Overview

From a historical perspective, the Brunswick Wood Preserving Superfund Site documentation can only be viewed as incomplete and lacking in detail. Information on site operations and past environmental compliance prior to the mid-90’s is sketchy at best.

Many of the charts provided for review are old data; some from the early 1990’s appear to predate cleanup operations. Others fail to reference the analytical methods used to produce the tables. Conditions that presently occur at the site may not be accurately reflected by the data the Environmental Protection Agency is using to design a cleanup. Since the site clearly has impacted the local environment in the past, and may continue to impact in the present, the lack of comprehensive analysis needs rectifying sooner rather than later.

Environmental History

The Brunswick Wood Preserving site operated at the current location for 33 years. The company manufactured treated wood products for use outdoors. Poles (telephone and fence), railroad ties, and pilings were treated with chemicals to dry and waterproof the wood for reducing the affects of weathering. Preservatives included biological toxins to prevent insect, bacteria, and fungus attack. Many of the chemicals used are also very toxic to higher animals, and some of the wood treating agents contained impurities that are toxic to humans and wildlife. The toxic effects include  “acute” (fast poisoning), “chronic” (slow poisoning), and “indirect” (chronic effects such as cancer, altered development, and damage to the immune system). In short, the company used biocides, much of which is still at the site in the soil and water.

A removal action conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection, consolidated and removed 19,000 tons of toxic waste from the site. The removal and redisposal took place as part of an EPA Emergency Response action, and fulfilled the need to stabilize the site as a major source of pollution in the area. There is still environmental movement of toxins into Burnett Creek and groundwater. The site remains toxic to wildlife that frequents the area.

The Emergency Response did not completely address cleanup of contaminated off-site areas. Maps and site visits show deposits of creosote and other site chemicals within the soil and ponds. There is still insufficient information on the site’s natural state, since dry areas are ponds during portions of the year, changing the erosion factors for site chemicals. There are undoubtedly areas of site chemical deposits still undiscovered.

Further, a study of the use of the site by local foraging animals is still incomplete. Based on spoor and visual identification the site is home to rabbits, raccoon, possum, deer, fox, water and land birds, and bobcat. A comprehensive environmental cleanup plan cannot be successfully designed without more information on site usage by local fauna.

Site Description

On-site contamination covers the entire 84 acres, which can be divided into four basic areas. Each of these areas presents problems with topsoil, subsurface soil, and groundwater impacts.

On the eastern fringe of the site, there are a series of ponds, shallow depressions, grassy areas and woody areas. Remnants of manufacturing process equipment are present in this area. Data provided for review do not indicate the extent of decontamination of this equipment.  Several excavation pits, possibly from the Remedial Action, occur in the area. Data on the type and amount of pollutants in these pits is not yet available. Numerous creosote tar pits appear both within and outside of the small ponds. There are no significant fish or other aquatic life using the ponds. However, shore birds and animals do forage in the area.

 Along the southern border of the site, between the railroad bed and Old Jessup Road, there are several ponds (some of them seasonal) and ditches that drain the site. These areas show evidence of creosote contamination. Although there was some remediation in this area, there is concern that the railroad bed may influence the movement of toxins off-site. The rail bed constitutes a divide. There are small ditches draining toward the neighborhood that may provide a pathway for site chemicals.

A third area occurs as a triangular area between Perry Lane and the CSX rail beds, comprising the former facilities area. This area is mainly characterized by demolition and construction debris.

The fourth area is a set of ditches, berms and holding ponds that collect toxic site run-off and drain into Burnett Creek.  An oily discharge still occurs from the pipe outlet near the bridge on Perry Lane Road. Given the past output of pollution, there may be contamination further downstream in the Burnett Creek drainage.

Potential areas of off-site contamination are divided into three main areas: 1) the Burnett Creek banks, water, and sediment areas; 2) the private property and homesites between Old Jessup Road and the plant; and 3) the homes and land to the east of the site. Residents report drainage of site chemicals occurred along sloughs that emerge and pass through local neighborhoods. Testing is underway to determine the full extent of the off-site contamination.

Pollutants

The main “contaminants of concern” (COC’s) for this site are the minerals chromium and arsenic, and the organic chemicals pentachlorophenol (PCP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and dioxin.

Chromium and Arsenic

Chromium and arsenic are elemental minerals and cannot be broken down to safer materials by any means. These metals must be immobilized, diluted, converted to biologically safe salts, or removed from the site.

Some chromium salts are known carcinogens. Ingestion of chromium produces symptoms ranging from ulcers to kidney failure. Charts indicate known concentrations of these chemicals in the low parts per million (PPM)—several times greater than the levels thought to be toxic.

Arsenic is very controversial at this time. Arsenic is a human carcinogen in drinking water and when ingested. Most forms are highly toxic. It has become EPA policy to treat arsenic as only a low level threat based on skin exposure. Since there is a large amount of arsenic at this site in soil, and in contact with the water table and surface water, current EPA practice may trivialize the danger from this chemical.

PAH

“Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon” describes any chemical having several benzene rings.  The creosote pitch used to waterproof wood at the site contained PAH material from many sources, some of the PAH material can be carcinogenic as well as toxic. It appears that the creosote on-site will be analyzed as “total PAH” rather than looking for the most dangerous chemicals. That testing practice is not acceptable for any creosote found off-site near homes. PAH on-site ranges from non-detectable to upper parts-per-billion (PPB), within the range thought to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing in animals).

In contrast to chromium and arsenic, PAH does break down in the environment, eventually becoming harmless. It is not clear how this site will be remedied, however, one technology, phytoremediation, is becoming widely used at Superfund Sites. While this technology is known to work with the creosote compounds that occur at the BWP site, there needs to be more data on the exact chemical and their half-lives (time it takes for natural processes to cut the amount in half) before the method can be considered.

PCP

Pentachlorophenol is a toxic compound widely used throughout the world. PCP found a number of uses and is now one of the best-studied environmental chemicals. However, the industrial grade of PCP found at this site was very impure and contained other chlorinated chemicals—including dioxins. Dioxins are a group of chlorinated hydrocarbons that are very toxic to animals, likely because they mimic steroids—growth regulators—in the body. PCP, dioxin, and other chlorinated chemicals have longer half-lives than the PAH’s found at the site, but do not dissolve as readily in water. PCP appears to have been the main target of the Remedial Action cleanup, although unsafe levels still occur in a few areas around the site. 

In short, there exists at this site a toxic cocktail of direct poisons and carcinogens with the potential to impact water and soil for generations.

Remediation

It is not clear what EPA plans in order to bring this site back to its natural state. However, based on experience at other sites, expect the least costly remedy to prevail.  Relying on “natural attenuation” (“ignoring the site and hoping it will go away”) will not be feasible since there are heavy metals with infinite chemical lives as well as chlorinated chemicals with very long half-lives. Although phytoremediation can be used for the creosote compounds there is far to little data at this time to support phytoremediation for this site.

The EPA will have to engage in more extensive sampling analysis and build a thorough picture of groundwater movement. Removal and stabilization appear to be the best options to eliminate the danger from all the chemicals at this site.  

Written by R. Kevin Pegg, Ph.D.; edited by Dr. Mary S. Saunders. Copies of the newsletter are available from the GEC, at the Glynn County library, or at www.NucleicAssays.com/tags  on the Internet.