Margie's Hagerstown: Central Chemical: May 2014

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.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

EPA Seeks More Info On Western Md., Superfund Site

Local

April 22, 2014 2:28 AM

Md. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it wants to learn the extent of groundwater pollution from a Superfund site in Hagerstown.

The agency is asking the mayor and City Council on Tuesday to let it install detector devices in surface water at several city parks.

The EPA would then inject a non-toxic dye at the Central Chemical Superfund site and look for it the dye at the monitoring locations.

Central Chemical Corp. blended agricultural pesticides from the 1930s to the 1960s. The company dumped DDT, arsenic and other toxic chemicals in an old quarry on the property.

The EPA says groundwater contamination has been confirmed beyond the site’s boundaries.

Central Chemical was added to the EPA’s list of the nation’s most hazardous waste sites in 1997.

The property off Mitchell Avenue in 1997 was placed on the Environmental Protection

Agency's Superfund list of the country's most hazardous waste site

Clean Up History

Cleanup

In early 1997, it was discovered that elevated levels of site contaminants extended several feet beyond the old fence line along the northern end of the property. Land use north of the property is residential.

In the spring of 1997, EPA entered into an

agreement with the site owner under which the owner erected a new fence as an interim measure that now prevents people from coming into contact with these contaminants.

EPA entered into an agreement with seven potentially responsible parties, including Allied Signal, FMC, Novartis, Olin, Shell Oil, Union Carbide, and Wilmington

• Securities, to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site. These cooperating companies have notified EPA that an additional seven companies including the site owner, Central Chemical, have joined the group.

• In February 2003, the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work plan was completed.

• In 2004, the majority of the environmental sampling at the site was completed.

Samples were collected of site soil, groundwater,

and storm water. In addition, samples were collected from surface water and sediment from the nearby Marsh Run and Antietam Creek.

• Sampling confirmed that pesticides and metals present at elevated levels in surface soil across the site, and high concentrations of pesticides and metals have been buried in a disposal area in the north end of the property "Former Waste lagoon." To a lesser degree, pesticides were also detected in storm water leaving the

site and in surface water and sediment samples from Marsh Run and Antietam

Creek.

• Groundwater contamination has moved beyond the property boundaries and additional wells were installed and sampled in 2006/2007 to better determine the extent of off-site groundwater contamination.

• During the Spring and Summer of 2005, all former pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing buildings were decontaminated, demolished and dispose of in an appropriate manner.

• In December 2006, the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) provided EPA with the final Remedial Investigation (RI) for the site. The final RI for on-site soil and waste is complete.

• Groundwater contamination has been confirmed to extend beyond the boundaries of the Central Chemical property. Therefore, further delineation of groundwater contamination may be necessary.

• In 2006, the PRP provided EPA with early portions of the Feasibility Study (FS), which evaluates the best cleanup options for the site.

• In 2007, the first draft of the feasibility study was completed and provided to EPA.

• In 2009, a Proposed Plan, describing EPA's preferred cleanup alternative for the site

soils and wastes, was issued.

• In September 2009, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for contaminated soils and waste at the site. The ROD includes on-site solidification/stabilization of a former waste lagoon; excavation, consolidation, and capping of contaminated soils; and the installation of a ground water extraction and treatment system.

• In 2011, the PRP’s began fieldwork for the OU-1 PDI, which included trenching in areas of concern, investigation of the liquid pesticide building and other hot spot

• characterization of the former lagoon landfill for the for the S/S Treatability Study; and installation of monitoring and recovery wells around the former lagoon in preparation of aquifer pump tests.

• In 2014, Remedial Design activities for the OU-1 remedy began. The OU-2 investigation of the bedrock groundwater is in progress.

Saturday, May 3, 2014

EPA seeks to learn extent of pollution from Superfund site in Hagerstown, Md.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 22, 2014 - 2:26 am EDT

A A A

Maryland — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it wants to learn the extent of groundwater pollution from a Superfund site in Hagerstown.

The agency is asking the mayor and City Council on Tuesday to let it install detector devices in surface water at several city parks.
The EPA would then inject a non-toxic dye at the Central Chemical Superfund site and look for it the dye at the monitoring locations.
Central Chemical Corp. blended agricultural pesticides from the 1930s to the 1960s. The company dumped DDT, arsenic and other toxic chemicals in an old quarry on the property.
The EPA says groundwater contamination has been confirmed beyond the site's boundaries.
Central Chemical was added to the EPA's list of the nation's most hazardous waste sites in 1997.

PLEASE ALSO SEE:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/Central%20Chemical/CentralChemicalSitePHA080805.pdf

Agent Orange in Your Backyard: The Harmful Pesticide 2,4-D

The NRDC has filed suit against the EPA in an attempt to get it to cancel registrations for 2,4-D, which has been linked to hormone interference.

This weekend, I walked the aisles of a large home supply store near my home. Sure enough, on the shelves were an array of weed killers and "weed and feed" products marketed to keep your lawn looking great. My little lawn doesn't look so great. That's partly because my two dogs love it so much -- their playful digging, and the brown patches where they urinate, have marred the perfection of the grass. But I wasn't there to shop for lawn care products; instead, I was hunting for a pesticide known as 2,4-D.

I found it -- in several different products. You can see the photos below.

2,4-D was invented in the chemical boom during World War II, making it one of the oldest pesticides that's still legally on the market today. It was one of the two active ingredients in Agent Orange, the notorious Vietnam War defoliant. Despite decades of scientific studies showing links to non-Hodgkin's lymphomain humansthis chemical survives and thrives as one of the top three pesticides sold in the United States today. Newer science shows that it's not just a cancer problem, but that this pesticide interferes with several essential hormones, thereby increasing the risks of birth defects and neurologic damage in children. Studies in Midwest wheat-growing areas (where 2,4-D is heavily used) have shown increased rates of certain birth defects, especially in male children, and lower sperm counts in adults.

Many people don't realize that many weed and feed products contain a toxic pesticide. People also don't realize that after they apply the product to their lawn, the chemical residues are tracked indoors on shoes or pet paws, and contaminate the carpets. Because 2,4-D is broken down by direct sunlight, once the residues get into the house the pesticide lingers for months or even years. Kids who play on the floor are at particular risk, since they accidentally ingest the chemical when they put their hands in their mouths.

2,4-D is used on athletic fields, golf courses, landscaping, timber land, rights-of-way, and various crops. The airborne chemical can even travel significant distances, damaging plants downwind, and contaminating homes. This problem is poised to get worse -- Dow Agrosciences has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve genetically modified corn that would allow farmers to spray the entire crop with large amounts of 2,4-D (without harming the corn); some experts estimate that this will increase 2,4-D use by 50 fold, and farmers of other crops are very worried that this overuse will harm their crops and their families.

For all of these reasons, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2008 to cancel registrations for 2,4-D. Nearly four years have passed, and the EPA still hasn't responded, so the NRDC filed a lawsuit against the agency for its delay on this important issue yesterday. We will also be turning to our supporters in the coming weeks for ongoing help in this fight.

Meanwhile, here are some things you can do to protect yourself and your family:

Avoid using any weed control products that contain 2,4-D, including weed and feed products with this chemical. Check the labels, and look for words like "2,4,-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid," or "diethanolamine salt of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid."
Keep your carpets uncontaminated by having a shoes off policy in your home, and vacuuming the carpets at least weekly with a HEPA vacuum cleaner. If you have a toddler, wash their hands frequently; if you have a dog, wipe their paws when they have been playing in an area that might have been treated with chemicals.
Check with your child's school and with your town, to make sure 2,4-D isn't used on local athletic fields, playgrounds, and parks.