# Final Close Out Report For The Geiger (C&M) Oil Site Rantowles, South Carolina Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

R Donald Rigger Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch Superfund Division U.S. EPA Region4 

# £1-Aub- Zo 13 Date:I. Introduction Final Close Out Report Geiger (C&M) Oil Site Rantowles, South Carolina

This Final Close Out Report (FCOR) documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed all response actions for the Geiger (C&M) Oil Site (the Site) in accordance with EPA's Close OutProceduresforNationalPrioritiesListSites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22 II. Summary ofSite Conditions Background The Geiger site property covers an area offive acres and is located approximately 10 miles west of Charleston, along Highway 162 in Rantowles, Charleston County, South Carolina. The Site consists of an affected areathat is approximately 1.5 acres in size and triangular in shape, and is bounded on two sides byponds, and on the third side by a small, raised land area, which is approximately five feet higher than the Site. The area around the Siteis sparselypopulated (less than 50 people), with approximately 10 residences located west and southwest ofthe Site and approximately 10 residences located to the east and northeast, with several small businesses located within ahalfmile ofthe Site along Highway 162. The Sitehas flat topography and site elevations range from approximately 15 to 30 feet above mean sea level. The area is servicedbymunicipal water, though there are two private wells located up-gradient of the Site. In March 1969, the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority (SCPCA) permitted Adams Run Services, Inc. to incinerate waste oil at what is now the Geiger Superfund site. Between 1969 and 1971, eight unlined lagoons, each approximately one (1) foot deep and covering a total area 50 feet wide by 100 feet long, were constructed for thepurpose ofholding waste oil in connection with the incineration process. EPA Region 4 investigated the Site in February 1980. Samples from two monitoring wells installed down-gradient from the Site contained organic compounds and metals that were also found in the wastepits. Residential wells up-gradient ofthe Site were sampled, but no organic compounds were detected. Metals in these residential samples were at background levels. Waste oil in the lagoons was found to contain chemicals similarto those associated with automotive crankcases, brake fluids, and degreasing compounds. The total quantity ofwaste on site was estimated at 149,600 gallons. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983 and finalized on the NPL in September 1984. A potentiallyresponsibleparty (PRP) search was conducted, which determined that there were no viable PRPs responsible for causing the Site's contamination. EPA therefore conducted the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RVFS), as well as additional field investigations in orderto better characterize and define the extent ofthe ground water contamination.

1Remedial Investigation I Feasibility Study (RI/FS) The RVFS was completed in 1987. Low levels oforganics, as well as metals (primarily lead and chromium), were detected in the soils and the ground water. Contaminants were not detected in ground water samples collected from residential wells adjacent to the Site. The Public Health Assessment in the RI determined that risks to humanhealth, as aresult ofexposure to on-site contaminants via inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact, were at acceptable levels under current-use conditions. However, under a future-use scenario in which the Site is redeveloped, an undue riskmightbeposed from exposure to contaminants in site soils. Remediation orinstitutional controls wouldbenecessaryto assure that an increased risk to human health would not beposed in the future. Samples collected during the remedial investigation provide sufficient data to characterize the site. No additional data is required. The final feasibility study dated July, 1987 provided an in-depth summary and discussion ofsite sampling activities, and an analysis ofremedial alternatives. The feasibility studyprovided an analysis ofExtraction (soil) Hushing, solidification/stabilization, attenuation, immobilization incineration, capping, vegetative cover, excavation and offsite disposal, partial excavation with onsite disposal, onsite containment/encapsulation and no actionremedial alternatives. ROD Findings A Record ofDecision (ROD) was signed in June 1987, and two ROD amendments (ARODs) were signed; one in July 1993 and the second in September 1998. Thepurpose oftheremedial action at the Site was to mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water and to reducepotential risks to human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives were determined based on regulatoryrequirements and levels ofcontamination found at the Site:

• protectingpublic health and the environment from exposure to contaminated on-site soils through inhalation, direct contact, and erosion ofsoils into surface waters andwetlands; • preventing off-site movement ofcontaminated ground water; and • restoring contaminated ground water to levels protective ofhuman health and the environment. A remedial alternative was selected in the 1987 ROD to prevent direct contact exposure and inhalation ofcontaminants in the soil, potential ingestion ofcontaminated ground waterbyon-site workers and potential future residents; further leachingofcontaminants to ground water above drinking water standards; and potential direct contact exposure to environmental receptors. The selected remedy included:

• recovery ofcontaminated ground water with on-sitetreatment and discharge to an off-site stream; • on-site thermal treatment ofexcavated soils to remove organic contaminants; • Solidification/Stabilization (SIS) ofthermally-treated soil to reduce mobility ofmetals; • review ofS/S, during the remedial design, to determine ifS/S alone would achieve remedial action goals; and • development ofsoil cleanup goals during the remedial design. The selected remedy established cleanup goals for contaminants inthe ground waterbased ondrinking water standards. The selected remedy eliminated the principal threat posed to human health and the 2environmentbypreventing further migration ofcontaminants to the ground water and byremediating ground waterto drinking water standards. The 1987 ROD indicated that no elevated levels of contaminants were found in the pond on-site. Treatability studies conducted during the remedial design determined that S/S alone would remediate contaminated soils. Based onthese studies, the ROD was amended onJuly 13, 1993 to state that only S/S would be conducted, thermal treatment would not be needed. EPA issued anotherROD amendment on September 9, 1998, changingthe ground waterremedyfrom pump and treat to Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and revising the ground water Contaminants ofConcern (COCs) to onlyinclude cadmium and lead, withrespective cleanup goals of5J.!g/L and 15J.!g/L. (Table 1) presents the cleanup goals established in the ROD and ARODs for ground water. Soil leachate criteriawere established inthe 1993 AROD to protect the ground water. Table 1: Cleanup Goals for Ground Water and Soil Leachate Cnntaminant 1987 ROD Ground 1998AROD 1993AROD WaterCleanup Grnund Water Leachate

Gnals(flg/L) Cleanup Criteria ' Gnals(p.g/L) (p.g/L) Benzo (a) pyrene 0.03 None 10 Benzo (a) anthracene 0.03 None 10 Benzo (b and/ork) 0.03 None 10 fluoranthene PCB (Aroclor 1254) 0.079 None 1 Benzene 5 None 5 Trans-1,2- 70 None 100 dichloroethylene Chromium 50 None 150 Lead 50 15 15 Toluene 175 None 1000 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 15.8 None 600 1, 1-Dich1oroethane 5 None 5 Cadmium None 5 None Remedial Action Activities In February 1992, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA). After the final design was completed, USACE awarded the RA contract to McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation (McLaren/Hart) for S/S ofSite soils. McLaren/Hart mobilized to the field for full-scale soil treatment on January 16, 1994. Soil treatment was completed onApril23, 1994 followed byplacement ofa gravel cap overthe treated soil, which was completed onAugust 5, 1994. The pre-final inspection, conducted on August 9, 1994, did not identifY any significant outstanding items and therefore served as the final inspection. Both the site's Final Construction Report and the Interim Remedial Action Report were approved byEPA and SCDHEC on September29, 1997. Site soils have been treated to prevent further leaching ofcontaminationinto the ground water. Additional groundwater sampling conductedbyEPA showed onlyoneremaining ground waterCOC that was consistentlydetected above drinking water standards in two localized areas. 3Becausethe soil was treated and groundwater contamination was found to be at low concentrations in only two localized areas, EPA issued an additional AROD on September 9, 1998, changing the ground waterremedy from pump and treat, which was neverimplemented, to MNA. The Preliminary Close-out Report (September 14, 1998), and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan (September 1998) were approved byEPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary Close-out Report confirmed that there was no definable contaminantplume on site, with localized areas ofcontamination at well MW-2S and well MW-6S. Community Involvement EPA prepared a Record ofDecision (ROD) on June 1, 1987. A public meetingwas held inJanuary 1987 in which all the alternatives were presented. Aninformationrepository was established and was located at the Hollywood Town Hall in Hollywood, South Carolina, near Rantowles. There was anotherpublic commentperiod for the first ROD Amendment from May 25, 1993, until June 25, 1993. The Proposed Plan for the 1998 ROD Amendment was available for review and comment during the public commentperiod, June 30, 1998 to July 30, 1998, and is apart ofthe Administrative Record File, as requiredby CERCLA § 117, 42 U.S.C. § 9617, and the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §300.825(a)(2). No comments were received during the 1998 public comment period and no requests were received for an extension ofthe commentperiod orfor a publicmeeting. Community Involvement since the remedy was completedhas involved notifyingthe community and interestedparties bynewspaper. The current Information Repository is located at the St. Paul's Parish Library, 5151 TownCouncil Drive, Hollywood, South Carolina 29449. Redevelopment There are no current plans for redevelopment at the site. Siteuse is restricted by Instructional Controls (IC's) thatprohibit activities includingbutnot limited to, filling, drilling, removal ofcover and construction ofbuildings. The property is beingused to store construction equipment and vehicles. III. Monitoring Results Ground Water Review Ground water sampling eventsbefore the 2004 FYR indicated that there were no longer any organic COC's detected. Lead was the onlymetal detected above cleanup goals duringthe sampling events. Two wells in particular, MW-2S and MW-6S, have continually had high lead detections (Table 2). Table 2: Historical Ground Water Lead Detection Results Coneentration (Jlg/L) Well MAR MAR MAR NOV MAY MAR MAR AUG 1997 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2003 2008 MW-2S 240 96 96 220 120 170 170 180 MW-6S 33 34 19 NS 97 150 17 100 NS = Not sam__Qied, well was <lly.

4In September2004, temporary wells were installed immediately adjacent to the MW-2S and MW-6S wells. For MW-6S, the screened interval was closely approximated, however, this well did not produce enough waterto sample. Two temporary wells with slightlydeeper screens were installed adjacent to the well and sampled. The samplingresults from this effort are presented in (Table 3). Table3: 2004 TemporaryWell GroundWater SamplingResults Cleanup Minimum**MW~ MW~**  MW· MW· COCs Goats Reporting 2SN 2SS 6SN 6SS2 (Jtg!L) Limit (llg/L) (p.g/L) (llg/L) (p.g/L)**(11~)** Benzo(a)pyrene 0.03



### - NT NT NT NT anthracene 0.03



### - NT NT NT NT Benzo (band/ork) 0.03 

### - NT NT NT NT fluoranthene PCB (Aroclor 1254) 0.079

- NT NT NT NT Benzene 5 

### - NT NT NT NT Trans-1,2- 70 - NT NT NT NT dichloroethylene Chromium 50 5.0 ND ND 23 ND Lead 15 1.0 ND ND 7.8 ND Toluene 175

- NT NT NT NT 1,2-dichlorobenzene 15.8

- NT NT NT NT 1, 1-dichloroethane 5 

### - NT NT NT NT Cadmium 5 0.50 ND ND ND ND

NT= Not Tested NO= Not detected above minimum reporting limit.

The March 2009 Five Year Review recommended that two new temporary monitoring wells beinstalled next to MW-2S and MW-6S. In July 2009, two additional new temporary monitoring wells were installed, using a Geoprobe direct push rig, in general proximityto each ofthe permanent wells. Results torthe temporary wells adjacent to the permanent wells showed no detection for lead. A concentration of 14 ug/1 lead was detected in the sample collected at MW-6S. This concentration is below the action level of 15 ug/1 and was significantlylowerthan anyhistoricallydocumented concentration oflead from this well. Additional Study In January 2013, an additional studywas performed to evaluate the lechability ofthe stabilized soil monolith. The Durability and Leachability Study ofthe Solidified/Stabilized (Monolith) waste, concluded that the COCs remain highlybound within the monolith and that leaching ofthese COCs is unlikelyto adverselyimpact the surrounding soil and/or ground water environmentunder current site conditions. IV. SummaryofOperations andMaintenance The 1998 AROD stated that long-term Operation & Maintenance (O&M) oftheremedy was not required, but ground watermonitoring would be necessaryto assure the permanence ofthe remedy. In 1998, the estimated cost ofmonitoring over a thirty-yearperiod ofannual monitoring was $367,200. 5The 1998 AROD stated that the actual monitoring periodmight havebeen less ifno unacceptable contamination levels had been detected during the initial years following the Site'sremediation. According to the 1987 ROD and 1993 AROD, afterthe ground watertreatment and soil remediation remedy was completed, no long-term O&M would be required. Soils havebeen cleaned up to industrial standards using Solidification/Stabilization. There are no O&M activities required at the Site. In October 2001, the South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the Sitepropertyowner entered into a restrictive covenant to restrict certainuses ofthe Site property. Among otherthings, the restrictive covenant governs uses on aportion ofthe Sitepropertyknown as the "Soil Treatment Area." This area is that portion ofthe Site where the Solidified I Stabilized (Monolith) waste is located. Therestrictive covenant prohibits any activitythat may disturb the integrityofthe engineering control. The site has Instructional Controls (IC's) that prohibit activities includingbutnot limited to, filling, drilling, removal ofcover and construction ofbuildings. Theproperty is beingused to store construction equipment and vehicles. There are no O&M activities required at the Site. V. Demonstration ofCleanup Activity QualityAssurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Theremedial design and theremedial action were carefullyreviewedbyEPA and the State for compliance with all requirements ofthe ROD and with all applicable QA/QC procedures and protocol. The QA/QC program utilized throughout the remedial action was sufficient and enabled EPA and the State to determine that the testingresults reported are accurateto the degree needed to assure satisfactory implementation ofthe RA consistent with the ROD. VI. Five - Year Review This siterequires a statutory Five Year Reviews (FYR) because waste is left on site, and therefore does not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. The 2009 Five Year Review (FYR) determination was that the remedy at the Geiger site currentlyprotects human health and the environmentbecause exposure pathways that couldresult in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Soils havebeen cleaned up to industrial standards using Solidification/Stabilization. Theproperty is being used to store construction equipment and vehicles. Ground water samplingresults overmultiple years led to the decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. The next FYR is scheduledto be completed in June of2014. VII. Site Completion Criteria The implementedremedy at the Geiger Site achieves the degree ofcleanup orprotection specified in the ROD and ROD amendments for all the pathways ofexposure. All selected remedial actions, remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are consistent with agencypolicy and guidance. No further Superfundresponse is needed to protecthumanhealth and the environment.

6VIII. Bibliography

EPA Record ofDecision: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site. EPA ID: SCD980711279. Ol.I 01. Rantoules, SC. June 1, 1987. EPA Record ofDecisionAmendment: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site. EPA ID: SCD980711279. OU Ol.Rantoules, SC. July 13, 1993. EPA Record ofDecisionAmendment: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site EPA ID: SCD980711279. OU 01. Rantoules, SC. September 9, 1998. Final Construction Report/Remedial Action Report, Prepared byU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC. August 1997. Final Investigation Report for Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Charleston, SC. July 1, 1986. Five-Year Review Report, Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Rantowles, South Carolina. Prepared byU.S. EPA Waste Management Division, Region 4. October 1998. Geiger Field Investigation Report August 18, 2008. Hollywood, SC. September29, 2008. Operation and Maintenance Plan and Preliminary Close Out Report. Geiger (C&M) Oil NPL Site. September 9, 1998. Groundwater Sampling Investigation Report. Prepared byEPA Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Region 4. July, 2009.

7