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 

Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22 

II. Summary of Site Conditions 

Background 

The Geiger site property covers an area of five 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 area that is approximately 1.5 acres in size and triangular in shape, and is bounded on two 

sides by ponds, and on the third side by a small, raised land area, which is approximately five feet higher 

than the Site. The area around the Site is sparsely populated (less than 50 people), with approximately 

10 residences located west and southwest of the Site and approximately 10 residences located to the east 

and northeast, with several small businesses located within a half mile of the Site along Highway 162. 

The Site has flat topography and site elevations range from approximately 15 to 30 feet above mean sea 

level. The area is serviced by municipal 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 the purpose of holding 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 waste pits. Residential wells up-gradient of the 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 similar to those associated with automotive crankcases, brake fluids, and 

degreasing compounds. The total quantity of waste 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 potentially responsible party (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 order to better characterize and define the extent of the ground water contamination. 

1 
Remedial Investigation I Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

The RVFS was completed in 1987. Low levels of organics, 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 human health, as a result of exposure 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 risk might be posed from exposure to 

contaminants in site soils. Remediation or institutional controls would be necessary to assure that an 

increased risk to human health would not be posed 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 of site 

sampling activities, and an analysis of remedial alternatives. The feasibility study provided an analysis 

of Extraction (soil) Hushing, solidification/stabilization, attenuation, immobilization incineration, 

capping, vegetative cover, excavation and offsite disposal, partial excavation with onsite disposal, onsite 

containment/encapsulation and no action remedial alternatives. 

ROD Findings 

A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in June 1987, and two ROD amendments (ARODs) were 

signed; one in July 1993 and the second in September 1998. The purpose of the remedial action at the 

Site was to mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water and to reduce potential 

risks to human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives were determined based on 

regulatory requirements and levels of contamination found at the Site: 

• protecting 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; 

• preventing off-site movement of contaminated ground water; and 

• restoring contaminated ground water to levels protective of human health and the 

environment. 

A remedial alternative was selected in the 1987 ROD to prevent direct contact exposure and inhalation 

of contaminants in the soil, potential ingestion of contaminated ground water by on-site workers and 

potential future residents; further leaching of contaminants to ground water above drinking water 

standards; and potential direct contact exposure to environmental receptors. The selected remedy 

included: 

• recovery of contaminated ground water with on-site treatment and discharge to an off-site 

stream; 

• on-site thermal treatment of excavated soils to remove organic contaminants; 

• Solidification/Stabilization (SIS) of thermally-treated soil to reduce mobility of metals; 

• review of S/S, during the remedial design, to determine if S/S alone would achieve 

remedial action goals; and 

• development of soil cleanup goals during the remedial design. 

The selected remedy established cleanup goals for contaminants in the ground water based on drinking 

water standards. The selected remedy eliminated the principal threat posed to human health and the 

2 
environment by preventing further migration of contaminants to the ground water and by remediating 

ground water to 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 on these studies, the ROD was amended on July 13, 1993 to state that only 

S/S would be conducted, thermal treatment would not be needed. EPA issued another ROD amendment 

on September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and treat to Monitored Natural 

Attenuation (MNA) and revising the ground water Contaminants of Concern (COCs) to only include 

cadmium and lead, with respective 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 

criteria were established in the 1993 AROD to protect the ground water. 

Table 1: Cleanup Goals for Ground Water and Soil Leachate 

Cnntaminant 1987 ROD Ground 1998AROD 1993AROD 

Water Cleanup 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/or k) 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 of Engineers 

(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 of Site soils. McLaren/Hart mobilized to the field for full-scale soil treatment on 

January 16, 1994. Soil treatment was completed on April23, 1994 followed by placement of a gravel 

cap over the treated soil, which was completed on August 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 by EPA and SCDHEC on September 29, 1997. 

Site soils have been treated to prevent further leaching of contamination into the ground water. 

Additional groundwater sampling conducted by EPA showed only one remaining ground water COC 

that was consistently detected above drinking water standards in two localized areas. 

3 
Because the 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 

water remedy from pump and treat, which was never implemented, to MNA. 

The Preliminary Close-out Report (September 14, 1998), and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

Plan (September 1998) were approved by EPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary Close-out Report 

confirmed that there was no definable contaminant plume on site, with localized areas of contamination 

at well MW-2S and well MW-6S. 

Community Involvement 

EPA prepared a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 1, 1987. A public meeting was held in January 1987 

in which all the alternatives were presented. An information repository was established and was located 

at the Hollywood Town Hall in Hollywood, South Carolina, near Rantowles. There was another public 

comment period 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 comment period, June 30, 1998 to July 30, 1998, and is a part of the Administrative Record File, 

as required by 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 of the comment period or for a public meeting. 

Community Involvement since the remedy was completed has involved notifying the community and 

interested parties by newspaper. The current Information Repository is located at the St. Paul's Parish 

Library, 5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, South Carolina 29449. 

Redevelopment 

There are no current plans for redevelopment at the site. Site use is restricted by Instructional Controls 

(IC's) that prohibit activities including but not limited to, filling, drilling, removal of cover and 

construction ofbuildings. The property is being used to store construction equipment and vehicles. 

III. Monitoring Results 

Ground Water Review 

Ground water sampling events before the 2004 FYR indicated that there were no longer any organic 

COC's detected. Lead was the only metal detected above cleanup goals during the 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. 

4 
In September 2004, 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 water to sample. Two temporary wells with slightly deeper screens were installed adjacent to the 

well and sampled. The sampling results from this effort are presented in (Table 3). 

Table 3: 2004 Temporary Well Ground Water Sampling Results 

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/or k) 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 be installed 

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 proximity to each of the permanent wells. Results 

tor the 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 significantly lower than any historically documented concentration of lead from 

this well. 

Additional Study 

In January 2013, an additional study was performed to evaluate the lechability of the stabilized soil 

monolith. The Durability and Leachability Study of the Solidified/Stabilized (Monolith) waste, 

concluded that the COCs remain highly bound within the monolith and that leaching of these COCs is 

unlikely to adversely impact the surrounding soil and /or ground water environment under current site 

conditions. 

IV. Summary of Operations and Maintenance 

The 1998 AROD stated that long-term Operation & Maintenance (O&M) ofthe remedy was not 

required, but ground water monitoring would be necessary to assure the permanence of the remedy. In 

1998, the estimated cost of monitoring over a thirty-year period of annual monitoring was $367,200. 

5 
The 1998 AROD stated that the actual monitoring period might have been less if no unacceptable 

contamination levels had been detected during the initial years following the Site's remediation. 

According to the 1987 ROD and 1993 AROD, after the ground water treatment and soil remediation 

remedy was completed, no long-term O&M would be required. Soils have been 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 of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and 

the Site property owner entered into a restrictive covenant to restrict certain uses of the Site property. 

Among other things, the restrictive covenant governs uses on a portion of the Site property known as the 

"Soil Treatment Area." This area is that portion of the Site where the Solidified I Stabilized (Monolith) 

waste is located. The restrictive covenant prohibits any activity that may disturb the integrity of the 

engineering control. The site has Instructional Controls (IC's) that prohibit activities including but not 

limited to, filling, drilling, removal of cover and construction of buildings. The property is being used to 

store construction equipment and vehicles. There are no O&M activities required at the Site. 

V. Demonstration of Cleanup Activity Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) 

The remedial design and the remedial action were carefully reviewed by EPA and the State for 

compliance with all requirements of the 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 testing results reported are accurate to the degree needed to assure 

satisfactory implementation of the RA consistent with the ROD. 

VI. Five - Year Review 

This site requires 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 currently protects human health and the environment because 

exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Soils have been cleaned 

up to industrial standards using Solidification/Stabilization. The property is being used to store 

construction equipment and vehicles. Ground water sampling results over multiple years led to the 

decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. The next FYR is scheduled to be completed in June of2014. 

VII. Site Completion Criteria 

The implemented remedy at the Geiger Site achieves the degree of cleanup or protection specified in 

the ROD and ROD amendments for all the pathways of exposure. All selected remedial actions, 

remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are consistent with agency policy and 

guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment. 

6 
VIII. Bibliography 

EPA Record of Decision: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site. EPA ID: SCD980711279. Ol.I 01. Rantoules, SC. 

June 1, 1987. 

EPA Record ofDecision Amendment: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site. EPA ID: SCD980711279. OU 

Ol.Rantoules, SC. July 13, 1993. 

EPA Record ofDecision Amendment: Geiger (C&M Oil) Site EPA ID: SCD980711279. OU 01. 

Rantoules, SC. September 9, 1998. 

Final Construction Report/Remedial Action Report, Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

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 by U.S. EPA 

Waste Management Division, Region 4. October 1998. 

Geiger Field Investigation Report August 18, 2008. Hollywood, SC. September 29, 2008. 

Operation and Maintenance Plan and Preliminary Close Out Report. Geiger (C&M) Oil NPL Site. 

September 9, 1998. 

Groundwater Sampling Investigation Report. Prepared by EPA Science and Ecosystem Support Division, 

Region 4. July, 2009. 

7