By Lucy Dixon, SCELP Communications Intern

Rural South Carolina has been used as a dumping ground for industrial and chicken wastewater sludge for years, inundating the soil with nauseating odors and forever chemicals. 

“Two fields up from my house they dumped sometimes 20 trucks a day, five to six thousand gallon tankers, every day, and at night,” Darlington truck driver Jack Howell said of the chicken wastewater sludge. “I'd say it was probably half a million gallons on the two fields.”

The highly pungent smell of chicken fat, blood, animal parts and wastewater permeated the sultry air in the outskirts of Darlington last summer.

“It smelled like sewage that you would take out of a septic tank, but add the stench of rotting meat of chicken to it,” Howell said. “It was so awful that the vultures were eating it right out of the trenches.”

The poultry industry takes advantage of inadequate South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) regulations, disposing of massive quantities of chicken biosolids on 100,000 acres of farmland. 

“There is no proactive program of outreach to neighbors, to communities, to let them know we're putting industrial waste in your community,” environmental scientist Dr. David Hargett said. “They don't even get notice that there's going to be odor problems here for the next several weeks.”

Chicken sludge is marketed to farmers as free, nitrogen-rich fertilizer. But neighbors, who did not consent to the land application, still have to deal with the smell. 

“When you drive down the road, this smell will kill you,” former Society Hill Mayor Dwayne Duke said. 

Septic tank specialist Brady Hill is running for Darlington County Council in hopes of increasing local restrictions on sludge application.

“It stunk up the whole town for the whole summer,” Hill said. “It was bad. I mean, I'm nose blind to a lot of stuff.”

Farmer Robert O’Neal III likened the smell of the “soil amendment” to dumping a sewage tank while camping. 

“Multiply that by 100,” O’Neal said. “But when you dump the black tank, you can walk away. You can’t walk away from this. You can smell it inside. Sometimes it’ll make you gag.”

For Howell, the smell is even further inescapable. 

“Then my water in my well, once it gets heated up in the water heater, about halfway through your shower, you start smelling what smells like cooked chicken grease,” Howell said. “You can smell it on your clothes, coming right out of the washing machine. I do not cook with it, and I do not drink it.”

The Arkansas-based company Terra Renewal Services takes waste from dozens of poultry processing plants primarily in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia and turns it into a wastewater slurry. 

Each batch of sludge is unique and contains widely varying nutrient levels and ingredients. Sludge sources include processing wastewater residuals, grease trap waste, dewatered residuals from food processing wastewater, poultry processing, digested lagoon residuals from food processing facilities, egg rinsing and washing residuals, and dairy products.

In 2020, SCDES approved the company to transport sludge to 122 sites totalling almost 10,000 acres in Darlington, Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Marlboro counties.

“Why is it cheaper to take it hundreds of miles to these poor counties in South Carolina?” Dr. Hargett said. “It's hard to understand how that can be cost-effective unless you look backwards at those other options, in which case incineration must be terribly expensive, landfilling must be terribly expensive.”

The biggest producers of chicken sludge are Montair Farms, Pilgrims Pride, Tyson Foods, Darling Ingredients and Perdue Farms, primarily in North Carolina. 

“Most of the farmers I've talked to, even ones that put it out, said it really doesn't have a whole lot of fertilizer value to it,” Hill said.

“It's the pitch that the salesman for the sludge is giving the farmers,” Duke said. “Lack of awareness, a lack of research, lack of knowledge.”

Residents have a good reason to be suspicious of contaminated sludge. From 1993 to 2013, Darlington farmers were approached by Society Hill textile mill Galey & Lord, with a similar offer of free, nitrogen-rich industrial wastewater sludge as fertilizer. 

“We were told it'd be a good fertilizer, that it was safe, we were protecting the oceans, the rivers,” O’Neal said. 

Galey & Lord shut down in 2016, but many of the 10,000 acres of Darlington farmland that received sludge continue to produce crops. 

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency tested the wells of O’Neal and other farmers for “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

PFAS are stain, water and grease resistant chemicals that do not break down in the environment. They are used in non-stick pans, fabrics and food packaging. PFAS are known to cause thyroid, hormonal and reproductive issues as well as cancer. 

O’Neal’s private well registered PFAS levels up to 550 times the EPA public drinking water maximum contaminant level of 4 parts-per-trillion.

“Our water was so bad we weren't supposed to bathe in it, couldn't use it for anything,” O’Neal said. “It's poisoned our wells, it's poisoned the land. It goes into the cows. It goes into the crops.”

Yale Scientist Jake Thompson tested O’Neal’s crops, finding high levels of PFAS in his leafy greens, hay, lettuce, spinach, and collard greens years after the sludge was applied. 

“We've got a higher cancer rate in this county, because of this,” O’Neal said. “We've had some health issues in our family, some uncles that died, aunt that died. I am right at the verge of having to go for cancer screenings, because of the PFAS levels in my blood.”

“PFAS was essentially an unknown concern 25 years ago, and now the more we look, the more we find,” Dr. Hargett said. “It's in my blood plasma, probably, and yours, and my grandchildren's, because we've permeated our society with these products.”

The EPA provided filters for private wells with high levels of PFAS, and connected some residents to municipal water. 

“Would you want to be drinking that water even though it's been scrubbed?” Dr. Hargett said. “Would you want to bathe your infant in it? And so that goes to the unseen, difficult to quantify impact to the entire psyche of a community.” 

The PFAS issue gained traction in Darlington since 2019, and affected locals believe that the poisoning could have been prevented if the Galey & Lord sludge fertilizer was tested for PFAS.

Then in 2020, SCDES approved Terra Renewal’s chicken wastewater sludge discharge permit, including thousands of acres in Darlington. The agency says that chicken sludge land application keeps waste out of landfills, and recycles nutrients for free in a time when farmers are struggling to afford traditional fertilizer.

“Instead of using the higher priced fertilizer, we’re going to use poison?” O’Neal said. 

A vocal minority questioned SCDES about testing sludge for PFAS to prevent additional contamination. They also noted that almost 1,000 acres of the permitted land had previously received Galey & Lord sludge. There is little research to suggest the implications of applying overlapping sludge. 

“It may cause contamination to spread,” Dr. Hargett said. “It may complicate the nature of that contamination. We just don't know.”

DES insists they follow all guidelines and buffer zones, but there are gaps in regulation. DES is only required to test sludge for nutrients and metals annually. The same few pollutants are tested for all of the sludge, despite the dozens of sources. 

“There are not standards for other contaminants like PFAS, like pharmaceuticals, all the chicken production chemicals that could be there, antibiotics,” Dr. Hargett said. “There's an awful lot more that we should know if we are to have confidence in this program.”

Pathogens in sludge like E. coli and Salmonella are required to be treated, but treatment rarely achieves total sterilization. Poultry processing sludge remains a significant source of pathogenic bacteria in soil and runoff. 

Groundwater and surface water monitoring for contamination is not required. Runoff can and has caused PFAS contamination of private well water and local waterways. 

“This permit currently has no requirements for groundwater monitoring at any of the land application fields,” SCDES stated in response to comments. “There are currently no federal or state PFAS standards for land application…Once implemented, these drinking water standards may inform future PFAS standards for land application.”

“Whenever we get runoff or rain, it's getting freed out back into the environment,” Pee Dee-Lynches Riverkeeper Dylan Coleman said. “In some areas like the Little Pee Dee River, we're getting 90 to 185 parts-per-trillion.”

Bad smells and PFAS contamination from sludge have impacted the value, marketability, and end use of properties in the Pee Dee.

“If high levels of PFAS are found in the groundwater, which is used for drinking, that would certainly affect the health and livelihood of those people, and also the value of their properties,” said Keith Williamson, a Darlington native and retired farmer.

The Galey & Lord plant was designated for federal cleanup on the EPA Superfund List in 2022 for the high levels of PFAS. Sludge-applied fields have not been added to that designation.

“You've created a 10,000-acre mosaic of fields smattered across those counties that are essentially an uncontrolled hazardous waste site,” Dr. Hargett said. 

Additionally, 100 acres of former Galey & Lord sludge-applied land was sold in 2022 to the Darlington County school district to build Black Creek Elementary school, which opened to students last fall.

South Carolina sued PFAS manufacturers 3M and DuPont in 2023 for polluting groundwater. To public drinking water providers alone, 3M settled for up to $12.5 billion and DuPont for $1.185 billion. Many impacted by the Galey & Lord sludge joined a class action lawsuit seeking personal damages for health effects. 

Despite the lawsuit, the state has not moved to increase regulation requiring testing of PFAS in sludge. 

“The thing that we try to discuss a lot is states regulating, not adding to the problem,” Coleman said. “We can't take out a lot of what's already out there.” 

In August 2024, SCDES received a complaint regarding Terra Renewal’s unauthorized land application, resulting in a $16,000 fine in April 2025. 

Later that year in October, SCDES proposed a permit modification that would add 27 sites totalling 466 acres in Darlington to the Terra Renewal permit, while finally removing 966 acres overlapping with former Galey & Lord sludge disposal sites. 

PFAS-laded community members expressed outrage, raising awareness in their community, complaining to SCDES and reaching out to lawmakers. In January, O’Neal traveled to the nation’s capital to urge Congress to pass federal legislation regarding PFAS testing of sludge. 

“We went to Washington, and we talked in front of the Senate, in front of the House, and I carried a Mason jar of water from here,” O’Neal said. “Absolutely nobody there would drink it.”

Only two states have passed legislation restricting sludge application: Maine in 2022 and Connecticut in 2024. 

South Carolina State Representative Joe Bustos introduced House Bill 5310 on March 4, 2026, which would completely prohibit the land application, sale or distribution of municipal, commercial or industrial sludge, septage and related compost or agricultural products. The bill is currently residing in the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.

“[Legislators] are obligated to listen to the ag industry and to the poultry industry, and so those self-interested parties have a lot of influence over what gets in the race,” Dr. Hargett said. 

Eleven states require PFAS testing of biosolids, but not South Carolina. 

“There’s no limits here,” Hill said. “They can dump whatever.”

O’Neal put up posters around Darlington County, suggesting community members attend the SCDES public hearing on March 19 regarding the Terra Renewal permit modification. The agency sent him a cease and desist letter. 

“It wasn't intended to say that DES is dumping it, but they're allowing it to be dumped,” O’Neal said. “Are they gonna take me to jail because of my opinion? After my crops have been ruined, we've got family members sick, I'm loaded down with PFAS.”

On the day of the hearing, dozens of concerned community members packed into the county library to voice their opinions. 

“If it's being spread on property that I drive by, I should have the right to go down there and get me a quart jug of that and have it tested myself,” Duke said.

“What they should do is determine the levels that are existing now in the soils and in groundwater and surface water, and then be very careful and vigilant about any future applications,” Williamson said. “Even though they may seem good at the time, it turns out that a lot of these materials do have harmful consequences. A thorough testing of any future applications of any waste products would be very important.”

“They pretty much told us it was not their purview to check what was in it, or where it was put, or anything like that,” O’Neal said. “If it's not their place to check it, why the hell do we even have a Department of Environmental Services?”

Regardless of community resistance, SCDES passed the Terra Renewal permit modification on July 1, stating that they could not deny the permit based on the company’s prior violation. 

“I reckon we just have to keep protesting it,” O’Neal said.

The permit decision stated that citizens' “right-to-know” about sludge application was satisfied, as annual reports are available through the Freedom of Information Act and public notices about permit changes can be found on the SCDES website. 

O’Neal says this isn’t enough to make the community aware. 

“How many people can take the time out of their daily lives trying to get to soccer practice, and ball practice, and dance, and the two or three jobs to even know what we're talking about?” O’Neal said.

Community members have also attempted to raise awareness about Black Creek Elementary School, and demanded SCDES test the soil there as well. 

“PFAS does not go away,” Duke said. “Somebody allowed trucks to go from Galey & Lord to that elementary school property and dump sludge. Now we have students, we have kids, we have future generations sitting on top of PFAS.”

Following backlash at the March 19 meeting, SCDES promised to test the soil at Black Creek Elementary School for PFAS and other contaminants. On June 23, they announced that the soil did contain PFAS and other chemicals, but “not a concerning level.” 

However, the risk assessment found that students who attend the school from kindergarten to grade 5 have a hazard index above the safe level of 1 at 1.67 for a type of PFAS known as PFDA. The carcinogenic effects of PFDA are understudied, and therefore are uncertain. Though, emerging studies suggest that exposure significantly increases risk of genitourinary and breast cancer risk.

The agency suggests that the school eventually cover the soil and that students and teachers wash their hands and shoes after outdoor activities. 

“They're trying to say it's safe, but then they recommend cleaning your shoes and washing hands when you come in,” Hill said. “This is kind of a major thing, because it's going to affect generation after generation.”

Community members continue to scrutinize the risk assessment and ask questions. Dr. Hargett pointed out that the Black Creek Elementary School risk assessment stated that the cancer risk was acceptable, as it did not exceed one in 10,000 increases in occurrence. However, risk assessments often look for cases exceeding one in 1 million, which is two orders of magnitude stricter. 

“If I'm a parent of a seven-year-old, and they're going to that playground every day, I'm not going to be comforted by that vague, bureaucratic interpretation of the situation,” Dr. Hargett said.

Hill submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to SCDES on July 5 regarding Black Creek Elementary School. He requested testing results, a risk assessment, and all internal emails discussing the school’s land contamination and the related risk posed to young students. 

After sending the testing and risk assessment for free, the agency quoted Hill over $2.4 million to send related internal communications, one of the largest FOIA fees ever recorded. SCDES said they would need a 25% deposit of $605,000 to even begin processing the request.

“It's typical government stonewalling, trying to keep information away from people,” Hill said. 

Agencies occasionally quote comical amounts to discourage follow-up or nudge requestors to narrow the scope of their request, but fees in the million-dollar range are almost unheard of.

Hill’s description was “All internal communications, emails, and correspondence between SCDES staff, the school district, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...regarding the interpretation of these test results and any subsequent remedial recommendations or determinations that the site conditions ‘do not present an immediate risk.’”

SCDES informed Hill that there were 3.1 million internal emails in 2026 alone that matched that criteria. They interpreted the request as asking for all emails mentioning the keywords "Black Creek Elementary," "PFAS," "PFOA," "PFOS," "playground," “soil" or “EPA.GOV.”

Hill’s request, however, only mentioned emails regarding the interpretation of Black Creek Elementary School’s PFAS testing results, which would likely amount to fewer than 3.1 million emails since January. 

“It’s not vague at all,” Hill said. 

Additionally, agencies can waive fees for FOIA requests that are deemed to be in the public’s interest, but Hill’s request regarding the safety of the elementary school was not deemed to meet that standard. 

On July 26, The State reported that DES responded to questions, stating they would not actually charge $2.4 million for the records requested. Hill said SCDES did not personally inform him of that change, and found out from the article. 

“I believe they're more worried about the media attention than they are me,” Hill said.

Eventual results from the FOIA request suggested that SCDES knew concerning details months before the results of the soil investigation were made public, and even altered the original phrasing to sound less alarming. 

An April email from SCDES program manager Susan Fulmer shared her review of testing results. “Most samples exceeded residential screening levels for PFDA. Two locations exceeded removal criteria (both were in playground areas).”

The risk assessment that went out to the public in July stated, “(PFDA) exceeded residential screening levels at two locations,” but mentioned nothing about the playground location or removal criteria. 

Another email from May suggested that SCDES altered the fact sheet’s wording.

“Let’s change ‘potential long-term risk’ to ‘potential exposure,’” Deputy Director of Environmental Programs Henry Porter wrote. “Can the sample numbers be removed?” 

Indeed, the public website about Black Creek Elementary’s soil investigation makes no mention of “potential long-term risk,” but mentions “potential exposure” several times, which downplays the perception of danger.

“We're a contaminated property,” Dr. Hargett said. “We have a cloud of uncertainty over the safety and well-being of our community, our land, our school.”