Margie's Hagerstown: Central Chemical

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.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Hagerstown City Council expected to allow EPA to study groundwater at former Central Chemical site

Superfund site off Mitchell Avenue, the a right-of-entry agreement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow the continued study of groundwater

patterns near the former Central Chemical site

regular session at City Hall. The council informally consented April 22 to the agreement that would allow the EPA to install monitoring devices at groundwater springs and surface-water streams at city-owned properties, including the City Park lake, Hager House, Staley Park, and at locations along Hamilton Run and Antietam Creek. with the detectors recording whether the dye travels to the monitoring locations, Assistant City Engineer Jim Bender confirmed in an email last week.

Chemical site to the monitoring locations in order to gain a better understanding of how pesticide/contaminants may have been transported away from the site,” Bender said. “The proposed detectors will be monitoring the presence/absence of the dye at the monitoring locations, not pesticide or contaminants.” boundary lines, and wells have been drilled on adjacent properties to gauge contamination levels, according to previous reports in The Herald-Mail.member council had questions about the tracer

study, including whether the dye could potentially turn monitored waterways the fluorescent dye color.

Central Chemical site, said the dye potentially could color waterways, but it was unlikely.

City of Hagerstown and from other locations will help EPA to determine what future steps, if any, may be needed to control site-related contamination and prevent or reverse its movement away from the site,” Wallace wrote in the March 20 request to Bender. documents. manufacturing plant. Most pesticide blending ended in 1965, with operations ceasing.

in 1984 and the old buildings being demolished in 2005. The former plant in 1997 became a Superfund site — the federal government’s program to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, according to the EPA website.

Obtain soil and water samples used to evaluate the extent of contamination in the ground, according to previous reports in The Herald-Mail.about $250,000 to develop a plan to clean up contaminated soil and waste at the site, according to previous reports

in The Herald-Mail. Completing the cleanup design is estimated to take about two years.Groundwater contamination ongoing, according to previous reports. Hagerstown City Council is poised to.

Posted: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:14 pm

| Updated: 8:37 pm, Mon May 19, 2014.

• by Holly Shok

Herbicide Tests and Storage in the U.S.

AGENT ORANGE AND OTHER HERBICIDES and PESTICIDES HAVE CAUSED ILLNESSES SUCH AS PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND ETC:

STORAGE/TESTING AND ETC. PLEASE SEE WHAT STATES AND LOCATION AND ETC.

Maryland

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, and C

Dates: 1946-47
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-T triethanolamine, tributylphosphate, ethyl 2,4-D, butyl 2,4,5-Ttriet 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E

Dates: 1948
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, isopropyl phenol carbamate, LN-2426, 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E

Dates: 1949
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Newman, Williamson, DeRigo, and Thomas.
Agents: Triethelyne. 2,4,5-T, carbamates
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, D, and E

Dates: 1950
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Acker, Newman, Williamson, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, butyl 2,4-D, 974, butyl 2,4,5-T, q:q 143 and 974
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Field F

Dates: 1950-51
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Acker, DeRose, McLane, Newman, Williamson, Baker, Dean, Johnson, Taylor, Walker, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, carbamate, butyl 2,4-D, 143 and 974 (orange?),2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, Orange
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Area B, Camp Detrick, MD

Dates: Spring/Summer 1953
Project Description: Personnel at Camp Detrick tested the feasibility of using an experimental spray tower for applying a mixture of chemical anticrop agents to broad-leaf crops.
Agents: 3:1 mixture 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Detrick, MD; Fort Ritchie, MD

Dates: 1956-57
Project Description: In 1956 And 1957, defoliation and desiccation were carried out at Fort Detrick and Fort Ritchie, Maryland by the Chemical Corps and Biological Warfare Research. These were bench tests.
Agents: Various, 577 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Detrick, MD

Dates: 8/1961 - 6/1963
Project Description: From 8/1961 to 6/1963, compounds were spray-tested in the greenhouse to evaluate them as effective defoliants, desiccants, and herbicides.
Agents: 1410 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Ritchie, MD

Dates: 1963
Project Description: Various studies were done to explore the effectiveness of different herbicides. They were all field trials. These studies were done by personnel from the US Army Biological Laboratories.
Agents: Tordon, 2,4-D, Orange, diquat, endothal, and combinations of each with Tordon
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Meade, MD

Dates: 1963
Project Description: Various studies were done to explore the effectiveness of different herbicides. They were all field trials. These studies were done by personnel from the US Army Biological Laboratories.
Agents: Cacodylic acid, Dowco 173, butyediol
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Poole's Island, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Dates: 7/14/1969 -
Project Description: During the week of 7/14/1969, personnel from Naval Applied Science Laboratory in conjunction with personnel from Limited War Laboratory conducted a defoliation test along the shoreline.
Agents: Orange, Orange plus foam, Orange plus foam Orange, Foam
DoD Involvement: Yes

- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/usa.asp#Maryland

See more at:

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/usa.asp#sthash.vZVAtgB6.dpuf

Click on or copy the link below and paste by placing it on search area:

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/usa.as

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.

1-2,4-D product labels 001-thumb-500x666-5541.jpg

2-2,4-D product labels 002-thumb-500x666-5544.jpg

3-2,4-D product labels 003-thumb-500x666-5546.jpg

4-2,4-D product labels 004-thumb-500x375-5548.jpg

5-2,4-D product labels 005-thumb-500x666-5550.jpg

6-2,4-D product labels 006-thumb-500x666-5552.jpg

Images: 1. U.S. Huey spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam/Wikimedia Commons; 2-7. NRDC.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Researchers ID more pesticides linked to Parkinson's, gene that increases risk

Published on Feb 4, 2014 - 9:12:59 AM

Printer friendly page

By: Kim Irwin, UCLA

February 4, 2014 - Studies have shown that certain pesticides can increase people's risk of developing Parkinson's disease. Now, UCLA researchers have found that the strength of that risk depends on an individual's genetic makeup, which, in the most pesticide-exposed populations, could increase a person's chance of developing the debilitating disease two- to six-fold.

In an earlier study, published January 2013 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the UCLA team discovered a link between Parkinson's and the pesticide benomyl, a fungicide that has been banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That study found that benomyl prevents the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) from converting aldehydes — organic compounds that are highly toxic to dopamine cells in the brain — into less toxic agents, thereby contributing to the risk of Parkinson's.

For the current study, UCLA researchers tested a number of additional pesticides and found 11 that also inhibit ALDH and increase the risk of Parkinson's — and at levels much lower than they are currently being used, said the study's lead author, Jeff Bronstein, a professor of neurology and director of the movement disorders program at UCLA.

Bronstein said the team also found that people with a common genetic variant of the ALDH2 gene are particularly sensitive to the effects of ALDH-inhibiting pesticides and are two to six times more likely to develop Parkinson's when exposed to these pesticides than those without the variant.

The results of the new epidemiological study appear Feb. 5 in the online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

"We were very surprised that so many pesticides inhibited ALDH and at quite low concentrations — concentrations that were way below what was needed for the pesticides to do their job," Bronstein said. "These pesticides are pretty ubiquitous and can be found on our food supply. They are used in parks and golf courses and in pest control inside buildings and homes. So this significantly broadens the number of people at risk."

The study compared 360 patients with Parkinson's disease in three agriculture-heavy Central California counties and 816 people from the same area who did not have Parkinson's. The researchers focused their analyses on individuals with ambient exposures to pesticides at work and at home, using information from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

In the previous PNAS study, Bronstein and his team had determined the mechanism that leads to increased risk. Exposure to pesticides starts a cascade of cellular events, preventing ALDH from keeping a lid on the aldehyde DOPAL, a toxin that naturally occurs in the brain. When ALDH does not detoxify DOPAL sufficiently, it accumulates, damages neurons and increases an individual's risk of developing Parkinson's.

"ALDH inhibition appears to be an important mechanism by which these environmental toxins contribute to Parkinson's pathogenesis, especially in genetically vulnerable individuals," said study author Beate Ritz, a professor of epidemiology at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. "This suggests several potential interventions to reduce Parkinson's occurrence or to slow its progression."

In the current study, the research team developed a lab test to determine which pesticides inhibited ALDH. They then found that those participants in the epidemiologic study who had a genetic variant in the ALDH gene were at increased risk of Parkinson's when exposed to these pesticides. Just having the variant alone, however, did not increase risk of the disease, Bronstein noted.

"This report provides evidence for the relevance of ALDH inhibition in Parkinson's disease pathogenesis, identifies pesticides that should be avoided to reduce the risk of developing Parkinson's disease and suggests that therapies modulating ALDH enzyme activity or otherwise eliminating toxic aldehydes should be developed and tested to potentially reduce Parkinson's disease occurrence or slow its progression, particularly for patients exposed to pesticides," the study states.

The study was funded in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P01ES016732, R01ES010544, 5R21ES16446-2 and U54ES012078), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS038367), the Veterans Administration Healthcare System, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Levine Foundation, the Parkinson Alliance, the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship and the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award in Molecular Toxicology (T32ES015457).