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 7, 2014

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.