:-,."'~': : .(, ". ,:, '? ,~~.~-"~~ ~ "
.. .
, m~- ..~.~:-:: U-H;__~:~~:=- :~::~ -."'~-:-;:--:'>:~ -;:_,~'~;,~' '~. .~::,~;::~ - '-;--"~':':. J.
- ... .' . . .
,,' :'_:~\-:" ~ .'. . .~:~."-,..,,," ~:,~,:~.,..;,.'.- <.
-~.- -... ""~'~ -,_0- ..,....",.- .-. .,< ~ '4"
-------
-30-
potential for migration of contaminated water under the walls would be low.
An impermeable cap would be constructed within the contaminated area to prevent
the area enclosed by the walls from leaching contaminants into the ground water
and from filling with an excess amount of water. The cap would consist of a
12-inch layer of. vegetated topsoil, a layer of geotextile filter fabric drain
net, a 60-mil synthetic liner, and 24 inches of compacted clay.
Estimated Cost:" $1.37 - $2.74 million.
Alternative A-2:
Slurry Wall and Encapsulation
The purpose of this alternative, similar to Alternative A-1, is to prevent
contaminant migration by containing the plume. This alternative involves the
installation of a circumferential slurry wall around the perimeter of the
ground contamination plume. The slurry trench would. be excavated down to the
layer separating the shallow aquifer from the deep aquifer (approximately 35
feet below ground surface). The backfill material would consist of a mixture
of excavated soil and bentonite clay. The permeability of the walls would be
greatly reduced because of swelling properties of the clay. Thus, the lateral
migration of contaminated ground water within the walls would be minimized.
The low permeability of the underlying layer separating the two aquifers would
be keyed into this layer, the potential for migration of contaminated water,.
under the walls would be low.
A containment cell (encapsulation cell) would be constructed within the
contaminated area to prevent the area enclosed by the walls from leaching
contaminants into the ground water and from filling with an excess amount of
water. The cell construction involves excavation to as deep as eight feet
below surface of contaminated soils and returning the contaminated soils to
synthetic membrane lined excavation trenches (containment area). In addition.
a.composite cap consisting of clay and a synthetic membrane line will be
constructed over the containment area to ensure total encapsulation within the
circumference of the slurry wall.
Estimated Cost:
$1.84 - $2.21 Million.
. ','>
Alternative A-3:
Extraction, Filtration, Ion Exchange, Discharge
Under this alternative, ground water would be extracted from the Site and would
involve treating the ground water at the PWP Site by removing heavy metal ions
via ion exchange. Treatment consists of passing prefiltered ground water
through synthetic resins. The metal ions adsorb onto the material, displacing
non-toxic ions, 8uch a8 sodium, from the re8in surface.
Due to the low flow rates expected from the extraction system, treatment would
be conducted on a batch basis. Untreated ground water would be pumped first to
a storage tank, which would hold approximately one weeks flow. Operators would
arrive on-site weekly to initiate treatment.
The stored ground water would first be pumped to a filtration unit as the
preliminary treatment step. Filtration is necessary to prevent suspended
solids from clogging the ion exchange units. The prefiltered water would then
be pumped through a series of ion exchange units. The prefiltered water would
then be pumped through a series of ion exchange columns. Operating experience
indicates that probably two types of ion exc~ange resins will be required.
- ..- - -. -- --
,.~.' ,:,"":;,;,'.;;',:'~"):'\-;.:..-. .:; ;;-,<~:;",:;
~. -- -. .'... _. '-.~ - '. ,- - - - ~.. H .--.. -.-- .--.- --- ~ ,--' ......--
- :n. ;:~:,;: ~,~:'>:'.'~..;'!,.:-?';.:" o~~-~~,.;
-------
-31-
Besins which remove hexavalent chromium are very selective and are generally
not effective for treatment of other metal~. A second, less selective, resin
would be required for removal of the copper and arsenic ions, and any trivalent
chromium ions which may be present. The treated ground water would be
discharged to a stream located southwest of the Site. Approximately 10.5
million gallons of water would be treated.
Estimated Cost: .$746,000 - $2.1 Hillion.
Alternative A-4:
Extraction, Reduction, Precipitation, Filtration Discharge
Under this alternative, ground water would be extracted from the Site and would
involve ~reating the ground water at the PWP Site by removing heavy metal ions
via reduction and precipitation. Treatment consists of adding chemical
reducing agents to convert hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form, and then
precipitating the chromium, copper, and arsenic ions out of the solution.
Treated water would be filtered prior to discharge to further reduce
contaminant concentrations.
Due to the low flow rates expected from the extraction system, treatmenL would.
be conducted on a batch basis. Untreated ground water would be pumped first to :
a storage tank, which would hold approximately one-weeks's flow. Operators
would arrive on-site weekly to initiate treatment.
The stored ground water would first be pumped to a tank, where the pH would be
lowered to 2, utilizing sulfuric acid. Following pH adjustment, a chemical
reducing agent, such as sodium metabisulfite, would be added to convert the
hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. Approximately 30 minutes of
agitation time in the reactor will be required to complete the reaction. A
simple and accurate field analysis will confirm that all hexavalent chromium is
converted.
Following reduction, the ground water will flow into a second tank, where a
precipitation agent, such as lime or sodium hydroxide, will be added until a pH
of approximately 9.5 is achieved. These chemicals add an excess of hydroxide
ions to the ground water, which form insoluble compounds with the copper,
chromium and arsenic ions. Once the proper pH is reached, a polyelectrolyte
(polymer) will be added to aid in the flocculation of the insoluble' '."
precipitates. The water will then flow by gravity into a clarifier,..where the
floc will settle out of solution. Effluent from the clarifier will be filtered
prio~ to discharge, in order to remove any fine solids which remain in the
wastewater. The treated ground water would be discharged to a stream located
southwest of the Site. Approximately 10.5 million gallons of water would be
treated. .
Estimated Cost:
$760,000 - $2.0 Million.
Alternative A-5:
Extraction, Filtration, Ion Exchange, Precipitation,
Filtration, Discharge
Under this alternative, ground water would be extracted from the Site and would
involve treating the ground water at the PWP Site by removing heavy metal ions
via a combination of ion exchange and precipitation. Treatment consists of
passing prefiltered ground water through a synthetic resin, followed by
precipitation. In ion exchange, the metal ions adsorb onto the material,
displacing non-toxic ions, such as sodium, from the resin surface. For this
alternative, only one ion exchange column would be required and would remove
hexvalent chromium. Precipitation would remove the trivalent chromium, copper,
and arsenic ions from the ground water. Treated water would be filtered again
prior to further reduce contaminant concentrations.
. ~ ,- > ... ~
,'. "' ~ L' . .":--~ ." - ".. n '-',,:: ' .
" ",,".,'-. ': .,:,-.
r .. ~ < - - -- -.
.. .' .', "'. ',', -: '.-, ~ ,~",
. ~. ~
~. .' ,- '. 1:;:
-------
-32-
Due to the low flow rates expected from the extraction system, treatment would
be conducted on a batch basis. Untreated ground water would be pumped first to
a storage tank, which would hold approximately one week#s flow. Operators
would arrive on-site weekly to initiate treatment.
The stored ground water would first be pumped to a filtration unit as the
preliminary treatment step. Filtration is necessary to prevent suspended
solids from clogging the ion exchange units. The prefiltered water would then
be pumped through an ion exchange column for removal of hexavalent chromium.
Following ion exchange, the ground water will flow into a tank where a
precipitation agent, such as lime or sodium hydroxide, will be added until a pH
of approximately 9.5 is achieved. These chemicals add an excess of hydroxide
ions to the ground water, which form insoluble compounds with the copper,
trivalent chromium, and arsenic ions. Once the proper pH is reached, a
polyelectrolyte (polymer) will be added to aid in the flocculation of the
insoluble precipitates. The water will then flow by'gravity into a clarifier,
where the floc will settle out of solution. Effluent from the clarifier will
be filtered prior to discharge, in order to remove any fine solids w~ch remain,
in the wastewater. The treated ground water would be discharged to a stream
located southwest of the Site. Approximately 10.5 million gallons of water
would be treated.
Estimated Cost:
$1.0 - $2.8 Million.
5.2 Alternatives for Soils Remediation
B-1:
Surface Capping
Capping of the contaminated area would involve the construction of a composite
cap conforming to RCRA guidelines. The area to be capped encompasses
approximately 144,000 square feet,
This operation would first consist of the placement of a two-foot clay layer,
compacted in six-inch lifts. A 60-m1l synthetic liner would then be placed
over the clay. Next, a synthetic drainage net would be spread and overlain
with geogtextile fabric. The geotextile fabric would maintain the drainage
layer and help to stabilize a final layer of 12 inches of topsoil by.~eeping
fine topsoil particles from filling the pore space of the draLn net. The
topsoil would be vegetated to prevent erosion. Also, the cap would have a
minimum slope of 2 percent to the east. Drainage channels will be constructed
to direct surface runoff to the swampy area east of the Site. Precipitation
that percolates through the topsoil would flow laterally through the drain net
and over the impermeable synthetic and clay barrier and into the drainage
channels.
Estimated Cost:
$.75 - $1.4 Killion
Alternative B-2:
On-Site Containment/Encapsulation
This remedial alternative involves excavation of contaminated soils and
returning the contaminated soils to synthetic membrane lined excavation
trenches (containment area). In addition, a surface composite cap consisting
of clay and a synthetic membrane liner will be constructed over the containment
area to ensure total encapsulation.
"
-. - -" .---.-- ._~.
. ':,,-,\_';,~,:>,,:O:)'.'.. :.' .;
':::;'~;<~ <: - :'''';' ~'.:'.~:~; ;.:: ~',~'~ ~ ":',;' :'~~~) -:,~ ;-.'~~:':.': - ./."'. ~. '.', '-,
;.~:. '~~tj',:_,~~" ~'~:::,." \~' ,
',::.-: >.".-;.-,~~:;'.', -=,~".:"
-------
-33-
This remedial alternative evaluation is based on the following assumptions:
*
Excavation of approximately 19,895 cubic yards of contaminated soils,
const~ucting a landfill that meets RCRA standards, replacement of
contaminated so11s and materials in the land.f1ll, and placing a
composite cap over the landfill for encapsulation.
*
The landfill will be constructed with a double leachate collect~on
system and a composite cap.
*
Fluids collected during excavation will be stored, analyzed, and
processed. Leachate collected from the landfill will be pumped from a
central header to the surface to be analyzed and treated.
Estimated Cost:
$1.61 Million
Alternative B-3:
Extraction/Soil Flushing
This alternative would involve treating contaminated soils at the PWP Site by
removing arsenic and chromium via an acidic water wash (pH of approximately
2.5). Treatment consists of flushing soils with an acidic water solution. Due
to the increased solubility of metals in a low pH environment, the
contaminated particles leach out of the soil and into the flushing solution
which is directed to a water treatment system..
The initial step involves excavating soil in a similar manner as alternative
B-2 and B-4. After the soils. are excavated, they are placed in the treatment
unit. The soils are conveyed through two stages of treatment which are
identical. The system is an independent two-stage system, however, if the
system is utilized, a counter current configuration would be considered. The
first stage consists of adding acidic water solution to the soils, mixing and
then dewatering. Soil is then conveyed to stage two where the same process is
repeated. Operating experience indicates that two stages of soil flushing are
needed, however, additional flushing will be performed as required until
effluent criteria is attained. 5011 is tested for decontamination ..1 \
verification, and processed to original buffer capacity. The treated soil is
replaced in the original excavation trench where natural aefation is
supplemented by tilling and compaction. The flushing solution is pumped to an
on-site water treatment facility for procesaing and recirculation through the
soil treatment unit.
Estimated Cost:
$1,712,000
Alternative B-4:
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated areas and the
final disposal of the waste in an off-site RCRA permitted facility.
Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils would be excavated.
Excavation of soils would be accomplished with standard earth moving equipment.
GSX Services, Inc. of Pinewood, South Carolina, was contacted and indicated
available capacity and interest in managing the soils removed from the PWP
Site. This facility is located approximately 70 miles from the Site.
Estimated Cost:
$5.86 Million
.- ,~,-,-"",,--,"<'- ~.--_.~ -. _..---,~--,-_"_-" ._-.. ... ,~U".
," ~.,: ':-'""~."'~\:<'~-~"";'""~'4~':---;;'".',ft.._" ,-. .~,:,.,..,n~."';~-'~';"":<'",,.~. C~"-"'''''''
:~ '7.',.. ~ "..- ",'
- "~;"'':''- '. ".;.. '
',~ I/,.'_<"~ -.",,,-,,"<. '.~"'.'
" ',. I ..~., .~..~.,' '~"~." '.,.,~".. OC ; .
-------
-34-
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, groundwater
Monitoring is an option which mayor may not
is presented~;o provide a base-level action,
may be compared.
and soil would not be remediated.
be implemented. This alternative
against which other alternatives
This no-action alternative would not be protective of human health and the
environment. Contaminated ground water could eventually migrate to residential
wells downgradient of the Site, and could discharge into the Wallace River
wetlands, which are inhabited by endangered species.
The no-action alternative is rejected for these reasons, and because it would
not comply with SARA requirements to reduce the volume, mobility, or toxicity
of hazardous substances when treatment to accomplish this is feasible.
6.0 Recommended Alternatives
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy
The recommended alternative for remediation of ground water at the Palmetto
Wood Preserving Site include extraction, filtration, ion exchange and discharge
of treated ground water to a stream located southwest of the Site or a
wastewater/private treatment facility.
The recommended alternative for remediation of contaminated soil include the
extraction and flushing soils with an acidic water solution. Treated soil is
replaced in the original excavation trench where natural aeration is
supplemented by tilling and compaction.
These recommended alternatives meet the requirements of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300.68(j}, and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This remedy permanently and
significantly reduces the volume of hazardous substances in the gTound water,
and reduces the volume and/or mobility of contaminants in the soil-.,
These alternatives are cost-effective when compared with other applicable
alternatives. Alternative A-I has a high risk of spreading contamination; A-2
does not remove source material. Alternatives B-1 and B-2 would leave source
material on-site, in contact with ground water; B-4 would remove contaminated
soil from the Site, but would landfill it off-site. Alternative B-3 is
considered cost-effective because it would be a permanent remedy, providing the
greatest protection to human health and the environment.
." - ...-.-.--...-.. . --- - --..-. .~. .....~. -...-
-------
-35- .
6.2 Operation and Maintenance
This remedy will require approximately 27 years for ground water treatment and
approximately. one month would be needed to optimize the soil flushing system.
The soil system would operate daily at a rate of 100 cubic yards per day. If
no major problems or shut-down occurred, the duration of the operation would be
approximately 2 years. The annual 0 & M costs are estimated to be $ 176,163.
Long-term ground water monitoring will be required to assure the effectiveness
and permanence of the soil and ground water remedies. Monitoring wells and
residential wells on and off the Site will be included in the monitoring
program. Ground water sampling will be conducted quarterly for the first two
years, and yearly after that. Thirty years of monitoring was included in cost
estimates, but this period may be significantly less.
6.3 Cost of Recommended Alternative
Capital cost of ground water remediation is $746,000 - $2.1 million and the
annually system operating cost is $123,000 after treatment is completed, the
yearly 0 & M cost would include monitoring only.
6.4 Schedule
The planned schedule for remedial activities at the Palmetto Wood Site is as
follows:
October 1987 - Approve Record of Decision
December 1987 - Begin Remedial Design
August 1988 - Complete Remedial Design and Begin Mobilization
August 1989 - Complete Mobilization, Equipment Installation, and
Testing . ' ...
August 1999 - Complete Remedial Activities
6.5 Future Actions
Following completion of remedial activities, no further action will need to be
performed to maintain this remedy. The recommended alternatives are permanent
remedies. The soil remediation will require no long-term operation or
maintenance. Long-term ground water monitoring will be required to assure the
effectiveness of this remedy.
6.6 Consistency with Other Environmental Laws
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all applicable Federal
and State regulations. All alternatives considered for the Palmetto Wood
Preserving Site were evaluated on the basis of the degree to which they
complied with these regulations. The recommended alternatives were found to
meet or exceed all applicable environmental laws, as discussed below.
...-. ... _.-
0:-0 ~.":.~..,. Ch;:.t'. >', ~.~ '}. ",'.;J' ..~ ;-.- .-,'
Ch~:;"'-"'.-"';'." ~:::"~~.~-~.".'::">'" .
- n.;,. :.~,;': ''-:, r.. ':-~ ~'-" .
:':::'''',-'1' '. ,~"- :. "',<;1 .-'. >-,1 . -,' 1.', I,I"!;.' ",
..' ,J":'or~"- -, ", :'" .'.--"", .. ~.' ;. .~.
. ~;. ,"', ~c,'
:,-.r.-.".j,":"<-.",- ,
-------
-36-
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The recommended remedy for 80il contamination includes
excavation and 80il flushing. This is an on-site remedial
action which meets the technical requirement of this regulation.
* Clean~Water Act
No contaminants have been detected in the surface water or
wetlands near the Site. Soil remediation and ground water
remediation are aimed at source control. and implementation'of
the recommendation alternatives would eliminate the possibility
of future contamination of wetlands and surface waters..
* Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988
This Site does not lie within a floodplain and thus is not
subject to the requirements of E. o. 11988.
* Department of Transportation
Transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by the Departm~nt
of Transportation (DOT). If residual material results from,
ground water or soil treatment systems. it will be shipped to an
off-site disposal facility. If tests on the material indicate
the need for disposal in a hazardous waste facility. DOT
regulations governing its shipment will be followed.
* Occupational Safety and Health Administration
A health and safety plan will be developed during the remedial
design and will be followed during field activities to assure
that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) are followed.
* Safe Drinking Water Act
",I'
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe
Dr~nking Water Act were found to be relevant and appropriate to
remedial action at the Palmetto Wood Preserving Site. The
clean-up Goals for ground water established in Section 4 use the
MCLs. .
*
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Discharge of treated ground water is part of the recommended
remedial alternative. This discharge will meet effluent limit
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Bioassays will be conducted where appropriate
during design of this alternative. set effluent limits. and to
optimize the ground water treatment system so that these
effluent limits are met.
* Endangered Species Act
The recommended remedial alternative is protective of species
listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
.- . . .. ---- ~~ ,--.
',.>~'\'., ~ -, ~:~:~~/"~':.,,:/.:. .
. ,;"~,:_- '-'::"." . c -' ~"'~- -~ ..'~~,', :..:.; ~ i ~:..'- ~.\ ~_::.;~~;,o- ~,;'L~~' .--" '.,. ;::::: ,~,;,.;-..., " ::;- ::~, ~~., ~:';~: ~';..;:~\~, .._~-"
'-::"c. ':";;;", .~/ ,,' >.- ;'--'::'.<:<-~; ;:i:'~ ':.:;.~.:':~,,;~>,:- <: :', : i.,:.:~" :,", ~.- :,..: . r
-' ,,0 ." '..
.- <":~'- -"~:~,,M,,-'-~CJ
.,{"7'..;'~;"r:-;--'~ ~ )"', :..~ ''''',''': ,--'~ ~-',,'el, :-':;,,:"
-------
-37-
Act. Requirements of the Interagency Section 7 Consultation
'Process, 50 CFR, Part 402, will be met. The Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services. will be consulted during
. remedial design to assure that endangered or threatened species
'-.~ are not adversely impacted by implementation of this remedy.
* Ambient Air Quality Standards
The ground water and soil remediation systems will be designed
and monitored to assure that air emissions meet all State and
Federal standards.
* State Drinking Water Standards
Maximum contaminant levels established by the State of South
Carolina regulations are adopted from those of the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, and will be met as discussed above. :
7.0 Community Relations
A public meeting was held on August 26. 1987. at the County Administration
Building located at South Lake Drive, Lexington. South Carolina. At this
meeting, the remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study were
discussed. The preferred alternative was reviewed. No comments in regard to
any of the alternatives were received during the three-week comment period
which ended September 15. 1987. .
The public did show a desire for remediation of the Site. and seemed to favor
treatment of ground water and soil flushing of contaminated soil. No
opposition from the public is expected if the recommended remedial alternative
is implemented.
A Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to summarize community concerns and
EPA's community relations activities. . '...
8.0 State Involvement
As required by CERCLA, Section 104(C), the State must assure payment of ten
percent of all costs of remedial action. Remedial action has been defined in
SARA as including all construction and implementation activities until site
remediation is completed. Activities required to maintain the effectiveness of
the remedy following completion of the remedial action is considered operation
and maintenance (0 & K). If surface water or ground water treatment is part of
the remedy, only the first ten years of such treatment will be considered as
remedial actionjthe remaining period of treatment will be a part of the 0 & K
activities. The State is required to pay 100 percent of all 0 & K following
completion of the remedial action. EPA and the State may enter into an
agreement whereby EPA would fund 90% of 0 & K costs for a period not to exceed
one year, until the remedy is determined to be operational and functional.
The State of South Carolina has been consulted on the selection of this remedy.
The State has concurred, but has pointed out that their funds for cost-sharing
are limited. Although the State presently has funding to cover their part of
this remedial action, they are concerned about funding problems on future
remedial actions at other NPL sites in the State.
"";C ''; 0
.;~"",'}~: ,~-~<:, ,j'."":::" "/.,-.:-,..;.: ,:o<"<'~"":~<' -',':'~~'f '~)"-3, " ";\'/,:-', 'r
", ',:-',..i' ~~:",.:,' '~. ::' c'. .->; , ';"- t~.- ;',~ ,. ",
-------
I
I ZONE
I
I
I... ....
I
I
I
I
I
-38-
TABLE
'1
aJANTm OF SOIL TO RE~':)VE CALCULATIONS
PALMETTO WOOO PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA, SOUTH CAROLINA
o ,
~..I 8'1"
"'lIT
r.
REM II
"I I V"8
l..1::. ..
.....
I .AVERAGE I ~USTED I I AVERAGE I vaUK I YCl.I.I4E
IAREACUNITS) IAR£ACUNITS) IAREACFT) 'D£P'ntC") I CMIC FE£T) I CMIC YARDS)
...1. .IV"". ..
I 2.10 I 2.10 I 2,070 I 17.5 I 11,225 I
.L 111. ------.. 1 .. ..- - I""
I 10.54 I 8.1' I 7.506 I 12.5 I 13.125 I
Y 'T ----- .~-- .b...8T -_.&...I:::. L.. &.A.. '" ... .
I 16.7' I 1.10 I 5,'90 I 1 I '9,'10 I
D
25.'5 I
17_"'-------------_~_--..1 11...----1111...."
T......--------'.r-..
.... I
..
T........-.-.4.&
A
8
c
E
33.33 I
1.71 I
32..5 I
I
I
I
........ -------------
0.11 I
4 -------.-----.----------------------..W....--I
73 I
I
I
I
I..r
,
0.18 I
7.139 I
29,205 I
5.5 I
1.5 I
...--....-.- ..... .
11 I
I
,.. ...VY.P~"~--------------_. .
I
792 I
198 I
261 I
10 I
9.5 I
..1
I
I
I
1.3'2 I
I I
1.'75 1
1"'
1,830 I
-I
1.597 I
~~-I
11.
T. 'T'''''-. -----~------""---------88'_"'--""'--.-._.-._~-
.3,115 I
11 l
G
0.22 I
0.22 I
..--
'3.108 I
1.623 I
1..256 I
528 I
1.980 I
I-------vw..----------.---- ~ ----------------------------------------..------"..--1
I
1.. 11'1 L 1 .. r------__~--------------...----------.,-....------
I 1.00 I 0.'9 I ..1 I 1.5 I 1.7.9 I
H
0.51 I
0.29 I
2..80 I
92 1
--I
139 1
-.------ ...
I
0.17 I
'.65 I
M
6.78 I
0.17 I
1.16 I
2.13 I
..11 I
.1.1. I
".21 I
I-........_..~--....... r --
... .. ----"""'-------------'-------"'--------------------------------""'-----1
.0 I
153 I
1.138 I
1..M 1
7 I
6.5 I
5.5 I
1.071 I
10.547 I
39. 1
-,
30. 1
N
11..6 I
.1.1. I
1.917 I
..212 I
17.201 I
I
19,719 I
I
I J I
I 'I' . ~-------------......_-_._..-.... ----_.-----------------"""----"""~----I
I K I 2.99 I . 1.82 I
I... .A .-....------------------.-. ..-- ~ J. .--------------...... . YW----_:.e..,.
I L I
I
I
1.217 I
--...----1
T4.......------------------....-------------------------....._.--n
I".~.'"
..5 I
1.127 I
320 I
...--1
...-V8WW".... R ..A..---.--_..__M.~" wr.....----..-~A.~. _"_hL
1..7.2 I
5.6 I
I
I
1-....~.
I
ITOTAL
1.5 I
--e.
A.."" ...1
ITOTALCWITH AN EXPANSION fACTOR CF 201)
..... ...L
FW__...Z..--------.. T
.---....-.---- & . T..
I
I- Ah .-....-.... ...-...... --T~ .--......----.....-~... w. -.-
I
I
I--~.. T W.----_A~ ..A_.------".-.- L~...~..
I' "' I
.-
55,109 I
51.IM I
2.067 I
.L I. r---------------.-.-......,A
,
.'.21 I
1.5 I
~--....--a......-. ..----.&~.--._--... ----...~r... ~.r-------------I
1.5 I
..A.... TV....-----.-
I
2.211 I
o
. .. .
i..
- .
. ..
. . .
v..
.. ...
..
. .
8W.h . . -I
"7,"2 I
16.579 I
I
19,195 I
.........~_. .
T.-.
I
537,170 I
0'
1
-
- .-.- _...",
-------
f,' ~
l~j
"-1
;~ I
~: '
.'
~~{
..,',
''''1
'd
t;:
tt.1
'}j
~.\: ~
...
;t I
01 .' . .
~} i
~...I' .
,:.: : . ......, ..
~.. ...... ..... .,
i: ...... dllltt--...-
-}:...... ,..
r -- .,... - .....-,.
}., .-
'l':1"~
;~'! .......
f'
:r~ ~
";'\ . .
:~; ; IU.... I I
~:; ;........ ........ .. .... I .. I
'{ ~......' "-" ....... I .. ,
:~ ,.,....., '.,h'... I .. I
(.: I I
~? .. «n ....... 181 I I
;~ .11" "-rt8- . : .. :
t': ,.,-----.... .
~tli...808l''''''''' . '*" I No ... .
i,.. '11 &8atI... . II I
1";. ..., '1'''' . II .
!;'- ......- ... ... .
i~ ,,,''' . .... ... .
I;. "'.'''''''''''''' .......
~-:. ..
f: .................. I .. I
;~;. . ..
Ii nil , .. .
I'~' . ,
t~: ............... . ,.. .
'.' I .
if: .... ...., . ,.. .
I;' . .
i';: YIl."" I II .
., , ,
.,'
"'~' ........
I( ..... - -.., r-e
,
ij:, ......... - C8II8 ... - .. II Cllttat ....
,'I .. '''' ...... . ......, - r-e ... - .. II r.... ....
"I ...................... - r-e ... - .. II c.tat r.t
~\- 1...&
. .
'alII '0
CIIIT ISIDtAft ... ALTI8IAflft I-J
r&ua1O UOC8 7IIISDYIIIG 1111
IIIUIIA. SOUI1I CMOLIIIA
... II
~ ...tIIII
..... .....,
'"'' -...,. ..
................... ..
............ ".r.."""" '.-...
I.......... M
I........ 1IIt-", - ......,.
't.
.; IIr-1r - ~ ... - .. II .......
:~.. ~- r-
t, I
;; _.....",.. r....,
'; .. 11111!111 .... CI8f
.- -- .....-............... ..,., n,-,r-.;-'.-.-
=,,-'-.0," '".-.-"C'-''::u,",<.,.,--on,- n,',(c,
"
't,'
1IfWt.. . ......u n!n
"., :. ~.,'
----..-...
--.---....-.,........-- .... .....'
, .... .......
'.
,
tI;8d_NI" ...
. ....-
. -_11-
. ..... ........
.
... 0PIDI.1M81I ......
,
.....
I
.....
.
.
.... II."'''''''
, ........... ......
I ""''''''
.
..... ..........
, -"-1' ......
, ""''''''
,-._u...---
.......
I...... -.-.----
IC8IfIlllCY - ... ... iii . II .......
1ft'" ,
,..........-...-
. .. . ...." , .... . .... ... ,
. I ""1
. -,
, I I
I . ,
. . -.. . .... ,
. , ....... .....- ,
., ....., .... ,
I . ,
1 . ,
. ......., ...-,
, , .
. I .
"'. . .......... '" ,
. ...... I -.'"
. I --. I ... 1
-- , .. . ''''II ,
..- . .... , tn... ,
,- . W......... ,
. I ,
.. ....1 __I
. , ,
. 1 -.. , ..... ,
. I ,
. . ..... , ...... .
I , ,
..- 1 .. . .....'
, , .
. , --- 1 III." .
, , I
.......
------
---.... ... ...,
, -."',
. ,
. ..lIS .
I ...., ,
. I......
, ".""IS I
I ,
, 1"".1'
, 'I..'.'" .
, 8
, ..... 118 8
, II. ,". 'IS .
'.... -."...,.... 1 ...... ... . ~..... ....... ..,..!
. , . 1 ..... 1 . 'No .. . , .
1-1---'----1-------,-----"----"-,,,,
. .1 . , I I
, ,., . I ...- . .. , . . ".'11 .
. ... 'I ....., .... . I III.S' .
I .. ,,- . '"." , II"" , I' "~I.'. .
, . , . . , .
1111- tI' ..-. IlL- , "".- , I , ".1It .
, I' . I ,
. .. '-'.1 ... I ".'.8 , , .
. . , , . .
",-a 1 I . .... 1 .... . . 1
, 'I , . .
1 I , I , I
. I . . , .
, ...' ., "... 1 ... I , .
, .. . .. , ~.- 1 "'.- . I ,
. . , . , .,
. I , , . .
. .... .. ".-._' ".- .
. .. . " . ..v." . ft.'" ,
........-----....-........ ....
'........'.
"'''''IS .
J8.. --..----............-... ..-...
1:'." ,
........-.-..--..---.-.-..... .. .0..... .
.... -----.--........--.......-.. ... .................,
'I. "I .
.
"'" .
,
Coo)
\D
,
...
,..
.
.
I...,.. .
'J'.- .
.
.
1:1 WAIl
".I.,,,,, .
'.'..) .
'A, ".
.
.....~. .
-------
:.(~:-
,~~}
(J}
.!,'}
:~):~i
l~' ".
~t '1M. ....., ..
::~:; ==::. -:::.:.. ,....... ...... --
I ~==-: - :-:-.~~::
;}:1: ~ '0 t...I.... .... I
::~7:: .1 ,,~ -..~...." . II' .. ,.,.-. ""_,
ii":: -.. .,...,.................. I II I . I 0.. . 0.- .
;:.~., . or......, ,....,.. . ... II . .. . a,ZW I
~~,: ,0 . I . I . I
~<~. .. . 811 ...... .. . . . I I '
..X,). I a...... I II I . . a.- . 'J,,- I
f;-';'~ . I r......... . II I I I ",.- . ".... I
;J~;: I . . I . I .
9~' ----.lIlI . I . . I
'y.": I 1"1'" -..... ,.,.., .. I . . a._I 'J,,-'
([-, I CoPt,.. FIt.., I..' I . ...- . n.- I
3::', , ..... "Ie. ~ I. I . . a.- . IJ,,- I
..;..;. . I.. r...... w- I .. II ....- . -.- I
~).;.J.' t' ......... &....-..... ...., I. I """. . Ift.- I
~). ,.".. .....- I II' I' ..-, "_I
;:1.{ :.! -..1.....1. . . I II 'n.-' ",... I
. ',; I' . I . . I
1i~ . ....... .....
~;;~~.: I ,..,... ............ - I I I . 'u,", I
y::- . . "'1"''''', -..... I --. .. . . . .... .
;":,!;" , -.-........ ,....tI.. ..., I I a,.. . IS," .
\'[. I . . . . I
j1~""~ .... ....
M.; .. I' I I I
:;{':, IimlPffPII I ... I'''''' '.._1
~ti~: I I I . . I
,;.~;: ..!.am -- I --. .. ,... "."1
".~'!.. 1- . I
'I:' .,....... - r.I,.1 r.a I ""." I
t,~ .. ~CWNrt('r ... I. I 1".tIS I
;~'i" ......~.... UC'INI . ...... .... . "'.'" I
Vi i ...,,_.. , .........1. I.,.. . ea,nI ~ -
,;1': , ........ I "....., .
~.I? . . o' . ,
:i~ ..........., I"" . , It),." 1
:.'~ . . ...... r-tNrt.. CIIII I tmow,
:~'.~ . . 1
};, ...........".. CIIIt8 1 It....,ss ,
:;\\: 'm MW1If _ClIP 1 ".J",m 1
.. -----..-
~.
I':
TABLE 11-
,.... ....... ..
"''''''1.'''''' ..
1","",'- P'''" ra..... ........ .~
lit......... N
1'1...., -I(t1I - --....
...... . ..l1li..... IlI!III
...., 11-181-1'
I '118 P-ItIfII..
I
1
1tIIII....1 UIIIII
. "",..1-
, "_11--
I
...
I
'''~IDII
.
I........ IIIIIIIId
.
....... . .....
. .........
I ,- r...., ....
.
....... _1IIIIIi
. .
nu-
. .
,... 11M .II~..
. ......., 1 -'-
. l*INI.., .
.
..... 1181_-
. -.-. 1 ""',-
. l""'..,
.
IUIIIIl
I-
I""''''' . ..... .......
,
........
.
11'1111.
/ l
. UtI" ''''''''1'''''''' --..... . IDraIftII ...... MJII1II8
I I ., I 181.' I '., '" I I .
1-1-1 I .---.--.
. I I . , I .
. lIP . ',- 1 "". . -.- . rr t "".- ,
. lIP . IN . 1M." , I'. m . " . "'.'" .
. . . . I . I
. .. I"'. . ... . 1M . rr . .... .
. I' . . I 1
I .. .,.- . .. . ... . rr . .".- ,
. I' . . . .
. II' I". . .... , ..- , rr I m,.. .
. I' . . I 1
. . I I , . 1
I ... ...- I "., . 1"'- . rr . "",'" 1
. I'" I I.' I .... . ".et I rr . t...,., 1
. . . I . . .
. III . . . ,.... I ".- . rr I ,rr," ,
. , . , . . I
. . , .. . 'ISoW . 1M . rr . 'J,m 1
. . . . I . .
. . . . . I .
. .... .. II..W' ..- . rr. ""VJ'
. . . 48 I ,.... I "."' . .. " I .....- 1
. . . -. . I .
. I' , , I 1
. .... I' It..,., It.- . ., . II. ,. 1
. . I II , ""." . ".- . . 8 ".'" 1
------.
. 'IW,_'
. --------1
rr. R,tM 1
--,
".," 1
---I
. '1,"" S3 1
.
~
o
.
'iii. N I
...., .
".. '"~ ,
'Ute- .
--..--...--
.
.
. 1fIl~"'"
1
. .........r.......
. ..... 1 ....,.... r.t.
I
IIIfIl IUlGF ....... ....
. I "IW8f - fIIIII ..... IIS1I1I IftIeI1IIlI"tJIt
I"'" ,.....",..., "1m' IU "III' I R.'11JII I 1
I lIFt ,.... I . . . 1M. ,"', I 1
I~I--I . 1-----'-------1
. . . II IJ,.,W' ....., I rr 1 ""'''1
. . , IJ IJ,,""'" ...."" , " 1 IU.'rz ,
------------1
, 13,'" .
------
--
....., 1
------.--------- -----
.-
-------
-41-
-I' 0
OtOO
II
. !
0 .
u ~
-
8 2.00
~
....,
-' ~..
-' .
f .
.
. 3.00
.
.
8
,,~
'8
I
I ..00
5.00
'.00
I'
A' .
I 100' I
~ I tA'-I.
I
D
E
LEGEND
F
7'00
G
~IMATI'D IJCA'A'nCWCIP1N
....
.STIMATED iOIL QUANTITIES
. .
PALUETTO WOOD PRESERVING ..TI
PIIU'!I NO.
....
. .
r::; ':..,\-,:-~'~~-;~,.:.;..,.'~~~~.~.;;o::~~~;.~~'~~~~~:~..:_.=.:~:;.::- ~~~i:ft:~~._-::f::'_I,,,. -~~~~'~~'.:;~.~.'~~L. ~'::~.~-~-::~~~...~~.-.I~~ ~~:::-....".:.-_.:,:~~:..: ~..",::;:W - ~,"".'..". ; ~~-:.: ..."-~.... :.:..:,-:.~.....-:- .o:,,:j c:-,':.. ~. ,-- r-"'_:~ ~~::-... _.J
-------
STORAGE AREA •
STACKING SHED
\ DRIP SHCO
OOCZD
CHEMICAL STORAGE TANKS
PRESSURE TANK HARRO» CAC£ RAILWAY
DRY CHEMICAL STORAGE BUILDING
WATTS RESIDENCE
LEGEND
® PROPOSED MONITOR WELL CLUSTERS
WATTS HELL •
PROPOSED MONITOR WELL CLUSTER LOCATIONS
FIGURE N
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
DIXIANA. SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
-43-
TABLE 12
- -. STATE COST-SHARING
PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING SITE
TOTAL FOR A-3 AND B-3
A-3 EXTRACTION, FILTRATION. ION EXCHANGE, DISCHARGE
B-3 EXTRACTION/SOIL
TOTAL EPA STATE
DESIGN 174,126 174,126
CAP ITAL COSTS 1,393.000 1.253,700 139,300
IMPLEMENTATION 1.231,497 561,679 669,818"
0 & M 33,000 990 32,010
MONITORING 143.163 49.183 93,980
TOTAL 2,974,786 2,039,678 935,108
'" .
[
t
I .
,
. . - '.. ,.~. ~ -."..-.-.
,:,.~-:..." :.. ,~,,",.-' ,",';,,'";; \;,<,"'. _:.,'~.':".., ,-""'-:-.-.,
. ":!,':"".;".~;":-,;;', ':{'. ',":,r'-.-/
. - - .-., - . -,~ ..~ ,
" "':'-~~ > '"0,' '; ::. ,,;'" c." .:: .).
',~. ""'. ",''; '...,c.~ ',.-- ',: -"..-."'", ,.:,:,.,.:-,"'.,1~ 1-,' -':~.. .,,:,,.,,-';, :-.J".~',
. ~,- . , .
--,..r,..~-' ...;~,",,-~,'..,~" c
. .,.~' '. ':" ."~ .' --;" :.",',_,,'" '-',~ ..'c. .
-------
T
.;':~
TABLE 13
ALTERATIVE A- 3 EXTRACTION, FILTRATION, ION EXCHANGE, DISCHARGE
DESIGN
CAPITAL COSTS
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT
TEN-YEAR .
IMPLEMENTATION
17-YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION
ll-YEAR
MONITORING
19-YEAR
MONITORING
TOTAL
. .
TOTAL
EPA
STATE
23,080
17,963
34,732
590,444
',f'
5,465
88,515
760,199
NOTES:
Implementation based on 27 years at $34,732 per year
28,851
28,851
Monitoring based on 27 years at $4,968 per year
C' -- ~ ....
,.' .',.
. ~! . ',,!". 'c":'" ...~- >:. ~
230,802
207,722
26,944
8,981
347,320
312,588
590,444
54,648
48 , 183
88,515
1,367,524
607,325
3 years at $3009 per year
-. .-.. '-" H.,~~.--<-------_C,"'" '--_.-.,'. -_..
~- ~".::-: ~O:,/ ~<..::. \~-'::.,< "f; <'. ~ ~':,;,,::<':~-~{: ..;;.-,,-~,'~,;~::- ,\;.: "":'~,~"'~;':-:;..,'i,':- ,;~' ,:~~.~::~s ~:;.~~c ,\~<;;';; :~,-~>,,'~"".'Y :..,,~:.';'::.<" . '\,' '--,'>'~,- ;]"~ ;,:..,:; ~ .'~ ;'::/~:~ ~-', "i";,' .; ',.}c. J -. ~ ,~,," "
-------
TABLE
Alternative B-3- EX..,. .., ,
Extraction/Soil FlU8hlng
DESIGN
CAPITAL COSTS
IMPLEMENTATION
HRST-YEAR O&M*
LONG-TERM O&M*
TOTAL
NOIES!
Total
145,275
1.162,198
266,789
1.100
31,900
. EPA
145,275
1.045,978
240,110
990
.State
116,220
26.679
110
31,900
1.607,262
174,909
------- |