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.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Superfund Site Cleanup LONG OVERDUE

Long Overdue

Posted: Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:00 pm |

Updated: 3:35 pm, Sun Aug 30, 2015.

The saga of the Central Chemical Superfund site is better than two decades old, and of course the poisons mixed at the site have been seeping into the ground for decades prior to that. But finally, maybe, an end could be in sight.

This month, the EPA reported that 16 companies have reached a $14.3 million settlement with the agency to cap contaminated soil at the site. “The settlement will fund a protective long-term solution to safely contain contaminated soils and waste on site,” EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a statement. “This remedy will protect the groundwater from further contamination by the wastes in the soil.”

That’s good, of course, except that it could be two more years before the actual cleanup work begins. Already, for the past 20 years — when Central Chemical was first named a Superfund site — the groundwater has been on its own. We understand that these things take time, but we wonder how many times the calendar must turn before a final solution is in place.

In the early ’90s, the community heard from former Central Chemical employees who said that they had seen chemicals and pesticides dumped into on-site lagoons and sink holes.

This would certainly seem to be the cause of some alarm. Yet five or so years drifted by before Central Chemical was declared a Superfund site, and even then not much was done to mitigate the contamination, which included arsenic, DDT and a number of other toxins.

Certainly there have been presidential administrations and congressional budget committees through the years for which environmental cleanups were not a top priority. But even so, it would seem that two decades is a long time to wait for neighbors of the site.

It also raises the question whether the work would have been performed sooner had this been a more affluent or politically connected section of town.More damning is that the EPA seems to believe that, even after the contaminated ground is capped, it will not be fit for unrestricted use for the foreseeable future. This would seem to speak to the seriousness of the contamination.

The EPA is a traditional whipping boy of enemies of big government, and we would agree that there are times when it has overstepped its bounds. But the Central Chemical site seems a classic example of why we need an EPA and why the EPA needs a Superfund program that can act with much more urgency.

Perhaps there are good reasons why this has taken so long, but it appears to be a pretty lackadaisical way to handle an emergency.

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/opinion/editorials/superfund-site-cleanup-long-overdue/article_e948382f-00ae-5bd4-a123-68e0c2a93dac.html

Thursday, August 27, 2015

EPA website regarding ground water & Lindane By Tim Jordan

The OU-2 investigation to delineate contamination in the bedrock aquifer is ongoing. Groundwater at the Central Chemical Site (Site) is primarily contaminated with pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The pesticide plumes, which are primarily composed of isomers of Lindane [also known as hexachlorohexane (HCH)] are much more extensive than the VOC plumes of benzene and chlorobenzene. The HCH pesticide plumes have migrated great distances from the Central Chemical Site in all directions. The lateral and vertical extents of groundwater contamination have not been completely delineated. Accordingly, the current OU-2 groundwater investigation includes five new on-Site wells and three new off-Site wells to investigate the lateral and vertical extent of contaminants. Some of these wells were drilled to depths up to 450 feet below grade. Preliminary results from the OU-2 investigation indicate that pesticide contamination is deeper and more widespread than previously thought.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/MDD003061447.htm
Site status: Sept. 2009

I have listed below what dangers Lindane. By Margie

Lindane

Lindane is an antiquated and toxic pesticide that was once used extensively worldwide. Despite a recent global ban on its agricultural use, the pesticide, a potent neurotoxin, is still used in shampoos and lotions in the U.S. to control headlice and scabies. California banned these pharmaceutical uses in 2001, and similar legislation is moving forward in Michigan.

Today, metabolites of the DDT-era pesticide are routinely found in human bodies. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal a lindane component, beta-HCH, in the blood of 62% of people tested. Infants are exposed through the placenta and breastmilk, and lindane residue contaminates common foods such as rice and potatoes.

Human Health Harms

Lindane's body burden is a significant concern given its effects on human health — especially the nervous system. Human exposure to lindane is linked to a number of health impacts:

Neurological Effects: Humans exposed accidentally to high levels of lindane have experienced seizures, convulsions, vertigo, and abnormal EEG patterns (ATSDR).

Cancer: Lindane is associated with elevated risks of non Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver, and breast cancer (ATSDR). California's Proposition 65 lists lindane as a chemical known to cause cancer.

Endocrine Disruption: Lindane has been reported to interfere the hormone levels of human males exposed to the insecticide (ATSDR). In labratory studies, lindane mimicks estrogen in female rats and mice (Beyond Pesticides Factsheet).

Reproductive Effects: Pregnant women who miscarried or had pre-term babies had higher levels of lindane as well as other organochlorine pesticides in their blood. Lindane is also linked to reduced sperm counts, and decreased ovulation in animal studies (ATSDR).

Immunological Effects: Lindane is thought to impact the human immune system. Workers exposed to lindane experienced increased levels of antibodies in their blood (ATSDR).

Liver Toxicity: Exposure to lindane is linked to increased levels of liver enzymes, increased liver weight and liver toxicity (ATSDR).

Environmental Contamination

Lindane is an organochlorine, a class of pesticides that are notorious for their toxicity, mobility, and persistence in the environment. The persistent chemical shows up more often than any other pesticide in the Arctic, contaminating traditional foods of indigenous communities in the region.

Lindane Alternatives

Alternatives are available and in use around the world for both agricultural and pharmaceutical uses of lindane. A 2009 report from the International POPs Elimination Network presents specific alternatives for common uses of lindane around the world.

Scientists report that lindane is currently among the least effective means to control lice and scabies. California's 2001 ban of lindane's pharmaceutical products has resulted in cleaner water and less risk to children from exposure to the chemical, with viable alternatives effectively controlling lice and scabies outbreaks, according to a recent article in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Resources for chemical-free lice treatment

NPA's Ten Tips for Head Lice and Nit Removal
NPA's Ten Tips for Head Lice Prevention
Beyond Pesticides Fact Sheet - Least Toxic Head Lice & Scabies Control
Sierra Club Canada Fact Sheet - PDF file

Resources

Research & Chemical Factsheets

ASTDR Toxicological Factsheet and Toxicological Profile for Lindane
EXTOXNET Lindane Pesticide Information Profile.
PAN Pesticide Database
Beyond Pesticides Lindane Fact Sheet
Lindane: Answers to Common Questions
Lindane Risk Assessment Factsheet. U.S. EPA
Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision Addendum. U.S. EPA
Revised Assessment of Risk from Use of Lindane for Treatment of Lice and Scabies. U.S. EPA.
Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report II: Sources, Occurence, Trends, & Pathways in the Physical Enviornment.
CDC Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.

Analysis

News Archive

Girl Dies After Eating Small Amount of Lindane Ant Powder, April 2002
Lindane and Chocolate, August 2001
Of Lice and Libel , Detroit Metro Times. August 23, 2006.
Fatality After a Single Dermal Application of Lindane Lotion, Environmental & Occupational Health. 2007.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Central Chemical 1924

Aug 16, 1924

This is quite difficult to read. But it states that Central Chemical has been completed. This plant takes the place of the factory destroyed by fire on May 24, 1924
The plant is a modernly constructed fertilizer plant, equipped with two mixing machines, having
a combined manufacturing and shipping capacity of 300 Tons per day.

http://newspaperarchive.com/profile/tim-jordan/clipnumber/17477/

Plaintiffs seek $750 million in Fort Detrick pollution suit

This is not Central Chemical but it gives you an idea about how much has gone on.

Published 5:57 PM EDT Aug 19, 2015

BALTIMORE —Critics of Fort Detrick in Frederick have filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking $750 million for injuries they say were caused by the Army's reckless handling of chemical and biological toxins.

The plaintiffs include family members of Kristen Renee Hernandez, who died from brain cancer in 2008. The lawsuit also seeks compensation for untold others for deaths or illnesses allegedly caused by living near Fort Detrick.

The lawsuit cites groundwater contamination from chemicals buried decades ago. It also mentions Cold War-era anthrax research and Agent Orange experiments during the Vietnam War.

A state public health investigation in 2011 found no statistically significant evidence of cancer clusters within 2 miles of Fort Detrick.

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/plaintiffs-seek-750-million-in-fort-detrick-pollution-suit/34809934

Sunday, August 23, 2015

This is just pathetic... By Erin Brockovich

By:Cherie K. Ganoe

Erin Brockovich- site

This is just pathetic...

How can the United States Environmental Protection Agency brag about a ridiculous settlement like this? This is what's wrong with Superfund. Since 1997 the USEPA has been regulating/investigating this site... 18 years later, Fortune 500 companies settle for what amounts to less than $1,000,000 each after paying billions to their attorneys; and this is justice?

This Wednesday USEPA announced a settlement involving 16 companies that have agreed to stabilize and cap waste and contaminated soils at a site in The polluters copped to a bill of $14.3 million.

The 16 companies are a small group of truly disadvantaged corporations: Arkema Inc.; Bayer Cropscience, LP; FMC Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc.; Lebanon Seaboard Corporation; Montrose Chemical Corporation of California; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Olin Corporation; Rohm and Haas Company; Rhone-Poulenc; Shell Oil Company; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Union Carbide Corporation; Wilmington Securities, Inc.; and 21st Century Fox America, Inc.

Here is some hot air...“This settlement will fund a protective long-term solution to safely contain contaminated soils and waste on site,” said EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin. “This remedy will protect the groundwater from further contamination by the wastes in the soil.”

From the early 1930's until the mid-1980's, Central Chemical Corporation blended agricultural pesticides and fertilizers at its Hagerstown facility. The pesticide blending operation involved mixing inert materials with pesticides manufactured elsewhere to produce commercial grade products. Contaminants found at the site include pesticides and heavy metals.

The proposed consent decree, of which the State of Maryland is a party along with EPA, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and court approval.

https://www.facebook.com/75960805493/photos/a.10151891381810494.873676.75960805493/10155930222815494/?type=1&fref=nf

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

History of the Central Chemical Corp. site cleanup

Herald Mail

History of the Central Chemical Corp. Site Cleanup

Posted: Monday, August 17, 2015 7:54 pm | Updated: 11:03 pm, Mon Aug 17, 2015.

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the cleanup of the Central Chemical Superfund site in Hagerstown, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

• 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 at the site. Those cooperating companies

subsequently notified EPA that an additional seven companies, including the site owner, Central Chemical, had joined the group.

• In February 2003, the study 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 nearby Marsh Run and Antietam Creek.

• Sampling confirmed that pesticides and metals were present at elevated levels in surface soil across the site, and high concentrations of pesticides and metals were buried in a disposal area in the north end of the property identified as the "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 extended 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 disposed of in an appropriate manner.

• In December 2006, the potentially responsible parties provided the EPA with the final remedial investigation for the site.

• In 2006, the parties provided the EPA with early portions of the feasibility study, which evaluated the best cleanup options for the site.

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

• In 2009, a proposed plan, describing the EPA's preferred cleanup alternative for the site soils and wastes, was issued.

• In September 2009, the EPA issued a record of decision for contaminated soils and waste at the site. The decision included on-site solidification/stabilization of a former waste lagoon; excavation, consolidation, and capping of contaminated soils; and the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system.

• In 2011, the parties began fieldwork for the OU-1 PRD investigation, which included trenching in areas of concern, investigation of the liquid pesticide building and other hotspots; characterization of the former lagoon landfill for the solidification/stabilization treatability study; and installation of monitoring and recovery wells around the former lagoon in preparation for 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.

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/history-of-the-central-chemical-corp-site-cleanup/article_4da235f0-453b-11e5-ac22-5f9e55bdc3ca.html

EPA: Firms to pay $14.3M to clean up Central Chemical site in Hagerstown Central Chemical superfund site

EPA: Firms to pay $14.3M to clean up Central Chemical site in Hagerstown Central Chemical superfund site

Federal environmental officials are oversee additional investigative work at the Central Chemical superfund site off Mitchell Avenue in Hagerstown. At the former plant, agricultural pesticides and fertilizers were mixed with inert ingredients to dilute materials for commercial applications.

Posted on Aug 17, 2015 by Tamela Baker

PHILADELPHIA — Sixteen companies have reached a $14.3 million settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the state of Maryland to stabilize and cap waste and contaminated soil at the Central Chemical Superfund site in Hagerstown, the agency announced Monday.

The companies

have also agreed to reimburse $945,000 for past costs, and to reimburse for future costs associated with oversight of the cleanup, the EPA said in a news release.

The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public-comment period and court approval.

The 19-acre site on Mitchell Avenue was home to Central Chemical Corp., where the company blended agricultural pesticides and fertilizers from the 1930s to the 1980s. Raw pesticides manufactured elsewhere were blended with inert materials to produce commercial-grade products.

Contaminants found in soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment, as well as in the tissue of fish caught downstream from the site, include arsenic, lead, benzene, aldrin, chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, and methoxychlor, according to EPA.

"The settlement will fund a protective long-term solution to safely contain contaminated soils and waste on site,” EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a statement. “This remedy will protect the groundwater from further contamination by the wastes in the soil.”

The EPA's cleanup plan calls for stabilizing a former waste lagoon, where most of the waste material was contained, capping contaminated soil and installing a groundwater-treatment system. Cleanup of groundwater is still being investigated, the agency said.

The companies involved in the settlement include Arkema Inc., Bayer Cropscience LP, FMC Corp., Honeywell International Inc., Lebanon Seaboard Corp., Montrose Chemical Corp. of California, Occidental Chemical Corp., Olin Corp., Rohm and Haas Co., Rhone-Poulenc, Shell Oil Co., Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, The Chemours Co. FC, Union Carbide Corp., Wilmington Securities Inc. and 21st Century Fox America Inc.

The site was placed on the Superfund list in 1997. EPA outlined an initial cleanup plan in 2009. Many of the same companies agreed to underwrite an additional cleanup study in 2013.

EPA spokeswoman Terri White said Monday that she was unsure when actual cleanup would begin, but that remedies were already being planned.

EPA's goal is to clean up the sites and then work with local officials to return them to viable use, but those uses could be limited, White said.

(END) Pagination Content Wrapper

Tamela Baker is a reporter for The Herald-Mail. She can be reached via email at tbaker@herald-mail.com.

Aerial Map of Central Chemical 1931

This photo is from http://digital.hagley.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p268001uw/id/5478/rec/155
If anyone wants to reproduce this, you'll need to contact the email listed.
I'm considering the image here "fair use" since it's not for profit and factual in nature.

Published without permission.

Dumped into the Central Chemical Quarry- Results by Ken Buckler

**The ingredients that was found in Quarry at Central Chemical is the same ingredients that make Agent Orange which the government knows that this is extremely dangerous to the people, their children and so on. Please read my blogs on Agent Orange. ***By Margie

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Testing continues at Hagerstown pesticide cleanup site

Superfund site

A workman loads concrete mix Thursday at a well site at Langdon Street and Linganore Avenue near the former Central Chemical plant Superfund site.

Posted on Apr 30, 2015

by CJ Lovelace

Environmental officials said this week that groundwater testing is continuing at the federal Superfund site of a former pesticide processing plant in Hagerstown, but final cleanup efforts still remain about two years away.

Workers were seen recently at the former Central Chemical site along Mitchell Avenue, mixing concrete to complete wells and bore holes used for monitoring

groundwater that were installed last year.

Bob Wallace, a remedial project manager

for groundwater with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said some open bore holes on the site have been drilled down farther — some as deep as 600 feet — and converted to wells adjacent to other wells to better detect groundwater flows.

"Some of those are right next to wells that go down to 300 to 400 feet," Wallace said on a conference call with EPA officials on Wednesday.

"We’re measuring the concentration of groundwater at various depths," he said. "When we go to put together a three-dimensional model … we have different ways to look at it."

A few dozen monitoring wells have been drilled on the 19-acre property, as well as around neighboring properties, since work

began a few years ago, EPA officials have said.

Being overseen by the EPA, the ongoing investigative work will help develop final cleanup plans, which are being funded by the Central Chemical Group, a group of 16 companies that agreed in 2013 to pay $250,000 to clean up contaminated soil and other waste on the site.

Investigative work is expected to be completed and cleanup plans finalized this year into 2016, with 2017 eyed for the start of final treatment of contaminants, according to Mitch Cron, a solid-waste remedial project manager for the EPA.

When doing the remediation work, Cron said the remaining concrete building foundations at the site will be broken up, then all contaminated soil will be moved to a 1.5-acre area that previously served as a waste "lagoon" on the property.

There, a process called "solidification and stabilization" will be employed by mixing the contaminants with a concrete-like mix that "locks" the materials into a solid block in the ground that would then be capped.

"The idea is that it won't be able to contaminate the groundwater, and it will prevent people and other living things ... from coming in contact with the pesticide contamination," Cron said.

The Central Chemical site was once the location of an agricultural-product manufacturing plant. Most pesticide blending ended in 1965, with all operations ceasing in 1984, and the old buildings demolished in 2005.

In 1997, the property became a Superfund site, which is the federal program to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous-waste locations.

Other work taking place this year includes more tracer studies, where a nontoxic dye is injected into various locations in the ground. Then various nearby city streams and waterways are monitored with devices to see how groundwater flows from the site, Wallace said.

About 28 monitoring devices were placed last year on city property, private property and on the Central Chemical site.

EPA officials maintain that the contaminants — including arsenic and lead from heavy metals, as well as pesticides such as chlordane, DDT and Lindane — do not pose a risk to residents because the city has a self-contained water system that does not use groundwater.

"The city-supplied drinking water is meeting protective standards, so there is not a health concern," EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Smith said. "... It's important for people to know that everything here on the site is currently protective, and the work that's happening now is to create a long-term plan that is protective."

Suggested reuses for the property once it is cleaned up include commercial and/or industrial operations, officials said.

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/testing-continues-at-hagerstown-pesticide-cleanup-site/article_fd5005fb-f88f-52d8-9357-8bf311926307.html