Central Chemical Corp.

History of Central Chemical Corp.
In important ways, the circumstances surrounding Thomas’s entry into the fertilizer business were not propitious. First, Thomas began business near the end of a half-century-long relocation of the fertilizer industry’s center. Though fertilizer use continued to increase in the Mid-Atlantic states and elsewhere during the period from 1870 to 1920, the manufacture of fertilizer began to shift to the Southern states in the late nineteenth century. By 1902, Charleston had replaced Baltimore as the fertilizer capital of the country. The Mid-Atlantic states’ share of total fertilizer use decreased from 34% in 1880 to 14% in 1920. By contrast, in 1920 the South-Atlantic states used about 50% of all fertilizers consumed in the U.S. Thus, Hagerstown could no longer enjoy proximity to the major centers of fertilizer-material production, and, while previously situated between the two highest-fertilizer-use regions of the country, it now found itself on the northern edge of a region that now dwarfed all others.

Second, Thomas’s decision to continue in the practice (apparently favored by Hagerstown companies) of making fertilizer primarily from bone and organic materials came at the start of a rapid increase in the demand for mixed fertilizers, but also at the beginning of a precipitous decline in the use of bone and bone products as a source of phosphorous in fertilizers. With the growing use of potash and phosphate rock, consumption of mixed fertilizers grew from 46% of the total in 1880 to around 70% in 1920. During the period from 1890 to 1910, when Thomas was focusing on his presumably unmixed “dissolved bone” fertilizers, mixed fertilizers were capturing market share.

Furthermore, the period from 1880 to 1920 is also characterized by the decreasing use of organic materials in general. Though organic materials provided about 91% of the total nitrogen in 1900, by 1917 the total nitrogen contribution from organics had dropped to 46.5%. With regard to phosphates, bone meal, dissolved bones and boneblack, and phosphoro-guano use peaked in 1890, but their use dropped to a negligible amount by 1910 as the use of superphosphates from phosphate rock increased dramatically..

Third, even as Thomas had begun his business trading fertilizer for livestock from relatively distant places, the fertilizer industry was increasingly turning to local distribution. Though mid-nineteenth-century fertilizer plants typically were situated in East Coast harbor cities, twentieth-century plants were dispersed to be closer to areas of consumption.

Finally, even though the name “Thomas’ Dissolved Bone” suggests that Thomas produced his own superphosphates initially, the use of bone in the production of superphosphates was on its way out as described above. For all practical purposes, then, Thomas had set his business on the track of the second, smaller type of fertilizer company, which only mixed fertilizer and did not produce superphosphates. For the next 90 years, even when Central Chemical had affiliates across the nation, it would remain in this “smaller” category – relying on large suppliers for its materials. For reasons noted above, this was not a problem at the turn of the century vis-à-vis the larger companies. Starting in the 1890s, however, many agricultural societies began to advocate home mixing of fertilizer materials by farmers. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the fertilizer industry fought this effort successfully by insisting on the value of industrial mixing processes and the farmer’s comparative disadvantages in mixing.

Though in its early years, Central Chemical advertised itself as “Exporters – Manufacturers – Importers,” by the 1970s it had become little more than a middle-man between larger suppliers and farmers. It did not import its own materials, but purchased granulated materials from suppliers. There is no evidence that Central Chemical was exporting products out of the country anymore. And its manufacturing capacity consisted of mixing pre-processed granulated materials in various proportions. At this point, its consulting capacity became equally important to its factory processes.

Though Central Chemical and its subsidiaries were taking in a combined $25 million in sales by the late 1970s, an employee remembers that there was always a sense of trouble on the horizon. The vulnerability of a company that adds very little value to its product and relies entirely on contracts with larger suppliers requires no explanation. It appears that not long after Central Chemical became a bulk blender, its large suppliers began pushing their advantages. In the early 70s, Central Chemical’s supplier, Agrico Chemical Company, put pressure on Central Chemical to enter into a long-term contract. When Central Chemical refused, Agrico withheld di-ammonium phosphate and granular triple super phosphate at a time of national shortage in these materials. Central Chemical responded by filing an antitrust lawsuit against Agrico in federal court. For most of the next decade much of the time, resources, and energy of what was still a closely-held corporation would be consumed in this litigation. Ultimately the lawsuit proved unsuccessful.

All of this came at the same time that local, state, federal regulators were investigating the Hagerstown plant for its pesticide-disposal practices. In the 1970s the State of Maryland ordered two separate cleanups of the site; the EPA was just getting started.

Ultimately the push to eliminate the middle man that drove the switch to bulk blending began to turn on the blenders themselves. The larger companies and farmers wised up, and realized that they could both save money by dealing directly with each other. Farmers began buying direct-application materials from the same suppliers used by Central Chemical. By the early 1980s, Central Chemical’s network of fertilizer blenders had contracted substantially. Blending operations like those of the Hagerstown plant could no longer make the case for themselves. Crushed under the weight of increasingly serious environmental liability for its mid-century disposal practices, the Central Chemical Corporation contracted its operations substantially. The Hagerstown plant ceased operations in 1984 and the office headquarters moved from the old Thomas building to an office outside Hagerstown.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

EPA study of water, soil contamination continuing at Hagerstown's Central Chemical site - Local News - Herald Mail Media

EPA study of water, soil contamination continuing at Hagerstown's Central Chemical site - Local News - Herald Mail Media
EPA study of water, soil contamination continuing at Hagerstown's Central Chemical site

Possible reusesAsked about possible reuses of the site once remediation is complete, Foulkes said the property is currently zoned for industrial use, and a site land-use committee has been formed by Hagerstown officials to develop recommendations.Development ideas include light industrial and commercial office park developments, both with natural buffer areas, Foulkes said.“The group’s recommendations have been taken under consideration as the project has moved forward,” she said.Hagerstown Mayor David S. Gysberts said the property used to be part of the “inner ring” of industrial properties in the city, which has since overgrown the area and spread far beyond it.Gysberts said he remembers discussing future plans for the land several years ago while serving on the Hagerstown Planning Commission, when a comprehensive rezoning package was considered that designated the land as Professional Office-Mixed Use.“We considered that there’s still all that industrial land around there, that professional office would be the most appropriate with all the residential areas” nearby, Gysberts said.Gysberts said he hopes that one day all the former industrial land in that area could eventually be redeveloped into a “job creation zone.”Although the remedial investigation will take quite a bit of time, Gysberts said he appreciates that the EPA is moving forward with its cleanup efforts.“With environmental hazards, you have to make sure it’s done right,” he said. “... It’s nice to know that they’re still working on it.”

Questions- How is the contaminated dirt going to be sealed? Where are they taking it? It seems as if this truly is not treated like a contaminated site- Look at the picture, if the wind blows while the dirt is going into the truck- how far will the contamination go? As they dig, this all should be in a large tent to ensure that no accidental contamination spreads. ( My opinion)

By Kevin G. Gilbert, Staff PhotographerStone and earth brought to the surface from well drilling is collected and stored at the site of the former Central Chemical plant. The material is sent for analysis. Buried pesticide and fertilzer component materials led to the area being declared a superfund cleanup site.

By C.J. LOVELACE cj.lovelace@herald-mail.com | Posted 6 months ago

Federal environmental officials are overseeing additional investigative work at the Central Chemical superfund site off Mitchell Avenue in Hagerstown.

Crews were out this week drilling more groundwater-monitoring wells at the 19-acre property, which was once the location of an agricultural product manufacturing plant, to obtain soil and water samples that will be used to evaluate the extent of contamination in the ground, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.“Studies have been done on the groundwater side, but the EPA felt that additional study was necessary,” EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Smith said. “So we’re doing that additional study.”At the site on Wednesday, a geologist with URS Corp., based in Fort Washington, Pa., said a total of 18 groundwater-monitoring wells have been dug since work began in 2003, and five more are set to be completed in the coming months.Subcontractors working at the site were drilling a new well in one area of the property, while another was examining underground rock formations and patterns to determine the flow path of contaminated water.Contaminants of concern on the site include arsenic and lead from heavy metals, as well as pesticides such as chlordane, DDT and Lindane, EPA officials said in a community update newsletter earlier this month.EPA officials said the risk of exposure to contaminants is low because the site is fenced, and Hagerstown residents get their drinking water from the municipal water supply that is pumped from the Potomac River.The EPA newsletter outlines ongoing work at the superfund site and other tasks slated for later this summer and future years. The Maryland Department of the Environment is a secondary agency in the cleanup operation.Superfund is the federal government’s program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, according to the EPA website.An official with Central Chemical Group — comprised of several companies cooperating with the EPA to fund the remedial investigation — called work on the site a “lengthy but thorough process.”“The site most certainly is a priority” to clean up, Central Chemical spokeswoman Roberta Foulkes said. “Both the companies and the EPA have worked to keep the process going.”The remediation is a two-fold process, one part seeking to clean up groundwater contaminants and the other to “solidify and stabilize” waste materials found in the soil.In 2009, the EPA issued its final cleanup plan for the contaminated soils and wastes on the site.Mitch Cron, a remedial project manager with the EPA, said most of the solid waste material is contained within an on-site depression, or a “waste lagoon,” in the north east portion of the property.The lagoon contains high concentrations of pesticides and heavy metal components that had been buried.“The main piece of the soil waste remedy is to solidify and stabilize the waste within the lagoon to prevent those contaminants from continuing to leach out into groundwater,” Cron said.He said that the goal is to contain all contaminants in the lagoon within a concrete-like substance before the overall area is capped.“The cap prevents people or (animals) from coming in contact with the contaminated soil,” Cron said. “...We want to make sure the final remedy is protective and will be effective over the long term.”The need to remove contaminated soil on other portions of the property also is likely, Cron said.Groundwater contamination has been found beyond the Central Chemical property boundary lines, according to the EPA’s website.To check off-site contamination levels, officials plan to drill wells on adjacent private property to gauge contaminant levels in the soil and water, as well as check for any potential vapor intrusion, which occurs when volatile organic compounds are released from contaminated groundwater, Smith said.The site, which is near Maryland Metals off North Burhans Boulevard, previously functioned as a blending and packaging facility for agricultural products.At the former plant, agricultural pesticides and fertilizers were mixed with inert ingredients to dilute materials for commercial applications.Most of the pesticide blending ceased in 1965, with operations ending in 1984. The old buildings were demolished in 2005.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

New Details On Md. Agent Orange Tests

February 23, 2011 2:45 PM

Filed Under

Health, Local, News

Related Information

FREDERICK, Md. (AP) — Military records are shedding new light on Agent Orange testing decades ago at Maryland military installations and raising new concerns about health hazards from the Vietnam War-era chemical defoliant.

Fort Detrick released fresh details Tuesday on outdoor experiments with Agent Orange and similar compounds at the Army installation in Frederick.

The Army says it also tested Agent Orange outdoors at the former Fort Ritchie near Cascade, a disclosure that is expected to further delay redevelopment of the property by its private owner, Corporate Office Properties Trust.

The concerns stem from a dioxin in Agent Orange that has been linked to adverse health effects among service members who were exposed to it when it was used reduce enemy cover in Vietnam in the 1960s and early 70s.

Fort Detrick is trying to counter claims by an activist group that its carelessness with chemicals caused a cancer cluster among neighboring residents. An investigation by state public health officials hasn’t found higher rates of cancer within a mile of Fort Detrick than in the rest of Frederick County.

Fort Detrick officials said their preliminary archive search confirmed that researchers used nearly 17 pounds of Agent Orangeand other chemical defoliants from 1944 to 1968. The tests were done mostly with hand-held sprayers on 6-feet-by-18-feet outdoor plots sheltered by portable windscreens, the report said.

The Army said the compounds were identical to commercially available defoliants that were widely used across the country for farms, lawn care, rights of way and other applications.

The attack on Fort Detrick is led by Randy White, a former televangelist who heads the Kristen Renee Foundation, named for a daughter who grew up near Fort Detrick and died of brain cancer in 2008. Her mother, White’s ex-wife Debra Cross, died of kidney cancer in November.

White said Tuesday that he doesn’t trust the military to make public all its Agent Orange research.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The DDT Story

The DDT Story

If there is a single pesticide almost everyone can name, it's DDT.

DDT was one of the first chemicals in widespread use as a pesticide. Following World War II, it was promoted as a wonder-chemical, the simple solution to pest problems large and small. Today, nearly 40 years after DDT was banned in the U.S., we continue to live with its long-lasting effects:

· Food supplies: USDA found DDT breakdown products in 60% of heavy cream samples, 42% of kale greens, 28% of carrots and lower percentages of many other foods.

· Body burden: DDT breakdown products were found in the blood of 99% of the people tested by CDC.

· Health impacts: Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age, according to the President’s Cancer Panel.

Banned for agricultural uses worldwide by the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the use of DDT is still permitted in small quantities in countries that need it, with support mobilized for the transition to safer and more effective alternatives. The treatment of DDT under the Stockholm Convention is strongly supported by PAN and our international partners.

Rachel Carson highlighted the dangers of DDT in her groundbreaking 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson used DDT to tell the broader story of the disastrous consequences of the overuse of insecticides, and raised enough concern from her testimony before Congress to trigger the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Her work attracted outrage from the pesticide industry and others. Her credibility as a scientist was attacked, and she was derided as “hysterical,” despite her fact-based assertions and calm and scholarly demeanor. Following the hearings, President Kennedy convened a committee to review the evidence Carson presented. The committee's review completely vindicating her findings.

One of the new EPA's first acts was to ban DDT, due to both concerns about harm to the environment and the potential for harm to human health. There was also evidence linking DDT with severe declines in bald eagle populations due to thinning eggshells. Since DDT was banned in the U.S., bald eagles have made a dramatic recovery.

Recently, Carson's work has again been targeted by conservative groups. Capitalizing on the iconic status of DDT, these groups are promoting widespread use of the chemical for malaria control as part of a broader effort to manufacture doubt about the dangers of pesticides, and to promote their anti-regulatory, free market agenda while attempting to undermine and roll back the environmental movement's legacy.

Many DDT promoters are also in the business of denying climate change.

Attacks on Carson from groups like The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Africa Fighting Malaria portray DDT as the simple solution to malaria, and blame Carson for “millions of deaths in Africa.” Many of these DDT promoters are also in the business of denying climate change and defended the tobacco industry by denying the health harms of smoking.

Human Health Harms

The science on DDT's human health impacts has continued to mount over the years, with recent studies showing harm at very low levels of exposure. Studies show a range of human health effects linked to DDT and its breakdown product, DDE:

· breast & other cancers

· male infertility

· miscarriages & low birth weight

· developmental delay

· nervous system & liver damage

No 'Silver Bullet' for Malaria Control

The only remaining legal use of DDT is to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes. A devastating disease, malaria kills more than 800,000 people every year, the majority of deaths among children in Sub-Saharan Africa. Indoor spraying with DDT is one of a number of tools being used to control malaria around the world. Only in rare cases is it the most effective choice.

Successful malaria control programs have been built all over the world using a variety of approaches that are affordable and appropriate to local needs. All include community involvement, appropriate technology and investment in public health capacity and education. These community-based, integrated solutions have proven successful in places as diverse as Mexico, Kenyaand Vietnam.

Unfortunately, vocal groups such as Africa Fighting Malaria continue to promote a simplistic "DDT or nothing" debate, ignoring on-the-ground evidence from around the world that more effective approaches are saving lives without putting communities in harm's way from exposure to the long-lasting chemical.

PAN works with international allies, governments and on-the-ground groups in Africa to mobilize resources and political will to combat malaria, and remains active in international legal processes to support the global phase out of DDT and promote the safest and most effective malaria control solutions.

Monday, January 13, 2014

FINAL RELEASE : AUGUST 8, 2005

I am unable to place all of the information on the blog, so please go to the following:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/Central%20Chemical/CentralChemicalSitePHA080805.pdf

A lists 121 chemicals which were analyzed in soil, groundwater, surface water,
stormwater, and sediment samples collected in the Phase I remedial investigation. These

included pesticides, herbicides, metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Many of these chemicals were found below levels of concern, were present in only a few samples, or were in locations where the public is not likely to come into contact with them. The following section on exposure pathways discusses our evaluation of the chemicals found at this site. Unless noted otherwise, information on sampling, chemicals, and concentrations came from the Phase I and Phase II remedial investigation reports prepared by URS Corporation (7, 8).

Pesticides Frequency Detected ON PAGE 22.

PESTICIDES TESTED:
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDT : Dangerous To Life or Health

a-BHC
α-chlordane

β-BHC
Carbaryl
Dieldrin
γ-Chlordane: 0.5 mg/m³ TWA [skin]; NIOSH considers chlordane to be a potential occupational carcinogen as defined by the OSHA carcinogen policy [29 CFR 1990].

Heptachlor :0.5 mg/m³ TWA [skin]; NIOSH considers heptachlor to be a potential occupational carcinogen as defined by the OSHA carcinogen policy [29 CFR 1990].

Diphenamid

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

EPA study of water, soil contamination continuing at Hagerstown's Central Chemical site

By C.J. LOVELACE cj.lovelace@herald-mail.com |

Federal environmental officials are overseeing additional investigative work at the Central Chemical superfund site off Mitchell Avenue in Hagerstown.

“Studies have been done on the groundwater side, but the EPA felt that additional study was necessary,” EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Smith said. “So we’re doing that additional study.”

At the site on Wednesday, a geologist with URS Corp., based in Fort Washington, Pa., said a total of 18 groundwater-monitoring wells have been dug since work began in 2003, and five more are set to be completed in the coming months.

Subcontractors working at the site were drilling a new well in one area of the property, while another was examining underground rock formations and patterns to determine the flow path of contaminated water.

Contaminants of concern on the site include arsenic and lead from heavy metals, as well as pesticides such as chlordane, DDT and Lindane, EPA officials said in a community update newsletter earlier this month.

EPA officials said the risk of exposure to contaminants is low because the site is fenced, and Hagerstown residents get their drinking water from the municipal water supply that is pumped from the Potomac River.

The EPA newsletter outlines ongoing work at the superfund site and other tasks slated for later this summer and future years. The Maryland Department of the Environment is a secondary agency in the cleanup operation.

Superfund is the federal government’s program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, according to the EPA website.

An official with Central Chemical Group — comprised of several companies cooperating with the EPA to fund the remedial investigation — called work on the site a “lengthy but thorough process.”

“The site most certainly is a priority” to clean up, Central Chemical spokeswoman Roberta Foulkes said. “Both the companies and the EPA have worked to keep the process going.”

The remediation is a two-fold process, one part seeking to clean up groundwater contaminants and the other to “solidify and stabilize” waste materials found in the soil.

In 2009, the EPA issued its final cleanup plan for the contaminated soils and wastes on the site.

Mitch Cron, a remedial project manager with the EPA, said most of the solid waste material is contained within an on-site depression, or a “waste lagoon,” in the north east portion of the property.

The lagoon contains high concentrations of pesticides and heavy metal components that had been buried.

“The main piece of the soil waste remedy is to solidify and stabilize the waste within the lagoon to prevent those contaminants from continuing to leach out into groundwater,” Cron said.

He said that the goal is to contain all contaminants in the lagoon within a concrete-like substance before the overall area is capped.

“The cap prevents people or (animals) from coming in contact with the contaminated soil,” Cron said. “

We want to make sure the final remedy is protective and will be effective over the long term.”

The need to remove contaminated soil on other portions of the property also is likely, Cron said.

Groundwater contamination has been found beyond the Central Chemical property boundary lines, according to the EPA’s website.

To check off-site contamination levels, officials plan to drill wells on adjacent private property to gauge contaminant levels in the soil and water, as well as check for any potential vapor intrusion, which occurs when volatile organic compounds are released from contaminated groundwater, Smith said.

The site, which is near Maryland Metals off North Burhans Boulevard, previously functioned as a blending and packaging facility for agricultural products.

At the former plant, agricultural pesticides and fertilizers were mixed with inert ingredients to dilute materials for commercial applications.

Most of the pesticide blending ceased in 1965, with operations ending in 1984. The old buildings were demolished in 2005.

Possible reuses

Asked about possible reuses of the site once remediation is complete, Foulkes said the property is currently zoned for industrial use, and a site land-use committee has been formed by Hagerstown officials to develop recommendations.

Development ideas include light industrial and commercial office park developments, both with natural buffer areas, Foulkes said.

“The group’s recommendations have been taken under consideration as the project has moved forward,” she said.

Hagerstown Mayor David S. Gysberts said the property used to be part of the “inner ring” of industrial properties in the city, which has since overgrown the area and spread far beyond it.

Gysberts said he remembers discussing future plans for the land several years ago while serving on the Hagerstown Planning Commission, when a comprehensive rezoning package was considered that designated the land as Professional Office-Mixed Use.

“We considered that there’s still all that industrial land around there, that professional office would be the most appropriate with all the residential areas” nearby, Gysberts said.

Gysberts said he hopes that one day all the former industrial land in that area could eventually be redeveloped into a “job creation zone.”

Although the remedial investigation will take quite a bit of time, Gysberts said he appreciates that the EPA is moving forward with its cleanup efforts.

“With environmental hazards, you have to make sure it’s done right,” he said. “... It’s nice to know that they’re still working on it.”

Herald Mail Nov. 2013

Hagerstown, Maryland

Site Investigation Begins at Superfund Site 2003

Central Chemical

Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland
March 2003 Fact Sheet

Site Investigation Begins at Superfund Site

You are Invited to Attend the Public Availability Session

on March 6, 2003, 5:30–8:30 P.M. at the Western Heights Middle School Cafeteria

Ask questions about the Site in an informal setting.Receive more Site information.

Central Chemical Site Contacts

If you would like more information on any of the topics in this fact sheet or have general questions, please contact one of the representatives listed below:

Eric Newman (3HS23)
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone (215) 814 3237

Patrick Gaughan (3HS43)
Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3
1060 Chapline St.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone (304) 234 0238

Andrew Zarins
Waste Management Administration, MDE
1800 Washington Blvd.
Suite 625
Baltimore, MD 21230
Phone (410) 537-3419

What is Happening at the Central Chemical Superfund Superfund Site?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the support of the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), has approved a plan to investigate and decide how to clean up the Central Chemical Superfund Site in Hagerstown, Maryland (see site map). EPA decides what level of cleanup is necessary and how best to clean up contaminated properties by completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study at the Site. This fact sheet will provide a brief overview of the project.

Who is Doing the Work?

The Central Chemical Site was placed on the National Priorities List, making the property eligible for federal attention under the "Superfund" program. The Superfund law and regulations spell out exactly how these Sites are to be investigated and cleanup decisions made. EPA has the authority to require companies who have some responsibility for contamination at a Superfund site to clean it up.

Seven of the corporations identified by EPA as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the Site agreed to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and to reimburse the government for its expenses overseeing that work. The cooperating group of PRPs hired the engineering firm URS Corporation to complete the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process. All work performed at the Site is subject to the review and approval of EPA with the support of MDE.

Investigation Begins

Field work supporting the Remedial Investigation will begin in March. The three primary objectives of the Remedial Investigation are to:

Identify the contaminants of concern
Determine where those contaminants are located (i.e., soil, ground water, surface water, etc.) and
Assess the risk that those contaminants may pose to people and the environment.

The first two objectives identified above will be accomplished by collecting samples from the on-site soil and groundwater, as well as surface water and sediments down stream from the Site in Marsh Run and Antietam Creek. The approved plan calls for completing the sampling activities in two phases. The Phase I sampling will be completed during the Spring of 2003. The results of the first phase of the investigation will guide the development of a second phase. The Phase II sampling plan will fill information gaps necessary to understand the risks presented by the Site. The Phase II sampling will likely begin by the end of the year. All sampling results will be reported to EPA and MDE and made available to the public at the site information repository at the Washington County Free Library, South Potomac Street, Hagerstown, MD.

The primary conclusion of the Remedial Investigation will be the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. These risk assessments will calculate the potential risk that the Site may present if not cleaned up, considering current and future land use scenarios. If the risk assessment finds that the Site presents an unacceptable risk cleanup options will be evaluated in the Feasibility Study.

What You Will See on the Site

When the field work begins, the public can expect to see workers taking samples and installing ground water monitoring wells using a standard well drilling rig. Site workers will be wearing hard hats, steel-tipped boots and white protective coveralls for easy disposal. A site health and safety officer will be there and air monitoring will be performed to ensure the work is completed safely. The environmental sampling will not affect nearby residents.

Workers will be at the Site collecting the Phase I samples for a few weeks, then several months will pass without much activity at the Site. After we get the laboratory results from Phase I, the workers will be back at the Site to collect the Phase II samples.

How Does EPA Select a Cleanup Plan?

Cleanup options to reduce the risk presented by hazardous substances at the Site will be developed and evaluated in the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study will begin by establishing objectives which would address the problems presented by contamination at the Site. For example, one objective will likely be to prevent contact with contaminated soil. Next, all engineering options capable of meeting the objectives will be considered. Each potential cleanup option will be compared and contrasted against the following nine criteria:

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Long-term Effectiveness
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability.
Cost Effectiveness
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance

Based on the conclusions of the Feasibility Study, EPA will release a “Proposed Plan” for review and comment by the public and host a public meeting to discuss the Site. The Proposed Plan will summarize the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study findings and identify a preferred cleanup alternative for consideration by the community. Only after EPA and MDE fully consider public comments will EPA issue what is termed a “Record Of Decision.” This decision will detail the selected cleanup option and provide the rationale upon which it was based.

Join the Mailing List

If you would like your name added to the mailing list for information regarding the Central Chemical Site, please include your name, address (street, city, state, and zip code), and phone number and mail it to:

Patrick Gaughan (3HS43)
Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S EPA Region 3
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
410 Methodist Building
1060 Chapline Street
Wheeling, WV 26003

Central Chemical Site Map

enlarge map

Brief Site Description

The Central Chemical Superfund Site, located off Mitchell Avenue in Hagerstown, Maryland, functioned as a blender of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. Raw pesticides manufactured at other locations were blended with inert materials to produce commercial grade products. Most of the pesticide production ceased in 1965 due to a fire. Central Chemical stopped all operations at the plant in 1984.

The owner of the property is currently leasing several small areas of the Site and garage structures to individuals who are in the vehicle repair and restoration business. A recycling business is also located on the property.

Contaminants found at elevated levels in the Site soil, ground water, surface water, sediment and/or in the tissue of fish caught downstream of the Site, include arsenic, lead, benzene and several pesticides including DDT, DDE, DDD, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin.

Exposure to site contamination is low since the Site is fenced to prevent extensive or prolonged contact with the contaminated soil. The citizens of Hagerstown receive their drinking water from the municipal supply which pumps water from the Potomac River upgradient of any site impacts.

Region 3 Central Chemical (Hagerstown, Maryland)

Region 3

Central Chemical (Hagerstown, Maryland)

$97,405 awarded to City of Hagerstown

Commercial or Industrial

Hagerstown is home to the Central Chemical Company Superfund site. From the early 1930s until the mid-1980s, the chemical plant blended agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, creating waste and by-products that were allegedly disposed of in an old stone quarry on the property.

Contaminants were found in the soil, ground water, surface water, sediments, and in the tissue of fish caught downstream of the site. Arsenic, lead, benzene, aldrin, chlordane, and DDT are just some of the contaminants identified. In September 1997, EPA added the site to its list of hazardous waste sites needing cleanup. The site is in an economically disadvantaged community, in an American Heritage River watershed, and near a Brownfields Pilot site.

The City of Hagerstown requested funds to implement a 12-month community-based assessment of site reuse options. Hagerstown encouraged the community to be involved in the decision-making process and worked with a non-profit consensus-building research service and educational organization to achieve those goals.

EPA’s Technical Outreach Services for Communities program provided a technical expert to also help the community and city officials reach decisions.

The Central Chemical Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Pilot Project Report was completed in July of 2003. The intent of the project was to provide EPA and the city with the community's guidance and reuse recommendations for the site for consideration in the cleanup plan.

Consistent with the reuse report, EPA expects that the anticipated future use of the site is light industry or commercial office space and will take this into consideration during the remedy selection process. In addition to the remedial investigation, the responsible parties have agreed to remove 17 old buildings from the site on a voluntary basis. Partly supported by their reuse report,

the responsible parties acknowledged that the old buildings were not part of anyone's vision for the future of the site.

The reuse plan can be found online at:

http://www.virginia.edu/ien/docs/HagerstownLUCFinalReport.pdf

NPL Site Narrative for Central Chemical (Hagerstown)

Final National Priorities List (NPL) Sites

( 1321 Sites as of August 12, 2015 ) Narrative for Central

Chemical (Hagerstown)

CENTRAL CHEMICAL (HAGERSTOWN)

Hagerstown, Maryland

Federal Register Notice: September 25, 1997

Conditions at Proposal (June 1996): Central Chemical

blended and produced pesticides and fertilizers at the 19-acre

site on North Jonathan Street in Hagerstown, Washington

County, Maryland from the 1930s until 1968.

Pesticide operations ceased in 1968 and the company only produced

fertilizer from 1968 until closure in 1984. Currently the site is

leased for warehousing, auto rebuilding, and other purposes.

The site consists of three sources: an old stone quarry, a

sinkhole, and an area of contaminated soil. Soluble materials

such as DDT, chlordane, and other pesticides and wastes that

became out-of-date or were banned by the government were

buried in the old stone quarry. Insoluble wastes were buried in

trenches or sinkholes throughout areas east and northeast of

the quarry. Following the discovery of elevated concentrations

of pesticides and heavy metals in 1976, the State of Maryland

ordered Central Chemical to investigate and stabilize the site.

After complying with these orders by capping the quarry and

sinkhole areas with clay and soil and vegetating these areas,

the State issued a Notice of Compliance to Central Chemical

on December 14, 1979.

After discovering an on-site dump area during the excavation

of a sewer line in 1987, the State began negotiating a Consent

Order with Central Chemical to clean up the site. To date,

Central Chemical has not signed this order.

Through the Cooperative Agreement with EPA, the State

conducted an expanded site inspection at Central Chemical in

May of 1993. DDT was detected at elevated levels in sediment

samples taken from the storm water runoff system and

Antietam Creek. Antietam Creek is used for fishing and

recreational purposes. High levels of DDT and other pesticides

were also detected in soil samples on and near the site.

Status (September 1997): EPA has conducted additional

sampling at the site. Central Chemical extended the fence to

enclose the contaminated area in response to the discovery of

contaminated soil outside the former fence line.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information

available at the time the site was evaulated with the HRS. The

description may change as additional information is gathered

on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600,

February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances

identified in this narrative summary, including general

information regarding the effects of exposure to these

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR

ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or

by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.