1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

NPL-U30-2-6-R4
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET
Name of Site:
Macalloy Corporation
Contact Persons
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4:
Craig Zeller, EPA Task Monitor
Cynthia Gurley, NPL Coordinator
Documentation Record:
Sandra J. Harrigan, Project Manager
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
(404) 562-8827
(404) 562-8817
(770) 717-2324
Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored
The air migration, ground water migration, and soil exposure pathways were not
scored in this documentation record because these pathways are not expected to
significantly contribute to the overall site score for the Macalloy Corporation.
Air Migration Pathway: Until 1974, air emissions from facility furnaces were
allowed to disperse to the atmosphere. These releases resulted in fallout
throughout the site and the surrounding areas (Ref. 5, pp. II-5; II-24). From
1974 to 1989, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) allowed the facility to release air emissions from the furnaces under
several air permits (Ref. 5, pp. II-24, II-25). During the permitted years,
Macalloy violated its air emissions permits on several occasions (Ref. 5, p. II27). However, the air migration pathway was not scored due to a lack of air
samples collected within a 4-mile radius of the operations area at Macalloy.
Ground Water Migration Pathway: A ground water contamination plume covering about
23 acres exists in the surficial aquifer underlying the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) dust pile (former unlined surface impoundment) (Refs. 5, pp
II-43, III-26; 6, p. 2; 7, p. 2). Ground water samples collected from monitoring
wells installed in the plume contained concentrations of hexavalent chromium as
high as 34 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the EPA Drinking Water Act
maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 0.05 mg/L (Ref. 5, p. III-26). However, the
ground water migration pathway was not scored due to the limited number of ground
water targets within a 4-mile radius of the ESP dust pile (Refs. 8; 9, pp. 15,
16).
Soil Exposure Pathway: Extensive surficial contamination exists throughout the
facility. ESP dust, slag, and process wastewater have been deposited and spilled
onto the ground surface throughout the facility (Refs. 28, pp. 2, 4 - 6; 36).
Surficial soil samples have been collected indicating areas of observed
contamination; however, background samples were not collected for comparison
(Refs. 6, pp. 6 - 9; 7, p. 5). Therefore, the soil exposure pathway was not
scored. The facility currently employs 192 people (Ref. 10, p. 2).
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
Name of Site:
EPA Region:
Macalloy Corporation
CERCLIS ID No.: SCD003360476
4
Date Prepared: September 29, 1999
Street Address of Site: 1800 Pittsburgh Avenue, North Charleston
County and State: Charleston County, South Carolina
General Location in the State: Southeast coast of South Carolina
Topographic Maps: Charleston, South Charleston, 1958, Photorevised (PR) 1979;
Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, 1959, PR 1979; North Charleston, South
Carolina, 1958, PR 1979
Latitude: 32E50'17" North
Longitude: 79E57'4.3" West
Site coordinates were determined from a point in the center of the
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP) dust pile (Ref. 4).
Scores
Air Pathway
Ground Water Pathway
Soil Exposure Pathway
Surface Water Pathway
Not Scored
Not Scored
Not Scored
100
HRS SITE SCORE
50.00
1
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE
S2
S
1.
Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw)
(from Table 3-1, line 13)
NS
2a.
Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component
(from Table 4-1, line 30)
100
2b.
Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component
(from Table 4-25, line 28)
NS
2c.
Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw)
100
Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.
10,000
3.
Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss)
(from Table 5-1, line 22)
NS
NS
4.
Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa)
(from Table 6-1, line 12)
NS
NS
5.
Total of Sgw2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2
6.
HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5
by 4 and take the square root
NS
S
S2
NS
10,000
= Not scored
= Site score
= Site score squared
2
50
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum Value
Value Assigned
550
550
DRINKING WATER THREAT
Likelihood of Release
1. Observed Release
2. Potential to Release by
Overland Flow
2a. Containment
2b. Runoff
2c. Distance to Surface Water
2d. Potential to Release by
Overland Flow
(lines 2a x [2b + 2c])
3. Potential to Release by Flood
3a. Containment (Flood)
3b. Flood Frequency
3c. Potential to Release
by Flood (lines 3a x 3b)
4. Potential to Release
(lines 2d + 3c, subject to
a maximum of 500)
5. Likelihood of Release
(higher of lines 1 and 4)
10
25
25
----
500
--
10
50
---
500
--
500
--
550
550
Waste Characteristics
a
6. Toxicity/Persistence
7. Hazardous Waste Quantity
8. Waste Characteristics
a
10,000
10,000
100
100
Targets
9. Nearest Intake
50
10. Population
b
10a.
Level I Concentrations
b
10b.
Level II Concentrations
b
10c.
Potential Contamination
10d.
Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) b
11. Resources
5
b
12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11)
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Drinking Water Threat Score
13. Drinking Water Threat Score
([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500,
subject to a maximum of 100)
100
3
3.33
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET, Continued
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum Value
Value Assigned
HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT
Likelihood of Release
14. Likelihood of Release
(value from line 5)
550
550
Waste Characteristics
15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity
17. Waste Characteristics
a
a
2 x 108
10,000
1,000
1,000
Targets
18. Food Chain Individual
50
19. Population
b
19a.
Level I Concentrations
b
19b.
Level II Concentrations
19c.
Potential Human Food
b
Chain Contamination
19d.
Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) b
b
20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d)
20
0
0
0.0000333
0.0000333
20.0000333
Human Food Chain Threat Score
21. Human Food Chain Threat Score
([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500,
subject to a maximum of 100)
100
100
550
550
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
Likelihood of Release
22. Likelihood of Release
(value from line 5)
Waste Characteristics
23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
24. Hazardous Waste Quantity
25. Waste Characteristics
a
a
1,000
4
2 x 108
10,000
1,000
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET, Concluded
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum Value
Value Assigned
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT (Concluded)
Targets
26. Sensitive Environments
26a.
Level I Concentrations
26b.
Level II Concentrations
26c.
Potential Contamination
26d.
Sensitive Environments
(lines 26a + 26b + 26c)
27. Targets
(value from line 26d)
b
b
b
b
250
0
0.08
250.08
b
250.08
60
60
Environmental Threat Score
28. Environmental Threat Score
([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500,
subject to a maximum of 60)
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED
29. Watershed Scorec
(lines 13 + 21 + 28,
subject to a maximum of 100)
100
100
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE
30. Component Score (Sof)c
(highest score from line 29
for all watersheds evaluated,
subject to a maximum of 100)
100
1
a
b
c
-
Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.
Maximum value not applicable.
Do not round to nearest integer.
Not evaluated.
5
100
A copy of Figure 1 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
U.S. CERCLA Docket Office
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
E-Mail: [email protected]
6
A copy of Figure 2 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
U.S. CERCLA Docket Office
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
E-Mail: [email protected]
7
A copy of Figure 3 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
U.S. CERCLA Docket Office
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
E-Mail: [email protected]
8
REFERENCES
Reference
Number
Description of the Reference
1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, 40 CFR Part
300, Appendix A, 55 FR 51533. December 14, 1990. Excerpt 2 pages.
2.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, Appendix
B-1, June 1996. Excerpt, 12 pages.
3.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps
of South Carolina: Charleston, SC 1959 (Photorevised [PR] 1979); Fort Moultrie
1959 (PR 1979); North Charleston 1958 (PR 1979), scale 1:24,000.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication 9345.0-01A, Guidance for
Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA, Latitude and Longitude
Calculation Worksheet, Appendix E, September 1991. Excerpt, 3 pages.
5.
A.T. Kearney, Inc. RCRA Facility Assessment for Macalloy
Charleston, South Carolina, December 11, 1995. 228 pages.
6.
Arthur L. Collins, Chief, Clean Water Act Enforcement Section, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Letter with attachments to Mr. James Frye,
President, Macalloy Corporation, February 12, 1998. Subject: Storm Water
Inspection, July 21-23, 1997, Macalloy Corporation NPDES Permit No. SC0004014.
60 pages.
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services
Division (ESD). Case Development Investigation Evaluation (CDIE) for Macalloy
Corporation, Charleston, South Carolina, February 1994. 27 pages.
8.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Record of telephone
conversation with Don Rigger, On-scene Coordinator, EPA Region 4, Emergency
Response and Removal Branch, October 9, 1998. Subject: Operational status of
Macalloy Corporation. 1 page.
9.
Frost Associates. Letter to Peter Lowery (sic), Tetra Tech EM Inc., May 19,
1998. Subject: Macalloy Corporation, Charleston, SC. 16 pages.
10.
EPA. RCRA Site Inspection Report,
Carolina, May 7, 1997. 9 pages.
11.
EPA, Region 4. Administrative Order on Consent in the matter of Macalloy Site,
Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina. CERCLA Docket No. 98-18-C.
Ordered and Agreed on June 10, 1998. 25 pages.
12.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Water
Pollution Control Permit, Macalloy Corporation, Charleston County, South
Carolina, issued September 11, 1995. 29 pages.
13.
Barry
Mullinax,
Environmental
Engineer
Associate,
SCDHEC,
Industrial,
Agricultural, and Storm Water Permitting Division. Letter with attachment to
Ms. Sandra Harrigan, October 12, 1998. Subject:
Macalloy Corporation. 241
pages.
Macalloy
9
Corporation,
Corporation,
Charleston,
South
14.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Staff Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Record of Telephone
Conversation with Miller White, District Fisheries Biologist, South Carolina
Marine and Wildlife Resources Department, April 30, 1998. Subject: Fishing in
Shipyard Creek and the Cooper River. 1 page.
15.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Staff Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Record of Telephone
Conversation with Vicki Benfield, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM, Inc., May 18, 1998.
Subject: Fishing in Shipyard Creek. 1 page.
16.
Dr. Jeffrey L. Hyland, Manager, Carolinian Province Office, NOAA. Letter with
attachments to Ms. Lisa Gordon, EPA-Region 4, April 20, 1998. Subject: Data
on chromium in edible tissues of oysters, penaeid shrimp, blue crabs, and fish
collected in Shipyard Creek during the Summer of 1997. 41 pages.
17.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands
Inventory Map, Charleston, South Carolina 1989, scale 1:40,000.
18.
EPA, Target Compounds and Analytes, with attachment.
19.
Lionel, C. Arnold, Jr., Waste Assessment Section, Division of Waste Assessment
and Emergency Response, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, SCDHEC.
Memorandum to Ken Johnson, Hazardous Waste Permitting Section, Division of
Hazardous and Infectious Waste Management, SCDHEC, June 28, 1997. Subject:
Macalloy Sampling Trip - March 28, 1995. 23 pages.
20.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation (9804-0002), May 28, 1998. Subject:
Calculation of Area of Contaminated Soil. 7 pages.
21.
Harold Seabrook, Manager, Waste Assessment Section, Division of Waste
Assessment and Emergency Response, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, SCDHEC. Memorandum to Kim Hagan, Enforcement Section, Bureau of
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, SCDHEC, April 9, 1993. Subject: Macalloy
Corporation Sampling Results, Charleston County. 53 pages.
22.
Lionel, C. Arnold, Jr. et al., Waste Assessment Section, Division of Waste
Assessment and Emergency Response, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, SCDHEC. Memorandum to File February 16, 1993. Subject: Macalloy
Sampling - January 20, 1993. 22 pages.
23.
SCDHEC. News Conference with attached News Release and Emergency Order.
Subject: Shipyard Creek closed to shrimping and crabbing. April 30, 1998.
Excerpt, 5 pages.
24.
Tim Nelson, Senior Project Engineer, Macalloy Corporation. Letter with
attachment to Ms. Kim Hagan, Enforcement Section, Bureau of Solid & Hazardous
Waste Management, SCDHEC, February, 1994. Subject: Analysis of waste samples.
4 pages.
25.
Andy Fairey, Director of Water Resources, Charleston Commissioners of Public
Works (CPW). Letter to Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech EMI, May 6, 1998. Subject:
Water Use and Distribution of the Charleston Commissioners of Public Works. 3
pages.
10
July 22, 1998.
9 pages.
26.
David E. Bower et al., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the
Charleston Commissioners of Public Works. Retention Time Simulation for Bushy
Park Reservoir Near Charleston, South Carolina, Water-Resources Investigations
Report 93-4079, 1993. Excerpt, 19 pages.
27.
William R. Schneider, Vice President, Engineering, Macalloy Corporation. Letter
to John Litton, SCDHEC, June 25, 1993. Subject: Revised Hazardous Waste Permit
Application, Part A, form for facility in North Charleston, SC. Excerpt, 10
pages.
28.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Staff Scientist, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Record of telephone
conversation, with attachment, with Lisa Gordon, Remedial Project Manager,
Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 18, 1998.
Subject: Storm Water Inspection at Macalloy Corporation. 11 pages.
29.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (Atlanta, Georgia, 1992). Excerpt, 5 pages.
30.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation (4-9804-0002), May 28, 1998. Subject: Rare,
Threatened, and Endangered Species of Charleston County, South Carolina. 4
pages.
31.
Walter A. Moore, III, P.E.
Letter to Mr. W.R. Schneider, Vice President,
Engineering, Macalloy Corporation, January 16, 1991. Subject: Subsurface Water
Flow at the Charleston Plant. 1 page.
32.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Project note to file for
Macalloy Corporation, November 19, 1998.
Subject: Discussions on sampling
procedures during the START Sampling Investigation. 2 pages.
33.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Record of telephone
conversation with Barry Mullinax, Environmental Engineer Associate, SCDHEC,
Industrial, Agricultural, and Storm Water Permitting Division, October 19,
1998.
Subject: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge monitoring reports (DMR) for Macalloy Corporation. 1 page.
34.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Record of telephone
conversation with Craig Zeller, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 4,
September 18, 1998. Subject: Status of Removal action at Macalloy Corporation.
1 page.
35.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Record of telephone
conversation with Nancy Robertson, Project Manager, Quanterra Environmental
Services, Inc., October 14, 1998. Subject: Explanation of “Reporting Limits”
provided in the analytical data for Macalloy Corporation. 1 page.
36.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Record of telephone
conversation with Mike Neill, Life Scientist, EPA, Region 4, Science and
Ecosystem Support Division (SESD), October 8, 1998.
Subject: Location of
sediment sample SED-05 from the CDIE. 1 page.
11
37.
Roger E. Brewer, Manager, SCDHEC, Sample and Data Management, Analytical
Services Division. Letter with attachments to Sandra Harrigan, Tetra Tech EM
Inc., November 5, 1998.
Subject: Laboratory quality assurance and quality
control information. 600 pages.
38.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation, October 16, 1998. Subject: Meeting with EPA
personnel at the SESD Office in Athens, Georgia. 8 pages.
39.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Record of telephone
conversation with Garry Bennett, Chief, Office of Quality Assurance, EPA,
Region 4, SESD, November 24, 1998.
Subject: General information about the
analytical services that SESD provides. 2 page.
40.
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Field Logbook No. 04-S-0289, for Macalloy Corporation,
Charleston Corporation, Site Investigation, August 4 - 13, 1998. 12 pages.
41.
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Field Logbook No. 04-S-0290, for Macalloy Corporation,
Charleston Corporation, Site Investigation, August 4 - 13, 1998. 11 pages.
42.
EPA Region 4, ESD.
Field Logbook for Macalloy Corporation, 1800 Pittsburgh
Avenue, North Charleston, South Carolina, ESD Project No. 940132. December 6
and 7, 1993. 6 pages.
43.
EPA Region 4, SESD.
Field Logbook No.
Corporation, July 21 - 24, 1997. 15 pages.
44.
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration,
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 260 to 265.
U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington: Revised July 1, 1997. Excerpt, 6 pages.
45.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation, November 23, 1998.
Subject:
Analytical
data sheets and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) information for
samples analyzed by Quanterra Environmental Services, Inc. 280 pages.
46.
R. Steve Pierce, START Leader, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Letter with attachment to
Leo Francendese, On-Scene Coordinator, EPA Region 4, September 4, 1998.
Subject: Macalloy Site Analytical Data, Charleston, South Carolina, Technical
Direction Document No. 04-9806-0010. 30 pages.
47.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation, November 23, 1998.
Subject:
Aerial
photograph of vicinity of Macalloy Corporation obtained from the Charleston
County, South Carolina Tax Assessor’s Office. 1 page.
48.
USGS. 1998. “Water Resources Data, South Carolina Water Year 1997.”
Data Report SC-97-1. Excerpt, 5 pages.
49.
U. S. Department of Agriculture.
1971.
Soil Survey of Charleston County,
South Carolina. Soil Conservation Service. Excerpt, 5 pages.
12
7530-00-274-5494
for
Macalloy
Water
50.
Sandra J. Harrigan, Biologist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project note with attachment
to file for Macalloy Corporation, October 13, 1999.
Subject: Explanation of
how scale was calculated for the 1998 Aerial Photograph of Macalloy
Corporation. 2 pages.
51.
Sandra
J.
Harrigan,
Biologist
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.
Telephone
conversation with Elizabeth Vonkolnitz, Assistant Director, Office of
Public Affairs, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, October
8, 1999. Subject: Fishing in Charleston Harbor. 1 Page.
13
SD-General Site Description
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
General Site Description
The Macalloy Corporation (Macalloy), EPA ID No. SCD003360476, is located at 1800
Pittsburgh Avenue in North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina. The
facility comprises about 125 acres, and is bound on the west by the CSX railroad,
on the east by Shipyard Creek, a tributary of the Cooper River, on the south by
Pittsburgh Avenue, and on the north by a waste-to-energy plant operated by Foster
Wheeler, Inc. The area surrounding the facility is primarily industrial, with
some commercial and residential areas. The nearest residential area, Union
Heights, is located approximately 600 feet northwest of the facility (Refs. 3; 5,
p. A-4; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 2; 10, p. 3; 11, p. 3).
Since 1979, Macalloy has owned and operated the facility for the production of
ferrochromium alloy. From 1966 to 1979, the facility was owned and operated by
AIRCO Corporation. From 1941 to 1966, the facility was owned and operated by the
Pittsburgh Metallurgical Corporation. Prior to 1941, the facility property was
used as a lumbermill and a rice plantation. At various times from 1942 to the
present, the United States owned, operated, or otherwise used portions of the
facility for the production of ferrochromium alloy. Market pressure from cheaper
ferrochromium produced abroad has forced Macalloy to consider several options for
future operations, including shutting down the plant (Refs. 5, pp. A-3, A-22; 6,
p. 1; 7, p. 2; 10, p. 3; 11, p. 3). In July 1998, facility personnel shut down
the last operating furnace (Ref. 8).
Macalloy produces ferrochromium alloy by smelting iron and chromium ore in
submerged electric arc furnaces. Ferrochromium alloy is used in the production
of high quality stainless steel. Ferrochromium alloy manufacturing activities
have been conducted at the facility from 1941 to the present. Historically, as
many as twelve furnaces were used to produce the alloy. Presently, Macalloy
operates only one furnace. Alloy manufacturing activities have resulted in the
generation of slag, fine particulate matter, ashes and dust (PMAD), gas
conditioning tower (GCT) sludge and associated wastewater, electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) dust, and baghouse dust (Refs. 5, pp. II-5, A-3; 11, p. 3).
Slag, which contains chromium and cadmium, has been deposited as fill material
throughout the facility and has been used to construct a portion of an on-site
unlined surface impoundment. From 1941 to 1970, PMAD generated during the
manufacturing process was discharged directly into the atmosphere. PMAD
containing chromium, lead, zinc, and manganese, was deposited throughout the
facility through fallout from the atmosphere. Air pollution control (APC)
equipment, including gas conditioning towers and electrostatic precipitators, was
installed in approximately 1970 to remove contaminants from plant air emissions
prior to their discharge to the atmosphere (Refs. 5, pp. II-13, A-7; 10, pp. 3 4;
11, p. 3, 4).
ESP dust, containing cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc, mercury, and manganese, has
been generated as part of the operation of the APC at a rate of about 7
14
SD-General Site Description
tons per day (Ref. 11, pp. 3, 4). From 1970 to about 1981, ESP dust was
stockpiled in numerous areas on the facility, and was used to fill in low areas
onsite. From 1988 to 1997, Macalloy placed treated ESP dust on site, primarily
in the ESP dust pile (formerly the unlined surface impoundment) (Refs. 6, p. 2;
10, p. 4; 11, p 4).
In January 1997, pursuant to the terms of a consent order with the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), Macalloy discontinued
disposal of ESP dust in the unlined surface impoundment and initiated off-site
disposal of the material. On June 10, 1998, pursuant to the terms of an
administrative order on consent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 4, Macalloy agreed to conduct work to abate an imminent and
substantial threat to human health and the environment (Ref. 11, pp. 1, 4, 5).
As of September 18, 1998, a removal action to remove the ESP dust pile from the
facility had not occurred (Ref. 34). The facility has implemented some aspects
of a Storm Water Management Plan; however, major modifications are being made in
the plan (Ref. 8).
GCT sludge, and associated wastewater, containing cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, and zinc have also been generated as part of the operation of
the APC equipment. GCT sludge has been disposed of as fill material at numerous
locations at the facility. Approximately 40,000 tons of GCT sludge were used in
the construction of the unlined surface impoundment. Currently, Macalloy
generates approximately 6 tons of GCT sludge per day and returns this material
from the settling basins to the furnace as a substitute for low-grade chromite
ore. From 1970 to 1998, the GCT wastewater has been discharged to a settling
basin (001 Settling Pond) (Refs. 5, pp. II-13 to II-17; 10, pp. 3, 4, 5; 11, p.
4).
Macalloy operates four surface water discharge points under a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that SCDHEC issued. These outfalls
discharge directly into Shipyard Creek and in the wetland area adjacent to
Shipyard Creek (Ref. 12). Water samples collected pursuant to the requirements
of the NPDES permit, have repeatedly exceeded permit limits for total chromium
and hexavalent chromium (Ref. 13). In 1997, EPA and SCDHEC conducted a storm
water inspection at the facility and collected soil, sediment, and surface water
samples from various locations at the facility. At the end of the inspection,
EPA concluded that storm water discharge into Shipyard Creek and the adjacent
wetlands at locations other than permitted outfalls occurred (Refs. 6, pp. 3 to
18; 11, p. 4).
Facility personnel and local residents use Shipyard Creek for recreational
fishing (Refs. 14; 28, p. 4). On April 30, 1998, SCDHEC issued an Emergency
Order closing Shipyard Creek to the harvesting of all shellfish due to high
levels of chromium detected in edible fish tissue (Refs. 16, pp. 1, 3, Table 1;
23). The Cooper River, located approximately 0.75 mile downstream from the
facility, is used for fishing, boating, and water skiing (Refs. 3; 14).
15
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 1
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source Characterization
Number of the source: 1
Name and description of the source: ESP Dust Pile
HRS Source Type: Pile
Source No. 1 is an ESP dust pile. The pile was formerly an unlined surface
impoundment constructed in 1988 to collect and store ESP dust and slurry. Over
the years, ESP containing slurry was pumped into the unlined surface impoundment.
The slurry was dewatered resulting in the ESP dust pile. Source No. 1 was in
operation from 1988 to 1997. In November 1994, EPA conducted a Visual Site
Inspection (VSI) at the facility. During the VSI, facility representatives
indicated that the walls and floor of the unlined surface impoundment are above
grade. The unlined surface impoundment, more recently referred to as a pile or
dust impoundment, may be as large as 200 by 350 feet (ft) by 40 ft high, and was
constructed in an area that was once a lake (Ref. 6, p. 7). The former lake and
the unlined surface impoundment were filled with dust slurry generated as byproducts of the facility’s ferrochromium ore processing operations. When the
unlined surface impoundment was filled, sludge and slurry were added to the
walls, forming the dust pile now referred to as Source No. 1 (Refs 5, pp. III-25,
A-22, A-23, A-57; 6, pp. 2, 7; 31).
Information regarding the dimensions of the ESP dust pile is not consistent.
These discrepancies may be due to the change in physical appearance, and disposal
practices historically associated with Source No. 1. According to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment (RFA) prepared by EPA,
several samples have been collected from the unlined surface impoundment.
Analytical results of samples collected from the unlined surface impoundment
revealed the presence of chromium, hexavalent chromium, cadmium, barium, and lead
(Refs. 5, pp. III-25, III-26; 6, p. 8). Furthermore, Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) samples for chromium indicated that waste stored in
Source No. 1 failed TCLP tests for chromium (Ref. 5, p. III-25). According to the
Case Development Investigation Evaluation (CDIE) that EPA prepared, ESP dust is a
RCRA hazardous waste (Ref. 7, p. 2).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:
Source No. 1, ESP
approximately 300
25). Source No. 1
approximately 150
dust pile, is located in the central portion of the facility,
feet north of the ferrochromium process area (Ref. 5, p. IIIis also located along the facility’s eastern property boundary
feet west of Shipyard Creek (see Figure 2).
16
SD-Source Characterization and Containment
Source No. 1
Containment
Release by overland migration and/or flood: Source No. 1 has no surface water
runoff control or management system. During the week of July 24, 1997, EPA and
SCDHEC conducted a storm water inspection at the facility. During the inspection,
EPA and SCDHEC personnel observed runoff from the surface impoundment (dust pile)
entering Shipyard Creek (Refs. 5, pp. II-36, II-39; 6, pp. 7, 8)
Containment value: 10
Reference: 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1
17
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. 1
2.4.1
Hazardous Substances
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Contract Required
Detection Limit
Reference(s)
Cadmium
SW-03 (720 Fg/L)
DST-08 (9.7 mg/kg)
DST-09 (2.7 mg/kg)
5 Fg/L (water)
1 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 8, 9; 18, p. 9;
42, pp. 2, 4
Chromium
SW-03 (530,000 Fg/L)
SW-04 (32,000 Fg/L)
DST-08 (5,600 mg/kg)
DST-09 (3,400 mg/kg)
10 Fg/L (water)
2 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 4, 8, 9; 18, p.
9; 42, pp. 2, 4
Cobalt
DST-09 (16 mg/kg)
50 Fg/L (water)
10 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, p.
9; 18, p. 9; 42, p
4
Copper
SW-03 (3,500 Fg/L)
DST-08 (41 mg/kg)
DST-09 (73 mg/kg)
25 Fg/L (water)
5 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 8, 9; 18, p. 9;
42, pp. 2, 4
Lead
SW-03 (100,000 Fg/L)
DST-08 (1,700 mg/kg)
DST-09 (670 mg/kg)
3 Fg/L (water)
0.60 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 8, 9; 18, p. 9;
42, pp. 2, 4
Mercury
SW-03 (31 Fg/L)
SW-04 (0.30 Fg/L)
DST-08 (0.46 mg/kg)
DST-09 (0.28 mg/kg)
0.20 Fg/L (water)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 4, 8, 9; 18, p.
9; 42, pp. 2, 4
0.10 mg/kg (soil)
Nickel
SW-03 (14,000 Fg/L)
DST-08 (150 mg/kg)
DST-09 (580 mg/kg)
40 Fg/L (water)
8 mg/kg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 8, 9; 18, p. 9;
42, pp. 2, 4
Zinc
SW-03 (940,000 Fg/L)
SW-04 (2,000 Fg/L)
DST-08 (10,000 mg/kg)
DST-09 (3,400 mg/kg)
20 Fg/L (water)
4 mg/mg (soil)
7, Appendix A, pp.
3, 4, 8, 9; 18, p.
9; 42, pp. 2, 4
Notes:
SW
=
DST
=
Fg/L =
mg/kg =
Surface water
Dust
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per kilogram
The hazardous substances listed in the table above were detected in surface water
and ESP dust samples collected from Source No.1 during the CDIE EPA conducted in
1993. All samples listed were collected from waste material; therefore, the
concentrations of hazardous substances detected were not compared to background
levels (Ref. 7, pp. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Appendix A, pp. 3,4,8, 9). Hexavalent chromium
and strontium were also detected in Source No. 1; however, they are not listed in
the table on the previous page because Contract Required Detection Limits are not
18
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. 1
available for comparison (Ref. 18, p. 9). Sample quantitation limits for the
hazardous substances detected in the samples listed in the table on the previous
page were not available from the EPA Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support
Division (SESD) (Ref. 39). The EPA Region 4 SESD oversees the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP). Therefore, contract required detection limits for CLP
laboratories were provided for comparison (Ref. 18, p. 9).
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Detection Limit
Reference(s)
Arsenic
MC-06 (180 Fg/L)
5 Fg/L
19. pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Cadmium
MC-06 (490 Fg/L)
10 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 12;
37, pp. A-6, A-7
Chromium
MC-06 (12,000 Fg/L)
10 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Lead
MC-06 (81,000 Fg/L)
50 Fg/L
19. pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Mercury
MC-06 (40 Fg/L)
0.2 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Selenium
MC-06 (150 Fg/L)
5 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Silver
MC-06 (280 Fg/L)
30 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp. A-6, A-7
Notes:
MC
= Macalloy Corporation
Fg/L = Micrograms per liter
On March 28, 1995, SCDHEC conducted a RCRA inspection at the facility. The table
above lists analytical results for samples collected during the inspection.
Sample MC-06 was a liquid sample collected from the discharge pipe to the unlined
surface impoundment. The sample represents a source sample; therefore, it was
not compared to a background sample. Waste from the discharge pipe is pumped from
the furnaces and ESP precipitators (Ref. 38). Method Detection Limits were
obtained from the SCDHEC Analytical Services Laboratory (Refs. 19, pp. 2, 12; 37,
pp, A-6, A-7). Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information for sample
MC-06 is contained in Reference 37, pp. A-191 through A-401.
19
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. 1
2.4.2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (c): Not scored
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not scored
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
The available information is not consistent regarding the dimensions of Source
No. 1. The discrepancies may be due to the change in appearance and disposal
practices associated with Source No. 1. During the week of July 21, 1997, EPA and
SCDHEC personnel conducted a storm water inspection at the facility. During the
inspection, the dimensions of the ESP dust pile were visually estimated to be 200
by 350 ft by 40 ft high (Ref. 6, p. 7). The ESP dust pile was not measured with
a measuring instrument; the dimensions are based on visual observations (Ref.
38). A visual representation of the ESP dust pile is presented in Photograph No.
1 of Reference 38. The estimated volume of the ESP dust pile was obtained by
multiplying the length, width, and height: 200 ft x 350 ft x 40 ft = 2,800,000
ft3. Then the volume in cubic feet (ft3) was converted to cubic yards (yd3):
2,800,000 ft3 ÷ 27 ft3/yd3 =103,703.7 yd3.
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 103,703.7 yd3
References(s):1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5
Volume Assigned Value (V): 103,703.7 yd3 ÷ 2.5 = 41,481.48
2.4.2.1.5.
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 41,481.48
20
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 2
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source Characterization
Number of the source: 2
Name and description of the source: Secondary Settling Pond
HRS Source Type: Surface Impoundment
Source No. 2, the secondary settling pond, is a surface impoundment that was
excavated into native soils. Based on the description of past waste management
practices at the facility, Source No. 2 was excavated in a previously marshy area
that was later filled with slag and ESP dust from the ferrochromium process.
According to Macalloy personnel, Source No. 2 is 100 by 75 ft by 6 ft deep. The
secondary settling pond receives storm water runoff and process wastewater from
concrete settling basins at the gas conditioning tower (GCT) via an underground
pipeline system. Suspended solids in the wastewater are allowed to settle in the
pond; the resulting sludge is dredged and deposited in piles called dredge spoil
piles in the immediate vicinity of Source No. 2. Wastewater in Source No. 2
ranges in color from emerald green to pea-soup green in the eastern half of the
settling pond and from muddy green to gray in the western and southwestern half
of the pond. Erosion of the impoundment walls is most prevalent in the western
and southwestern portion of the impoundment. Wastewater from Source No. 2 is
discharged into Shipyard Creek under NPDES Permit No. SC0004014 via Outfall No.
001 (Refs. 5, pp. III-17, III-18; 6, p. 8). Wastewater from the GCT concrete
settling basins discharged into Source No. 2 via an underground pipeline system
(Ref. 5, p. III-22).
Source No. 2 is also affected by groundwater recharge contaminated with
hexavalent chromium, possibly originating from the groundwater contamination
plume located beneath Source No. 1 (Refs. 5, p. III-18; 31). Analyses of samples
collected from Outfall No. 1 indicate the presence of hexavalent chromium and
chromium concentrations that exceed NPDES requirements. During the 1993 CDIE
that EPA conducted, sediment sample SED-05 was collected below Outfall No. 001 in
the ditch that leads into the wetland area adjacent to Shipyard Creek. Analysis
of sediment sample SED-05 indicated the presence of cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc (Ref. 7, Appendix A, p. 5).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: Source No. 2 is
located on the eastern side of the facility, adjacent to the eastern wall of
Source No. 1 (Ref. 5, p. III-17). Source No. 2 is situated approximately 20 feet
west of the western bank of Shipyard Creek (Refs. 3; 6, p. 4)(see Figure 2).
21
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 2
Containment
Release by overland migration and/or flood: Source No. 2 has no surface water
run-on control or runoff management system (Ref. 6, p. 8). During the storm water
inspection EPA conducted in 1997, facility personnel indicated that washout
occurs in the area where Source No. 2 is located (Ref. 6, p. 8). According to
facility personnel, storm water runoff carries material from the dredge spoil
piles into Shipyard Creek (Ref. 6, p. 8).
Containment value: 10
Reference: 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1
22
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. 2
2.4.1
Hazardous Substances
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Method Detection
Limit
Reference(s)
Arsenic
MC-04 (6 Fg/L)
5 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 11;
37, pp. A-6, A-7
Chromium
MC-04 (2,800 Fg/L)
10 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 11;
37, pp. A-6, A-7
Selenium
MC-04 (21 Fg/L)
5 Fg/L
19, pp. 2, 11;
37, pp. A-6, A-7
Note: Fg/L = Micrograms per liter
Surface water sample MC-04 was collected during an SCDHEC investigation on March
28, 1995. The sample from Source No. 2 was a green liquid (Ref. 19, pp. 2, 10).
Sample MC-04 represents a source sample; therefore, it was not compared to a
background sample. Sample MC-04 was collected and analyzed by SCDHEC. Method
Detection Limits were obtained from the SCDHEC Analytical Services Laboratory
(Ref. 37, pp. A-6, A-7). QA/QC information for sample MC-04 is contained in
Reference 37, pp. A-191 through A-401.
23
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. 2
2.4.2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (C): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
The secondary settling pond, Source No. 2, is approximately 100 ft x 75 ft x 6 ft
deep (Ref. 5, p. III-176, p. 4). Based on a map obtained from the facility, the
length and width of Source No. 2 mentioned in the RFA are accurate (Ref. 6, p.
4). Therefore, the depth indicated in the RFA was used to calculate volume. The
estimated volume of Source No. 2 was obtained by multiplying the length, width,
and height: 100 ft x 75 ft x 6 ft = 45,000 ft3. Then the volume in cubic feet
(ft3) was converted to cubic yards (yd3): 45,000 ft3 ÷ 27 ft3/yd3 = 1,666.67 yd3.
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 1,666.67 yd3
References(s): 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5
Volume Assigned Value (V): 1,666.67 yd3 ÷ 2.5 = 666.67
2.4.2.1.5.
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 666.67
24
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source Characterization
Number of the source: 3
Name and description of the source: Gas Conditioning Tower (GCT) Concrete
Settling Basins
HRS Source Type: Surface Impoundment
Source No. 3, the GCT Concrete Settling Basins, includes two concrete settling
basins constructed to manage the GCT sludge and process wastewater. The eastern
basin was constructed in 1969 and the western basin was constructed in 1970. Both
basins are currently being used to store processed wastewater and baghouse dust
from the gas conditioning towers. Baghouse dust is dust generated from the
furnaces during tapping operations. Each basin is 18.4 feet by 33.9 feet. The
basins gradually slope to a depth of approximately 5 feet, and the exterior walls
of both basins are below grade. The western basin has a ramp on the northern
side, and the eastern basin has a ramp on the eastern side. The ramp on the
western basin is used to allow front-end loaders to deposit baghouse dust into
the unit and remove sludge from the unit (Ref. 5, pp. II-16, III-22). During the
VSI in November 1994, EPA personnel observed wastewater being spilled onto the
ground in the vicinity of the settling basins. The spills resulted from
wastewater flowing over the edges of the settling basins and from the daily
operations of front-end loaders removing sludge from the settling basins.
Wastewater from the settling basins drains by an underground pipeline system to
the Secondary Settling Pond, Source No. 2 (Ref. 5, p. III-23).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:
Source No. 3, the GCT Concrete Settling Basins, is located in the southern
portion of the facility, approximately 50 feet north of the current furnace
building and east of the GCT (Ref. 5, p. III-22) (see Figure 2).
25
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 3
Containment
Release by overland migration and/or flood: Source No. 3 has no surface water
run-on control or runoff management system. During the VSI EPA conducted in
November 1994, process wastewater was observed spilling onto the ground in the
immediate vicinity of Source No. 3 (Ref. 5, p. III-23). During the storm water
inspection EPA conducted in 1997, EPA personnel observed surface water runoff in
the vicinity of Source No. 3 flowing toward Shipyard Creek (Ref. 6, pp. 6, 7).
Containment value: 10
Reference: 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1
26
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. 3
2.4.1
Hazardous Substances
Hazardous
Substance
Hexavalent
Chromium
Evidence
Reference(s)
GCT wastewater
(9.6 mg/L)
Refs. 5, p. III-23
Notes:
GCT = Gas conditioning tower
mg/L = Milligrams per liter
The sample listed in the table above was analyzed for TCLP. According to the
RFA, on November 8, 1990, a sample was collected from the GCT wastewater that
contained hexavalent chromium at 9.6 mg/L (Ref. 5, p. III-23).
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Reference(s)
Cadmium
EPA-06 (0.002 mg/L)
24, pp. 1, 2
Chromium
EPA-06 (0.79 mg/L)
24, pp. 1, 2
Lead
EPA-06 (0.24 mg/L)
24, pp. 1, 2
Mercury
EPA-06 (0.01 mg/L)
24, pp. 1, 2
Notes:
mg/L = Milligrams per liter
Sample EPA-06 was collected from a pile of sludge that was dredged from Source
No. 3. This sample was analyzed for TCLP metals. This sample was collected as a
split sample during an EPA investigation. The Macalloy split sample was analyzed
by General Engineering Laboratories (Ref. 24, pp. 1,2).
27
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. 3
2.4.2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (C): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
Insufficient information is available for evaluating volume hazardous waste
quantity.
Volume Assigned Value (V): Not Scored
2.4.2.4
Area
Each settling basin is approximately 18.4 x 33.9 ft. (Ref. 5, p. III-22). Based
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part A permit application submitted
by the facility, the dimensions in the RFA are conservative (Ref. 27, p. 10).
The estimated area of Source No. 3 was obtained by multiplying the length, and
the width: 2(18.4 ft x 33.9 ft) = 1,247.52 ft2 (Ref. 5, p. III-22).
Dimension of source (ft2 or gallons): 1,247.52 ft2
References(s): 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5
Area Assigned Value (A): 1,247.52 ft2 ÷ 13 = 95.96
2.4.2.1.5.
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 95.96
28
SD-Characterization and Containment
Source No. 4
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source Characterization
Number of the source: 4
Name and description of the source: Gas Conditioning Tower Sludge Pile
HRS Source Type: Pile
Source No. 4 is a waste pile that contains GCT sludge (Ref. 7, p. 5). Based on
the storm water inspection report, this pile may contain sludge dredged from the
bottom of the secondary settling pond (Ref. 6, p. 8). Further, this pile is
referred to as a “dredge spoil pile” in the storm water inspection report (Ref.
6, p. 8).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:
Source No. 4 is located south of the secondary settling pond (Source No. 2) along
the eastern boundary of the facility property (Ref. 7, pp. 4, 5).
Containment
Release via overland migration and/or flood: Source No. 4 has no surface water
run-on control or runoff management system. The area where Source No. 4 is
located is known to flood during heavy rain periods, and washout to Shipyard
Creek occurs (Ref. 6, p. 8).
Containment value: 10
Reference: 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1
29
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. 4
2.4.1
Hazardous Substances
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Contract Required
Detection Limit
Reference(s)
Chromium
SL-06 (2,300 mg/kg)
2 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Cobalt
SL-06 (12 mg/kg)
10 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Copper
SL-06 (34 mg/kg)
5 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Lead
SL-06 (360 mg/kg)
0.60 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Mercury
SL-06 (0.13 mg/kg)
0.10 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Nickel
SL-06 (470 mg/kg)
8 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Zinc
SL-06 (1,600 mg/kg)
4 mg/kg
7, Appendix A, p.
6; 18, p. 9; 42,
p. 3
Notes:
SL
= Sludge
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram
The constituents listed in the table above were detected in sample SL-06,
collected from Source No. 4. During the CDIE EPA conducted in 1993, the sample
was collected to characterize the waste pile (Ref. 7, pp. 4, 5; 42, p. 3). Sample
SL-06 represents a waste sample; therefore, it was not compared to background
conditions. Sample quantitation limits for the hazardous substances detected in
the samples listed in the table above were not available from the EPA Region 4
SESD (Ref. 39). The EPA Region 4 SESD oversees the CLP. Therefore, Contract
Required Detection Limits for CLP laboratories were provided for comparison (Ref.
18, p. 9; 39).
30
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. 4
2.4.2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (C): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity.
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Scored
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
During the CDIE that EPA conducted in 1993, one sample was collected from Source
No. 4. The volume of the pile could not be determined. Insufficient information
is available for evaluating volume hazardous waste quantity.
Volume Assigned Value (V): Not Scored
2.4.2.4
Area
During the CDIE that EPA conducted in 1993, one sample was collected from Source
No. 4. The area of the pile could not be determined. Insufficient information
is available for evaluating area hazardous waste quantity.
Dimension of source (ft2 or gallons): >0
References(s): 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5; 6, p. 8; 7, pp. 4, 5
Area Assigned Value (A): >0
2.4.2.1.5.
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0
31
SD-Summary
SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
Source
No.
Source Hazardous
Waste Quantity
Value
Containment
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Gas
Air
Particulate
1
41,481.48
NS
10
NS
NS
2
666.67
NS
10
NS
NS
3
95.96
NS
10
NS
NS
4
>0
NS
10
NS
NS
Areas of Concern
Several areas of concern are present at the facility. However, sufficient
information is not available to score the areas of concern as sources. Some of
these areas of concern include, but are not limited to the following:
• Area of contaminated soil along bank of Shipyard Creek. An adequate
background surface soil sample is not available to evaluate this area as a
source (Refs. 20; 21; 22).
• Marsh slough/lake fill area (Refs. 5, pp. II-10, II-13; 10, p. 3).
• Strip fill area (Ref. 5, p. II-13).
• Landfill (Ref. 5, p. II-17).
• Areas of contaminated soil throughout the facility (Ref. 6, pp, 6 - 9).
32
SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway
4.1
OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT
4.1.1.1
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR
OVERLAND/FLOOD COMPONENT
The surface water overland flow path includes surface water runoff from the ESP
dust pile, drainage areas along the eastern portion of the facility, and effluent
discharge from four NPDES outfalls into Shipyard Creek (Refs. 3; 5, pp. II-26,
II-27; 6, p. 6; 28, pp. 2, 4 - 7). The ESP dust pile is located approximately 150
feet from the bank of Shipyard Creek. During the Storm Water Inspection EPA
conducted in July 1997, gullies were observed from the top of the ESP dust pile
to Shipyard Creek. The gullies were the result of runoff after a recent rain
event. Facility personnel also indicated that runoff from the eastern property
flows into Shipyard Creek unimpeded after rain events (Ref. 6, p. 8; 28, p. 5 7; 38).
Macalloy has an NPDES permit (No. SC0004014) which allows discharge from four
outfalls to Shipyard Creek. Outfall No. 001 is permitted release to furnace
cooling/gas conditioning effluent and storm water into Shipyard Creek. Effluent
is allowed to settle in Source No. 2 and then discharges into Shipyard Creek
(Ref. 6, p. 8). Outfall No. 2 is permitted to release slag concentration
effluent, fuel/steam cleaning station and storm water; and Outfall Nos. 003 and
004 are permitted to release sanitary wastewater and storm water, respectively
(Ref. 12, pp. 2, 6, 10, 11). The storm water discharge often contains elevated
levels of inorganic contamination as a result of runoff from contaminated
surficial soils at the facility (Refs. 7, pp. 5, appendix A pp. 1, 2; 13 pp. 64,
72, 95, 108, 120, 136, 238). From 1993 to the present, numerous permit violations
have been recorded, including violations for Outfalls 001, 002, and 004 listed in
the NPDES permit (Refs. 12 pp. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12; 13 pp. 64, 72, 95, 108,
120, 136, 238).
Surface water runoff from the Macalloy facility enters Shipyard Creek (1) in a
wetland area at Outfalls No. 001 and 002 and (2) just downstream of the wetland
area from Outfalls No. 003 and 004. Shipyard Creek flows south-southeast for
approximately 0.75 mile then enters the Cooper River. The Cooper River flows
south-southeast for 4 miles then converges with Charleston Harbor (Ref. 3).
Charleston Harbor flows south for 4 miles then empties into the Atlantic Ocean
ending the 15-mile surface water migration pathway (Ref. 3). Shipyard Creek, the
Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor are influenced by the tidal effects of the
Atlantic Ocean (Ref. 14). Therefore, reverse flow for the 15-mile surface water
migration pathway was evaluated upstream of the facility along the Cooper River
to about 1 mile upstream of where the Back River converges with the Cooper River
(Ref. 3).
Shipyard Creek, the Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor are fished. During a
1997 inspection that EPA conducted, Macalloy personnel indicated that fishing
occurs from the facility dock (Ref. 6, p.7). NPDES Outfall 004 is located in this
area (Refs. 6, p. 4; 12). In April 1998, SCDHEC issued an Emergency Order closing
Shipyard Creek to shrimping and crabbing and continuing the closure of harvesting
oysters and clams in Shipyard Creek. The closings were prompted after chromium
was detected at high levels in shrimp, crabs, oysters, and clams. However,
Shipyard Creek is still open to other forms of fishing (Refs. 15; 16, pp. 1, 2,
Table 1; 23).
33
SWOF-Observed Release
4.1.2.1
4.1.2.1.1
LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
Observed Release
Direct Observation
-
Basis for Direct Observation
An observed release by direct observation has been documented in three forms at
the Macalloy facility including (1) a lake and marsh area along the facility’s
eastern border was filled with wastes containing hazardous substances (Ref. 31),
(2) storm water contaminated with ESP dust was observed entering Shipyard Creek
near Outfall No. 4 (Ref. 38), and (3) Macalloy Corporation has violated its NPDES
permit on several occasions (Ref 13).
During the VSI, aerial photographs provided by the facility indicated that a lake
was located in the area of Source No. 2. In the 1954 aerial photograph, the lake
was large with some evidence of fill material being placed in the lake. In 1963
the lake was still intact, but evidence of fill material in the lake was evident
(5, pp. A-22, A-23). A 1967 aerial photograph obtained from the Charleston
County, South Carolina, Tax Assessor’s office depicts a lake in the mid-eastern
portion of the facility in the areas now occupied by Source Nos. 1 and 2 (Ref.
47). In 1991, a former Macalloy plant engineer indicated that the marsh slough
was filled; some of the fill material included ashes, sludge, and slag from
furnace operations (Ref. 31). Hazardous substances contained in the fill
material include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent chromium,
lead, mercury, nickel, strontium, and zinc (Refs. 7, pp. 5, 7, Appendix A, pp. 3,
4, 8, 9; 24, pp. 2, 3). Furthermore, Source No. 2 was excavated into a marsh
area believed to be the marsh slough referred to by the former plant engineer
(Refs. 5, pp. A-22, A-23).
During the 1997 storm water inspection, EPA personnel observed the unpermitted
release of storm water runoff into Shipyard Creek. Migration of ESP dust and
slag entering the wetland area along Shipyard Creek near Outfall No. 001, and
Shipyard Creek near Outfall No. 004 was observed (Refs. 6, pp. 8, 9; 38). The
contamination was migrating from storm water washout after a heavy rain period.
EPA personnel noted that some areas in the wetland contained stressed vegetation
and other areas were completely devoid of vegetation (Ref. 6, pp. 8, 9; 28, pp. 2
- 6). During this investigation, ESP dust and slag were observed on the ground
in the drainage areas along the facility’s eastern border, near Shipyard Creek
(Refs. 6, pp. 3 through 10; 28, p. 2 - 7).
Macalloy Corporation operates under NPDES Permit No. SC0004014, which allows the
facility to discharge process wastewater and storm water into Shipyard Creek
(Ref. 12, p. 1). During the last several years, the facility has violated its
NPDES permit on several occasions and at Outfall Nos. 001, 002, and 004. Outfall
001 receives discharge from Source Nos. 2 and 3, and Outfall 004 is affected by
surface water runoff in the area northeast of the old furnace and the immediate
vicinity of the sewage treatment plant (Ref. 6, pp. 4, 6). Chromium, cyanide,
hexavalent chromium, and lead were discharged into Shipyard Creek at levels that
exceeded the daily maximum and monthly averages outlined in the facility’s NPDES
permit (Ref. 13). The following table lists the highest exceedances for chromium,
cyanide, hexavalent chromium, and lead at Outfall Nos. 001, 002 and 004.
Additional violations from January 1995 to July 1998 are contained in Reference
13.
34
SWOF-Observed Release
Date
Outfall
Parameter
Permit
Requirement
Sample
Measurement
MA/DM
Reference
Jan 95
1
Hexavalent
chromium
0.50
mg/L
5.23
mg/L
MA
13, p. 238
Sep 97
1
Chromium
0.82
lbs/day
40.98
lbs/day
MA
13, p. 120
Oct 97
1
Chromium
1.6
lbs/day
42.84
lbs/day
DM
13, p. 108
Jan 98
1
Cyanide
0.033
mg/L
0.0746
mg/L
DM
13, p. 72
Aug 97
2
Lead
8
Fg/L
34.303
Fg/L
MA
13, p. 136
Feb 98
2
Hexavalent
chromium
0.05
mg/L
0.23
mg/L
MA
13, p. 64
Feb 98
2
Hexavalent
chromium
0.10
mg/L
0.50
mg/L
DM
13, p. 64
Dec 97
4
Lead
0.80
mg/L
2.99
mg/L
MA
13, p. 95
Notes:
MA
DM
mg/L
lbs/day
Fg/L
-
=
=
=
=
=
Monthly average
Daily maximum
Milligrams per liter
Pounds per day
Micrograms per liter
Hazardous Substances in the Release via Direct Observation
Chromium
Cyanide
Hexavalent chromium
Lead
35
SWOF-Observed Release
Chemical Analysis
-
Background Samples
Sample ID
Sample Location
Depth
(inches)
Date
Reference(s)
MAC-SD-02A
Collected from
Shipyard Creek
upstream Outfall
No. 002.
0 - 4
08/10/98
3; 40, p. 6
MAC-SW-01L
Collected from
Shipyard Creek
upstream of Outfall
No. 002.
0 - 3
08/07/98
3; 32; 40, p. 5
Notes:
MAC
SD
SW
A
L
-
Macalloy
Sediment sample
Surface water sample
Sample collected from 0 to 1 foot
Sample collected at low tide
In August 1998, the EPA Region 4, Superfund Technical Assessment and Response
Team (START 4) conducted a sampling investigation at Macalloy. The investigation
was conducted on behalf of the EPA Region 4, Emergency Response and Removal
Branch (ERRB). The investigation focused on the impact of Macalloy Corporation
on Shipyard Creek and its associated wetlands. Surface water and sediment
samples were collected at high and low tide at varying depths. All samples
discussed in the table above and the tables that follow were collected at low
tide and at depths ranging from 0 to 1 foot for sediment samples and at the
surface of the water at about 0 to 3 inches deep (Refs. 32; 40, pp. 1- 11; 41,
pp. 1- 10).
36
SWOF-Observed Release
-
Background Concentrations
Sample ID
MAC-SD-02A
MAC-SW-01L
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
Reporting
Limit
Reference(s)
Chromium
370 mg/kg
3.2 mg/kg
45, pp. 282, 287
Cobalt
ND
8.0 mg/kg
45, pp. 282, 287
Nickel
33.6 mg/kg
8.0 mg/kg
45, pp. 282, 288
Chromium
25 Fg/L
10 Fg/L
45, pp. 322, 326
Lead
15 Fg/L
3 Fg/L
45, pp. 322, 326
Nickel
ND
40 Fg/L
45, pp. 322, 327
Zinc
83 Fg/L
20 Fg/L
45, pp. 322, 327
Notes:
MAC
SD
SW
mg/kg
Fg/L
ND
A
L
-
Macalloy Corporation
Sediment sample
Surface water sample
Milligrams per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Not detected
Sample collected from 0 to 1 foot
Sample collected at low tide
Background sediment sample MAC-SD-02 and background surface water sample
MAC-SW-01 were collected from Shipyard Creek, upstream of the Macalloy’s Outfall
No. 002 (Ref. 40, pp. 5, 6). Concentrations for hazardous substances listed in
the table above are presented in Fg/L; however, the concentrations are presented
in milligrams per liter (mg/L) in Reference 45. Laboratory QA/QC information for
samples MAC-SD-02, and MAC-SW-01 was furnished by Quanterra Environmental
Services, Inc., and is in Reference 45, pp. 290 - 318; and 329 -377,
respectively. Data validation was performed by START 4 and is in Reference 46.
37
SWOF-Observed Release
- Contaminated Samples
Sample ID
Sample Location
Depth
(feet)
Date
Reference(s)
MAC-SD-19A
Collected from the
wetland area adjacent
to Shipyard Creek,
downstream of Outfall
No. 001.
0 - 1
08/10/98
41, p. 7
MAC-SD-25A
Collected from channel
downstream of Outfall
No. 001.
0 - 1
08/11/98
41, p. 9
MAC-SD-31A
Collected from the
marsh/channel interface
along the main waterway
of Shipyard Creek.
0 - 1
08/11/98
41, p. 8
MAC-SW-03L
Collected from wetland
area adjacent to
Shipyard Creek about
300 feet downstream of
Outfall No. 001.
0 - 3
inches
08/04/98
32; 41, p. 1
MAC-SW-04L
Collected from wetland
area adjacent to
Shipyard Creek about
800 feet downstream of
Outfall No. 001.
0 - 3
inches
08/04/98
32; 41, p. 1
Notes:
MAC
SW
SD
A
L
-
Macalloy Corporation
Surface water sample
Sediment sample
Sample collected from 0 to 1 foot
Sample collected at low tide
Surface water and sediment samples presented in the table above and on the
previous page were collected in Shipyard Creek. The sample locations were
recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates (Refs. 32; 41, pp. 1,
7, 8, 9). The GPS coordinates were plotted on a 1998 aerial photograph of the
Macalloy area. The scale of the aerial photograph was not provided; therefore,
an estimated scale was calculated using the USGS topographic quadrangle map of
Charleston, South Carolina 1955 (PR 1979). The large furnace building was
measured on the topographic map and a relative scale was determined for the
aerial photograph. Based on the aerial photograph, the sample locations were
recorded on Figure 3 of this documentation record. The distances of the samples
presented in the table above were then determined using the estimated scale
calculated for the aerial photograph, GPS coordinates, the topographic map, and
Figure 3 (Refs. 3; 40, pp. 1 - 11; 41, pp. 1 - 10; 47; 50).
38
SWOF-Observed Release
- Contaminated Concentrations
Sample ID
MAC-SD-19A
MAC-SD-25A
MAC-SD-31A
MAC-SW-03L
MAC-SW-04L
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
Reporting
Limit
Reference(s)
Chromium
1,670 mg/kg
2.5 mg/kg
45, pp. 96, 103,
Cobalt
12.5 mg/kg
6.3 mg/mg
45, pp. 96, 103
Nickel
202 mg/kg
6.3 mg/kg
45, pp. 96, 104
Chromium
3,430 mg/kg
1.3 mg/kg
45, pp. 38, 48
Cobalt
23.7 mg/kg
3.4 mg/kg
45, pp. 38, 48
Nickel
715 mg/kg
3.4 mg/kg
45, pp. 38, 49
Chromium
1,830 mg/kg
2.1 mg/kg
45, pp. 36, 42
Cobalt
11.8 mg/kg
5.3 mg/kg
45, pp. 36, 42
Nickel
333 mg/kg
5.3 mg/kg
45, pp. 36, 43
Chromium
2,600 Fg/L
10 Fg/L
45, pp. 236, 246
Lead
60 Fg/L
3 Fg/L
45, pp. 236, 246
Nickel
56 Fg/L
40 Fg/L
45, pp. 236, 247
Zinc
320 Fg/L
20 Fg/L
45, pp. 237, 247
Chromium
630 Fg/L
10 Fg/L
45, pp. 235, 240
Notes:
MAC
SD
SW
mg/kg
Fg/L
A
L
-
Macalloy Corporation
Sediment sample
Surface water sample
Milligrams per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Sample collected from 0 to 1 foot
Sample collected at low tide
Concentrations for hazardous substances listed in the table above are presented
in Fg/L; however, the concentrations are presented in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
in Reference 45. Laboratory QA/QC information for the surface water and sediment
samples listed in the table above was furnished by Quanterra Environmental
Services, Inc., and is contained in Reference 45. Data validation was performed
by START 4 and is contained in Reference 46.
39
SWOF-Observed Release
Attribution:
Macalloy produces a ferrochromium alloy and generates ESP dust and slag as byproducts (Refs. 5, p. II-3; 6, pp. 1, 2; 7, p. 2). GCT sludge is generated from
wastewater settling in lined and unlined surface impoundments. Analyses of waste
samples collected from the GCT sludge and ESP dust and slag indicate the presence
of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, strontium, and zinc (Refs. 7, pp. 5, 7, Appendix A, pp. 3, 4, 8,
9; 24, pp. 2, 3).
Over the years, the facility stored and disposed of the GCT sludge and ESP dust
and slag in various locations on site (Refs. 5, p. I-2; 6, pp. 2, 3, 6). Facility
personnel also indicated that the ESP dust and slag were used as fill material in
several marshy areas at the facility (Refs. 5, p. II-10; 6, p. 2; 31). Hazardous
substances detected in the GCT sludge and ESP dust slag include arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, strontium,
and zinc (Refs. 7, pp. 5, 7, Appendix A, pp. 3, 4, 8, 9; 24, pp. 2, 3). A 1967
aerial photograph obtained from the Charleston County, South Carolina, Tax
Assessor’s office depicts a lake in the mid-eastern portion of the facility in
the area that is now occupied by Sources 1 and 2 (Ref. 47).
In December 1993, EPA collected a sediment sample (SED-05) from the ditch below
Outfall No. 001. This ditch leads to the wetland area adjacent to Shipyard Creek
(Refs. 7, p. 4; 36; 38, p. 2). Analysis of sediment sample SED-05 indicated the
presence of hazardous substances including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc (Ref. 7, Appendix A, p. 5). During the
1997 storm water inspection, EPA personnel observed runoff from spoil piles
dredged from Source No. 2 towards Shipyard Creek. Facility personnel indicated
that the runoff from the spoil piles covered the road area and ground between the
piles and the creek and discharged to Shipyard Creek (Ref. 6, p. 8). In July
1997, the EPA Region 4 SESD collected surface soil samples (MSS-03 through MSS10) along the eastern perimeter of the facility property. Analyses of the
samples indicated that an area of surficial contamination exists in the drainage
areas of Sources 1, 3, and 4 and along the western bank of Shipyard Creek (Refs.
6, pp. 4, 7, 8, 9; 20; 43, pp. 1- 14). Constituents detected in samples collected
from this area of surficial contamination include arsenic, chromium, copper,
cadmium, mercury, and lead (Ref. 6, pp. T-3a, 3b, Appendix B, pp. 3 through 10).
These samples were collected from areas where evidence of unpermitted runoff was
observed flowing into the wetland area adjacent to Shipyard Creek (Refs. 28, pp.
4 - 7; 38). Hazardous substances detected in these samples were also detected in
on-site sources (See pages 18, 19,23, 27, and 30 of this HRS documentation
record).
Discharge monitoring reports for Macalloy’s NPDES permit indicated that the
facility has exceeded its permit requirements on several occasions. Hazardous
substances including hexavalent chromium, chromium, cyanide, and lead have been
released at concentrations above the facility’s permit limits (Ref. 13, pp. 64,
72, 95, 108, 120, 136, 238).
In 1998, START 4 collected surface water and sediment samples from Shipyard Creek
to determine the impacts of the Macalloy Corporation facility on Shipyard Creek
and its associated wetlands (Refs. 40, pp. 1 - 11; 41, pp. 1 - 10). Analyses of
SWOF-Observed Release
40
samples collected from Shipyard Creek indicate the presence of several hazardous
substances including chromium, cobalt, nickel, and zinc
at elevated concentrations (Ref. 45, pp. 42, 43, 48, 49, 103, 104, 240, 246,
247). During the START 4 sampling event, analytical results for background
samples collected from Shipyard Creek were compared to the samples collected
downstream of the outfalls at the Macalloy facility. During the START 4 sampling
event, background surface water and sediment samples were collected from Rathall
Creek, a tidally influenced tributary of the Wando River (Refs. 3; 40, p. 10; 41,
p. 10; 49, pp. 3, 4). The Wando River is part of the Cooper River Basin (Ref.
48, pp. viii). The immediate vicinity of Rathall Creek is not affected by
industry (Ref. 3). It appears that Shipyard Creek is significantly impacted by
industry based on hazardous substances detected in sediment and surface water
samples.
Hazardous Substances Released:
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
==========================================================================
Observed Release Factor Value: 550
41
SWOF-Potential to Release
4.1.2.1.2
POTENTIAL TO RELEASE
4.1.2.1.2.1 Potential to Release by Overland Flow
Potential to release was not scored because an observed release to surface water
was established by direct observation chemical analysis (see Section 4.1.2.1.1 of
this documentation record).
42
SWOF/Drinking-Toxicity/Persistence
4.1.2.2
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.2.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence
Hazardous
Substance
Source
Number
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Persistence*
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor Value**
Arsenic
1,2
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B-2
Cadmium
1,3
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B-4
Chromium
1,2,3,
4
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B-5
Cobalt
1,4
1
1
1
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B-6
Copper
1,3,4
***
1
**
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B-6
Lead
1,3,4
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B13
Mercury
1,3,4
10,000
0.40
4,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B13
Nickel
1,3,4
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B14
Selenium
1
100
1
100
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B17
Silver
1
100
1
100
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B18
Zinc
1,3,4
10
1
10
1, Section
4.1.2.2.1; 2, p. B20
Ref(s)
*
**
= Persistence value for rivers
= Toxicity/persistence factor values can be found in Table 4-12 of
Reference 1.
*** = A toxicity value is not available for copper in the SCDM database.
==========================================================================
Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000
43
SWOF/Drinking-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.2.2.2
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
Source Hazardous Waste
Quantity Value
(Section 2.4.2.1.5)
Is source hazardous
constituent quantity data
complete? (Yes/No)
1
41,481.48
No
2
666.67
No
3
95.96
No
4
>0
No
Sum of Values: 42,244.11
4.1.2.2.3
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Toxicity/persistence factor value (10,000)
X hazardous waste quantity factor value (10,000): 1 x 108
==========================================================================
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100
44
SWOF/Drinking-Targets
4.1.2.3
DRINKING WATER TARGETS
No potable surface drinking water intakes have been identified within the 15-mile
surface water target distance limit (Refs. 3; 25, p. 1). Shipyard Creek and the
Cooper River are affected by tidal influences from the Atlantic Ocean (Ref. 14).
The surface water intake for the City of Charleston Commissioners of Public Works
(CPW) is located on the Bushy Park Reservoir which is located on the Back River
about 0.25 mile upstream of the Back River’s confluence with the Cooper River.
The CPW intake is not located along the 15-mile surface water target distance
limit. Further, the CPW intake is not affected by reverse flow caused by tidal
influence because CPW pumps water into the Bushy Park Reservoir via Durham Canal,
and water exiting the reservoir is released from the Bushy Park Dam. The Bushy
Park Dam prevents tidal flow from entering the Bushy Park Reservoir (Refs. 3; 26,
pp.3, 4).
==========================================================================
Nearest Intake Factor Value: 0
45
SWOF/Drinking-Resources
4.1.2.3.3
Resources
The Cooper River is used for recreational purposes, including fishing, boating,
and water skiing (Ref. 14).
==========================================================================
Resources Factor Value: 5
46
SWOF/Food Chain-Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
4.2.3.2
4.1.3.2.1
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
Persistence*
Bioaccumulation
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor Value**
Hazardous
Substance
Source
No.
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Arsenic
1,2
10,000
1
500***
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-2
Cadmium
1,3
10,000
1
5,000
5 x 107
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-4
Chromium
1,2,3,
4
10,000
1
500***
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-5
Cobalt
1,4
1
1
0.50
0.50
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-6
Copper
1,3,4
****
1
50,000
****
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-6
Lead
1,3,4
10,000
1
5,000***
5 x 107
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-13
Mercury
1,3,4
10,000
0.40
50,000
2 x 108
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-13
Nickel
1,3,4
10,000
1
500***
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-14
Selenium
1
100
1
5,000
5
Silver
1
100
1
50
5,000
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-18
Zinc
1,3,4
10
1
50,000***
5 X 105
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-20
47
x 105
Ref(s)
1, Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2, p. B-17
SWOF-Food Chain-Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
Notes:
*
**
= Persistence value for rivers
= Toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor values can
be found in Table 4-16 of Reference 1.
*** = Salt water values were used for arsenic, chromium,
lead, nickel, and zinc
**** = A toxicity value is not available for copper in the
SCDM database.
==========================================================================
Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108
48
SWOF/Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.3.2.2
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
Source Hazardous Waste
Quantity Value
(Section 2.4.2.1.5)
Is source hazardous
constituent quantity data
complete? (Yes/No)
1
41,481.48
No
2
666.67
No
3
95.96
No
4
>0
No
Sum of Values: 42,244.11
4.1.3.2.3
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Toxicity/persistence factor value (4,000)
X hazardous waste quantity factor value (10,000): 4 x 107
(Toxicity/persistence (4,000) x hazardous waste quantity [10,000]
X bioaccumulation potential factor value [50,000]): 2 x 1012
==========================================================================
Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000
49
SWOF/Food Chain-Targets
4.1.3.3
HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT-TARGETS
Actual Human Food Chain Contamination
Actual contamination of a fishery has not been documented. Shipyard Creek is
fished; however, it is not known whether the exact locations where the samples
were collected are fished (Refs. 14, 23).
Closed Fisheries
No known fisheries have been closed due to contamination within the 15-mile
surface water target distance limit. However, on April 30, 1998, SCDHEC issued an
order prohibiting the harvesting and collecting of shrimp and crabs in Shipyard
Creek due to high concentrations of chromium (Ref. 23). Other types of fishing
are still permitted in the creek (Refs. 14; 15; 23). The alloy produced at
Macalloy contains about 65 percent chromium (Ref. 27, p. 5). Emission control
dust or sludge from ferrochromium production is an EPA listed hazardous waste
(Ref. 44, p. 62). Furthermore, the facility has exceeded the daily maximum and
monthly average concentrations of hazardous substances including chromium,
hexavalent chromium, lead, and cyanide allowed to be discharged into Shipyard
Creek under its NPDES permit. (Also see pages 34, 35 of this documentation
record and Reference Ref. 13, pp. 64, 72, 95, 108, 120, 136, and 238). In
addition, during a storm water inspection, EPA personnel observed ESP dust and
slag migrating to Shipyard Creek and adjacent wetland area (Ref. 6, pp. 6, 7, 8;
38, pp. 1 - 8).
Benthic Tissue
In the summer of 1997, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
conducted an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) study in the
Carolinian Province. During this study, NOAA collected and analyzed benthic
tissue samples for chromium; however, the control sites for the benthic tissue
samples could not be determined.
Analytical data from the NOAA study indicated
that elevated levels of chromium in the benthic (oyster) tissue samples collected
from Shipyard Creek than found in other EMAP-Carolinian Province sites (Ref. 16,
pp. 1, 2, Attachment 1, p. 1, Attachment 3, Table 1). As a result, SCDHEC
continued the existing closure of Shipyard Creek for clam and oyster harvesting
(Ref. 23).
50
SWOF/Food Chain-Food Chain Individual
4.1.3.3.1
Food Chain Individual
Sample ID: MAC-SD-19A, MAC-SD-25A, MAC-SD-31A, MAC-SW-03L, MAC-SW-04L
Hazardous Substance: Chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc
Bioaccumulation Potential: 500, 5,000, 500, 50,000, respectively
Identity of
Fishery
Type of Surface
Water Body
Shipyard Creek
Dilution Weight
Reference
Moderate to large
stream
0.01
1, Table 4-13; 3
Cooper River
River
0.001
1, Table 4-13;
3; 14
Charleston Harbor
Coastal tidal
waters
0.0001
1, Table 4-13; 3
A food chain individual value of 20 was assigned because an observed release to
Shipyard Creek was documented by chemical analysis. The release contained
several hazardous substances with bioaccumulation potential factor values greater
than or equal to 500 which include chromium (500), lead (5,000), nickel (500),
and zinc (50,000). Sediment and surface water samples MAC-SD-19A, MAC-SD-25A,
MAC-SD-31A, MAC-SW-03L, MAC-SW-04L were collected from Shipyard Creek. It is not
known whether the exact location where the samples were collected are fished;
however, Shipyard Creek is fished downstream of the sample locations (Refs. 3;
14; 23; 41, pp. 1, 7, 8). Charleston Harbor is fished recreationally. Fish
caught in Charleston Harbor include red drum, black drum, spotted sea trout, and
sheep’s head. Commercial crabbing and shrimping also occur in Charleston Harbor
(Ref. 51). During the storm water inspection, a facility representative stated
that fishing occurs from the facility dock located near NPDES Outfall No. 004
(Ref. 28, pp. 4). Therefore, an observed release to surface water is documented
with a fishery downstream.
The surface water and sediment samples listed above were compared to background
samples collected from Shipyard Creek, MAC-SW-01L for surface water samples and
MAC-SD-02A, for sediment samples (Ref. 40, pp, 5, 6).
==========================================================================
Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 20
51
SWOF/Food Chain-Level I Concentrations
4.1.3.3.2
Population
4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations
No Level I concentrations were documented. Samples were collected from sessile
benthic organisms; however, the locations where the control samples were
collected could not be determined. During the investigation that NOAA conducted
in 1997, tissue samples were collected from oysters; however, the exact sampling
locations are not known (Ref. 16, p. 1, 2).
==========================================================================
Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0
52
SWOF/Food Chain-Level II Concentrations
4.1.3.3.2.2
Level II Concentrations
No Level II concentrations have been documented. During the START 4 sampling
event, surface water and sediment samples were collected from Shipyard Creek.
Shipyard Creek is fished; however, it is not known whether the exact locations
where the samples were collected are fished (Refs. 14; 23; 41, pp. 1, 7 - 9).
==========================================================================
Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0
53
SWOF/Food Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
Identity
of Fishery
Annual
Production
in Pounds
Type of
Surface
Water
Body
Average
Annual
Flow
Rate
Population
Value (Pi)
Dilution
Weight
(Di)
Population
Value x
Dilution
Weight
(Pi x Di)
Reference
Shipyard
Creek
>0
Moderate
to large
stream
<1,000
cfs
0.03
0.01
0.0003
1, Tables
4-13, 418; 3
Cooper
River
>0
Large
stream
to river
4,500
cfs
0.03
0.001
0.00003
1, Tables
4-13, 418; 3; 14
Charleston
Harbor
>0
Coastal
tidal
waters
NA
0.03
0.0001
0.000003
1, Tables
4-13, 418; 3
Sum of Human Food Chain Population Values x Dilution Weights (Pi x Di) =0.000333
Population Values x Dilution Weights (Pi x Di) ÷ 10 = 0.0000333
Notes:
cfs = Cubic feet per second
NA = Not Applicable (for coastal tidal waters)
The flow rate for Shipyard Creek is not known. For scoring purposes, the flow
rate was estimated to be between 100 and 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) based
on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle map of
Charleston, South Carolina (Ref. 3). Information was not available on the annual
production of fish from the surface water bodies listed in the table above.
However, because Shipyard Creek, the Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor are
fisheries, for scoring purposes, the annual production was assumed to be greater
than zero (Refs. 14; 15; 51).
==========================================================================
Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.0000333
54
SWOF-Environment-Ecosystem Toxicity\Persistence\Bioaccumulation
4.1.4.2
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.4.2.1
Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Source
No.
Ecosystem
Toxicity
Persistence*
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor Value
(Table 4-20)
Arsenic
1,2
100**
1
100
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-2
Cadmium
1,3
1,000
1
1,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-4
Chromium
1,2,3,
4
100
1
100
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-5
Cobalt
1,4
***
1
***
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-6
Copper
1,3,4
100
1
100
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-6
Lead
1,3,4
1,000
1
1,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-13
Mercury
1,3,4
10,000
0.40
4,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-13
Nickel
1,3,4
1,000**
1
1,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-14
Selenium
1
1,000
1
1,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-17
Silver
1
10,000
1
10,000
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-18
Zinc
1,3,4
100**
1
100
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1; 2,
p. B-20
Reference
Notes:
*
= Persistence value for rivers
** = Salt water values were used for arsenic, nickel, and zinc.
*** = No ecosystem toxicity value is available for cobalt.
55
SWOF-Environment-Ecosystem Toxicity\Persistence\Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value
Bioaccumulation
Factor Value
(Section
4.1.3.2.1.2)
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor Value
(Table 4-21)
Arsenic
100**
500
5 x 104
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-2
Cadmium
1,000
5,000
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-4
Chromium
100
500**
5 x 104
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-5
Cobalt
**
5,000
***
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-6
Copper
100
50,000
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-6
Lead
1,000
5,000
5 x 106
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-13
Mercury
4,000
50,000
2 x 108
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-13
Nickel
1,000**
500
5 x 105
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-14
Selenium
1,000
5,000
5 x 106
Silver
10,000
50
5 x 105
Zinc
100**
50,000**
5 X 106
Notes:
Reference
1, Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2, p. B-20
*
**
= Persistence values for rivers
= Salt water values were used for arsenic, chromium,
cobalt, nickel, and zinc.
*** = No ecosystem toxicity value is available for cobalt.
==========================================================================
Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108
56
SWOF/Environment-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.4.2.2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
Source Hazardous Waste
Quantity Value
(Section 2.4.2.1.5)
Is source hazardous
constituent quantity data
complete? (Yes/No)
1
41,481.48
No
2
666.67
No
3
95.96
No
4
>0
No
Sum of Values: 42,244.11
4.1.4.2.3.
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value (4,000)
X hazardous waste quantity factor value (10,000): 4 x 107
(Ecosystem toxicity/persistence [4,000] X hazardous waste quantity [10,00] x
bioaccumulation potential factor value [50,000]): 2 x 1012
==========================================================================
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000
57
SWOF/Environment-Targets
4.1.4.3
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT - TARGETS
Level I Concentrations
Sample ID: MAC-SW-04L
Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration Fg/L
Benchmark
Concentration Fg/L
Benchmark
References
Chromium
630 Fg/L
11 Fg/L
AWQC/AALAC
2, p., B-47;
45, pp. 235,
240
Notes:
Fg/L = Micrograms per liter
AWQC = Ambient Water Quality Criteria
AALAC = Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations
Most Distant Level I Sample
Sample ID: MAC-SW-04L
Distance from Probable point of entry: about 800 feet (0.15 mile)
References: 41, p. 1; 45, pp. 235, 240; 50
Surface water
downstream of
water sample,
002 (Refs. 3;
sample MAC-SD-04L was collected from Shipyard Creek about 800 feet
Outfall No. 001 (Refs. 3; 41, p. 1; 50). The background surface
MAC-SW-01L was collected from Shipyard Creek upstream of Outfall
40, p. 5; 50)
Most Distant Level II Sample
The most distant Level II sample is MAC-SD-31A. Sediment sample MAC-SD-31A is
located within the area scored as Level I concentrations (Refs. 3; 41, pp. 1, 8;
50). Also see Figure 3.
58
SWOF/Environment-Level I Concentrations
4.1.4.3.1
Sensitive Environments
4.1.4.3.1.1.
Level I Concentrations
Sensitive Environments
Several Federally designated and state-designated endangered or threatened
species are located in Charleston County and coastal waters within the 15-mile
surface water migration pathway target distance limit; however, the exact
locations of these species are not known and were not scored in this
documentation record (Refs. 14; 29, pp. 3, 4; 30, pp. 2 - 4).
Wetlands
Based on the Wetlands Inventory Map for Charleston, South Carolina, the wetland
area adjacent to Shipyard Creek affected by Level I concentrations is classified
as estuarine intertidal emergent persistent regularly flooded (E2EM1N) (Ref. 17)
(see Figure 3). About 800 feet of wetland frontage were determined to be
affected by Level I concentrations. The wetland frontage was calculated from the
PPE at Outfall No. 001, to surface water sample MAC-SW-04L, along the in-water
segment of Shipyard Creek (Refs. 3; Figure 3). In times of reverse flow caused
by tidal influence, the distance from the PPE at Outfall No. 004, along the inwater segment of Shipyard Creek, to surface water sample MAC-SW-03L is 2,000 feet
(0.38 mile)(Ref. 3; Figure 3).
Wetland
Wetland Frontage
References
Wetland area contiguous
with Shipyard Creek
0.15 mile
3; 17; 41, p. 1
Total wetland frontage: 0.15 mile
Wetland value: 25
Sum of sensitive environments and wetlands: 25
25 x 10 = 250
==========================================================================
Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 250
59
SWOF/Environment-Level II Concentrations
4.1.4.3.1.2.
Level II Concentrations
Sensitive Environments
No Level II sensitive environments were scored.
Wetlands
No Level II sensitive wetlands were scored. All wetlands identified were scored
using Level I or potential contamination criteria (see pages 59, 61, and 62 of
this documentation record).
Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 0
==========================================================================
Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0
60
SWOF/Environment-Potential Contamination
4.1.4.3.1.3
Potential Contamination
Sensitive Environments
Type of
Surface
Water Body
River
Sensitive
Environment
Value(s)
Sensitive Environment
The Cooper River is a habitat
for the Federally designated
endangered Shortnose sturgeon,
Acipenser Brevirostrum.
75
Reference
1, Table 423; 14; 29;
30
Sum of Environment Value: 75
Wetlands
Type of Surface
Water Body
Wetlands
Frontage
Wetlands Value
Reference
Shipyard Creek
1 mile
25
1, Table 4-24; 3; 17
Cooper River
17 miles
450
1, Table 4-24; 3; 17
Charleston Harbor
2 miles
50
1, Table 4-24; 3; 17
Total Wetland Frontage: 20 miles
61
SWOF/Environment-Potential Contamination
Name of
Surface Water
Body
Sum of
Sensitive
Environment
Values (Si)
Shipyard
Creek
Wetland
Frontage
Value (Wi)
Dilution
Weight
(Di)
Di(Wi + Si)
References
None
identified
25
0.01
0.25
1, Tables 413, 4-24; 3
Cooper River
75
450
0.001
0.525
1, Tables 413, 4-24; 3;
14
Charleston
Harbor
None
identified
50
0.0001
0.005
1, Tables 413, 4-24; 3
Sum of Sum of Dj(Wj + Sj): 0.78
(Sum of Dj[Wj + Sj])/10: 0.078
==========================================================================
Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0.08
62