EPA/540/4-90/002
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Alabama
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
^-v '-«< -^-" '' -- ^ " 'V. ,,~,
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THENPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public: or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VL
-------
T" he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed rohenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
EPA learn
^albottl potential
* * zardoxts waste
th&els aii i
gg^V.W *Mv,«---.
.
STEP1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
If the preli
assessment shows
that a seixatis threat
may exist whafs. the
iiext
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
How does EPA,tise
S of the ,
IX
-------
v s > -.^ 5 ;N,;
|Hbw dp people find
LotttwlietlierjEI'A _% -
f considers & site k\
InatioBal priority for
p^V - ^ "^ ,».-. s-.- , *s *s
Ideamip casing --A
Fnr1- - s F-" .-^^ - - «
Superfmtd money? s
f^"^' « * ."" *^v-.\
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL. ;
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
After a site is added
, to t%N!fl* what are"
file steps to cteamtp?
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
Ifiow are cleariiip
4sT- ~ -S&r X S \ -. % * S
^alternatives ;;
and;
% Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
* cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
" tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
$ that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
' ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
If ever? clean&p
actioit, needs to be
"fcailored tp; a site,,, does
;tfee design of iEe
»reMedy need to be
^ . ^ .
XUl
-------
J . '
Pt>nce ilie design is
^complete, hoif
I does it take to':
V. * X . S
auy ckari iip
-2%
, ^rt& £
lfi*$F*yM*'Ktw S.S
'J* Zv₯> v-v*w' -vS-i
lOnce the
->
, is
_ Sitejmtpaj
deleied^ from, the
ipL>""i'':-
fe'^i:^^^^^
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay" after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup/ it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
', "' ' %: ""
Can EPA make patties
<* j v "° .- *""" -v-V
jtesjponsible'for the
contamination j>a£?
XV
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations/ as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed/ underway/ or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Site Responsibility:
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach.
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XVlll
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
1
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Alaban!
Alabama is located on the Gulf of Mexico coast and bordered by Tennessee to the
north, Mississippi to the west, and Florida and Georgia to the east. The State covers
51,705 square miles and consisting of coastal plains, giving way to hills and broken
terrain. Alabama experienced a 5.4 percent increase in population during the 1980s and
currently has approximately 4,102,000 residents, ranking 22nd in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries are pulp and paper, chemicals, electronics, apparel, textiles,
primary metals, lumber (pine and hardwoods), food processing, fabricated metals, and
automobile tires. Alabama's chief manufactured goods are ships, mobile homes, and
poultry processing.
How Many Alabama Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
11
0
12
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
Cong. District 05
Cong. District 06
6 sites
2 sites
2 sites
1 site
1 site
10--
8~
I 6
'55
'o 4 -f
*
2 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
GW Soil SW Sed
Contamination Area
Air
(VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
pesticides.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics).
'Appear at 30% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy .
Selected
Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Alabama, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Alabama Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(205) 271-7730
(404) 347-2234
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
> An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
+~ An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
*- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at
Page Site Name
1
3
5
,7 --
9
11
13
15'.
17'
19
21 ''
23,
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION
INTERSTATE LEAD CO (ILCO)
MOWBRAY ENGINEERING COMPANY
OLIN CORP/MC1NTOSH PLANT
PERDIDQ GROUNDWATER CONTMN.
REDWING^ CARRIERS, INC. SARALAND
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. AXIS PLANT
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. COLD CREEK
T. H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO.
TRIANA/TENNESSEE RIVER
USA ALABAMA ARMY AMMUNITION
USAANNISTON, ARMY DEPOT
NPL Sites in tn<
County NPL
WASHINGTON
JEFFERSON
BUTLER
WASHINGTON
BALDWIN
MOBILE
MOBILE
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
MADISON
TALLADEGA
CALHOUN
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
e state c
Date
09/01/84
06/01/86
09/01/83
09/01/84
09/01/83
02/28/90
09/01/84
09/01/84
06/24/88
09/01/83
07/07/87
03/31/89
HAiaoama
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
* + *- *
* +
+ + + + + +
* *"
+ + +- + +
+ +
. + + ^ ^
"^ ^ "^
+- +
+ + ± =^
"^ ^ ^ +
+ + + + +
-------
-------
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
CORPORATION
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD001221902
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Washington County
Mclntosh
The Ciba-Geigy Corporation produces industrial organic chemicals, pesticides,
agricultural chemicals, and synthetic resins on a 1,500-acre site in Mclntosh. The plant
was built in the early 1950s, and the company formerly disposed of wastes in several
on-site landfills and in an open burning area. Disposal of wastes is now carried out
under EPA requirements. Pesticides have been found in soil and sediments
downgradient of the burn area and in a drinking water well on the site. Prior to 1965,
effluent from the plant flowed into the Tombigbee River after chemicals were
neutralized in the facility's wastewater impoundment. However, an aeration basin and
holding basin Were constructed in 1965 to treat the effluent. Over the years,
modifications have been made to the treatment system to meet State and Federal
discharge standards. Approximately 2,200 residents of Mclntosh receive drinking
water from a public well within 3 miles of the site; however, most public wells are
upstream from the site and do not appear to be contaminated. The closest residence is
less than 1,000 feet away from the site. The Tombigbee River and freshwater
wetlands are within 100 feet of several former disposal areas, and the wetlands area is
subject to periodic flooding by the river.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
IA
Threats and Contaminants
A drinking water well on the site is contaminated with lindane from
former waste disposal practices. Sediments are contaminated with heavy
metals including chromium and mercury. Soil is contaminated with DDT
and lindane. Surface water is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including chlorobenzene, toluene, and phenols.
Trespassers at the facility who touch or accidentally ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk. Runoff
from the site could threaten wetlands near the disposal areas.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the groundwater and the affected deep aquifer and soils.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The Ciba-Geigy Corporation installed a groundwater
pumping system consisting of 10 fully penetrating alluvial pumping wells to
intercept and remove contaminated groundwater from the shallow aquifer.
The water removed from these wells is treated by the plant's on-site biological
wastewater treatment system and is then discharged into the Tombigbee River. The
EPA has determined that no further action is needed for this phase of the cleanup.
Ciba-Geigy installed 43 monitoring wells and 4 corrective action monitoring wells to
determine the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system. ,
Deep Aquifer and Soil: The EPA is studying the type and extent of the soil
and deep aquifer contamination at the site. Once the study is completed,
cleanup alternatives will be recommended.
Site Facts: The Ciba-Geigy Corporation is operating under a Federal hazardous waste
management permit. :
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that the groundwater cleanup phase of the Ciba-Geigy site
cleanup is completed. Ciba-Geigy is monitoring the effectiveness of the groundwater
treatment system through monitoring wells. Cleanup alternatives for the deep aquifer
and soils will be selected once the EPA has completed intensive investigations into the
extent and nature of the contamination. :
-------
INTERSTATE LE
COMPANY (ILCO)
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD041906173
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Jefferson County
Leeds
Interstate Lead Company {ILCO) owns and operates this 12-acre lead battery
reclamation facility and secondary lead smelter and has generated, treated, stored, and
disposed of wastes containing lead on its property, as well as in numerous locations
near the site. Slag from reclamation operations was used as fill at seven known sites,
including the ILCO parking lot, the City of Leeds Landfill, Fleming's Patio, the Church of
God, J & L Fabricators, Inc., the Connell property, and the Gulf station. The unnamed
tributary to Dry Creek, adjacent to the main facility and parking lot, contains lead-
contaminated sediments. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the
site, and the nearest home is less than 1/4 mile away from the site. Six of the locations
listed above are within 3 miles of the springs and wells that supply drinking water for
6,000 families in Leeds. Access to most of the sites is unrestricted.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, County, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/85
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The County measured elevated lead concentrations in the air south and
southwest of the ILCO site in 1983 and 1984. The owner found lead and
cadmium in groundwater under the facility in 1985. Groundwater and soil
also contain chromium, nickel, and arsenic. The State detected lead in
Dry Creek and an unnamed tributary next to the facility. Surface water
and sediments also contain nickel and arsenic. People could be exposed
to heavy metals by touching or accidentally eating contaminated soil or by
drinking polluted groundwater. In addition, contaminants in nearby
surface water could pose a health threat to residents who use the area for
recreation.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SfTES
3
conflhued'
-------
INTERSTATE LEAD COMPANY (ILCO)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed lead-bearing wastes from
the Church of God area. ILCO has placed a synthetic liner over the parking
lot. covered waste piles at the main facility, diverted runoff, and has begun
construction on a storm water treatment system.
Entire Site: The EPA began an intensive study of soil, groundwater,
surface water, and sediment contamination at the site in 1986. This study
will determine the nature and extent of pollution problems at the,site and
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: ILCO signed a Consent Order agreeing to conduct a study of site
contamination and cleanup options on the main facility, parking lot and tributaries to Dry
Creek. ;
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes, the liner and surface drainage control have greatly reduced the
potential for people to be exposed to hazardous materials at the Interstate Lead
Company site while further studies and cleanup actions take place.
-------
MOWBRAY
ENGINEERING
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD031618069
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Butler County
Greenville
The 3-acre Mowbray Engineering Company site is located on a wetland, saturated for
most of the year. The company, which has repaired electrical transformers since the
early 1940s, discharged waste transformer oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(RGBs) to the neighboring swamp for over 20 years. The swamp water ultimately
drained into Persimmon Creek, which is used for fishing. From 1955 to 1974,
operators drained, repaired, and refilled about 1,000 used transformers each year, each
unit holding about 9 gallons of oil. In 1974, the owners installed a 3,000-gallon
underground storage tank to collect waste oil, which they sold between 1974 and
1978. After that time, waste oil was recycled. Sampling over the years has yielded
uneven results. In 1975, after a major fish kill in an adjacent stream, EPA analysts
found only trace levels of PCBs, but when another kill occurred in 1980, they
discovered significant levels of PCBs in swamp soils. An aquifer underlying the site
supplies approximately 11,400 residents with drinking water.
Site Responsibility: jhjs site is bejng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Sampling of the site's four monitoring wells revealed PCBs, carbon
disulfide, and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the
groundwater. Sediments and soils downstream of the site and in the
wetlands contained PCBs. Soil in the on-site processing area showed
PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs. Fish caught in 1981
at the confluence of Persimmon Creek and Tanyard Branch and
downstream were contaminated with PCBs. Accidentally ingesting or
touching contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediments or soil
pose possible health threats. Also, eating contaminated fish is another
threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
MOWBRAY ENGINEERING COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
IX* Immediate Actions: In 1981, the EPA sent emergency cleanup workers
to the site to remove debris and the top 6 inches of RGB-contaminated
swamp soil and disposed of these wastes at an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: In 1985, when soils in the storm water drainage pathway
were discovered to be highly contaminated with PCBs, the EPA devised a
. long-term cleanup strategy. The remedy selected for this site in 1986,
included: (1) excavating, removing, and disposing of the underground storage tanks
located on company property; (2) treating or disposing of waste oils encountered in the
swamp area and in the underground storage tanks by a method approved under the
toxic substances control laws; (3) diverting the drainage of surface runoff around the
swamp area; (4) excavating contaminated soils and incinerating them on or off the site,
or alternatively stabilizing and solidifying them; (5) grading and replanting the swamp;
(6) properly closing the abandoned water supply well on site; and (7) conducting
operation and maintenance activities as necessary. Cleanup is complete, and the EPA
is ready to delete this site from the NPL.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities are now completed at the Mowbray Engineering Company site,
and the EPA expects to delete the site from the NPL in 1990. Cleanup activities at the
site have eliminated all soil, surface and groundwater contamination making the site
safe to nearby residents and the environment. ;
-------
OLIN CORPORA
MCINTOSH P
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD008188708
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Washington County
Mclntosh
Aliases:
Olin Corp. Old Plant Landfill
Olin Corp-Mercury
Olin Corp Lime Slurry Ponds
The 1,500-acre Olin Corp/Mclntosh Plant has been used since the 1950s to
manufacture chlorine and caustic soda using a mercury core process. In 1956, Olin
constructed a pesticide and organic chemical plant. The plant closed in 1981, and Olin
also switched from the mercury cell process to the diaphragm cell process, which is
being used today. Olin's past waste disposal practices may have contaminated
groundwater. On-site wells that once provided the plant's drinking water are known to
be contaminated. In 1980, Olin began installing monitoring wells and found heavy
metals and chlorinated aromatic compounds. Nearby wells supply water to the
community of Macintosh and to the Ciba-Geigy and Olin plants. The closest residence
is less than 1 mile from the site. There are an estimated 220 people residing within a
1-mile radius of the site. Also within 1 mile of the site is a sizable wetlands area. The
Tombigbee River is to the east of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site wells that once provided the plant's drinking water are known to
be contaminated with chromium, lead, mercury, and chlorinated aromatic
compounds. Monitoring has also shown contamination with benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Accidentally
ingesting or touching volatile components of groundwater may pose
potential health risks to individuals. The site is secured, reducing the risk
of exposure to contaminants. The adjacent river and wetland areas may
be threatened" by contaminants from the site.
Mtffch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
OLDJ CORPORATION/MCINTOSH PLANT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two phases: an initial action and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Contaminated areas were covered in 1984 to prevent
infiltration of rain water. The site was also secured.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
are continuing to study the groundwater problem and regularly report to the
State. A water quality study will be conducted on the Tombigbee River and
the wetlands near the plant to determine the extent of contamination by
mercury and other contaminants discharged from the plant into the natural basin near
the river. A full-scale study of contamination at the site and evaluation of possible
cleanup techniques will begin in 1990. ;
Site Facts: The EPA is negotiating a Consent Orcferwith the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination to conduct an investigation into the extent and
type of contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup. :
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to cover contaminated areas and secure site have reduced the risks of
exposure to contaminants. After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed
preliminary investigations and determined that there were no immediate threats at the
Olin Corporation/Melntosh Plant while further studies take place.
-------
PERDIDO
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATIO
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD980728703
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Baldwin County
Perdido
The 15-acre Perdido Groundwater Contamination site was contaminated as a result of a
1965 train derailment on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (now CSX Transportation,
Inc.). Tank cars spilled 7,575 gallons of benzene into drainage ditches, which then
seeped into the underlying aquifer. The contaminated area is about 300 yards
downgradient of the derailment site. A second possible source of contamination is a
cluster of several underground storage tanks located 1,900 feet from the derailment
area.' In 1981, residents became concerned about the taste and odor of the well water.
The State confirmed contamination of nine wells. As a result of the identification of the
benzene-contaminated wells, a Baldwin County Health officer recommended that
residents within a 1-mile radius of the derailment use alternate water supplies. Wells
are no longer being used for drinking water; however, some well water may be used
for livestock and gardens. The Town of Perdido has a population of approximately 450,
of which 250 residents were directly affected by contaminated well water. Within a 1-
mile radius of the site are about 125 houses and businesses. The surrounding area is
agricultural; livestock grazing and timber logging for paper production are the primary
activities. A junior high school is 2,000 feet south of the train derailment location.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with benzene from the
derailed tank cars. Contaminated drinking water is not a threat to area
residents, since an alternate water supply was provided. However,
ingestion of benzene may occur if contaminated well water is being used
to water livestock and gardens. Because benzene tends not to adsorb
onto soil but seeps down into groundwater, there is little threat to people
touching the soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
PERDIDO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Cleanup Approach ;
This site is being addressed in an emergency response and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on groundwater cleanup at the site.
Response Action Status
** Emergency Response: The National Guard provided two water tanks for
affected residents. CSX Transportation voluntarily connected 150
residences within 1 mile downgradient of the site to the Atmore municipal
water supply system in 1983. ;
Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the
groundwater that includes pumping and treating the water by using air
stripping and treatment of the spent benzene-laden air with activated
carbon adsorption. Air stripping is a process in which contaminants are
removed by forcing a stream of air through the water. Carbon adsorption involves
forcing the air through tanks containing activated carbon, a specially treated material
that attracts the contaminants. Once the water is treated, it will be released into the
aquifer. The air will be monitored and discharged after carbon adsorption treatment,
and groundwater will be monitored after the cleanup to ensure that cleanup goals have
been met. CSX is constructing the groundwater treatment system. The final cleanup is
scheduled to be completed in 1992. ;
Site Facts: CSX Transportation agreed in 1983 to install a groundwater treatment
system.
Environmental Progress
With provision of an alternative water supply to affected residents, no immediate
threats exist at the Perdido Groundwater Contamination site while a groundwater
treatment system is being installed and further investigations and cleanup activities
take place. ;
10
-------
REDWING
CARRIERS, IN
SARALAND
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD980844385
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Mobile County
Saraland
The 1-acre Redwing Carriers, Inc. site started in 1961 as a chemical transporting
business and was used as a parking and washing terminal for company trucks. The
trucks carried numerous substances, including asphalt, diesel fuel, weed-killer, oil, and
sulfuric acid. After the site was sold by Redwing in 1971, it was covered with fill
material, graded, and an apartment complex was built on it. Residents of the complex
became concerned after tar-like material began oozing to the surface at numerous
locations including the building courtyard and parking lot. In 1985, the EPA detected
high levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in the soil and the leachate coming
from the tar-like material. The apartment complex houses approximately 160 people.
The City of Saraland Water Department provides drinking water to 19,000 people that is
obtained from three 100-foot-deep wells less than 2 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/28/90
Threats and Contaminants
Soil around the apartment complex and leachate from the tar oozing to
the surface are contaminated with various VOCs from the former site
activities. The aquifer underlying the site may be contaminated. The
drinking water is potentially threatened by the site contamination. People
who touch the tar-like substance oozing from the ground may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in an initial action and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on final cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
REDWING CARRIERS, INC./SARALAND
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Redwing removed some of the contaminated soil to a
federally-approved hazardous waste facility. The company periodically
inspects the site and removes any tar rising to the surface.
Entire Site: Redwing Carriers, under EPA monitoring, will conduct a study
to determine the extent of contamination at the site. Once the study is
completed in 1992, various alternatives for cleaning up the area will be
recommended. Redwing will continue to remove any tar oozing to the surface while
the site study is under way.
Site Facts: The EPA sent notice letters in 1990 to the parties potentially responsible
for the contamination of the site requiring a study to determine the nature and extent of
the contamination. An Administrative Order on Consent with the parties potentially
responsible requires them to conduct cleanup activities whenever the tar-like material
seeps to the surface of the complex.
Environmental Progress
By continually removing the contaminated leachate from the site, the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Redwing Carriers site is greatly reduced while
further investigations and cleanup activities take place. >
A
12
-------
STAUFFER CHE
COMPANY AXIS
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD008161176
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Mobile County
Twenty miles north of Mobile
Aliases:
Le Moyne Plant
Akzo Plant
The Stauffer Chemical Company's Axis Plant began operations in the early 1950s and
began manufacturing carbon disulfide. In 1964, it produced chlorine and caustic soda,
using the mercury cell process. In 1974, the plant expanded again, producing additional
industrial inorganic compounds. During the 1950s and the 1960s, Stauffer used an on-
site landfill located east of the manufacturing facility, between the plant and the Mobile
River. Stauffer reported that the landfill contained drums of wastes that included
organics, solvents, heavy metals, acids, and bases. The landfill was constructed in
native clay and covered with a vinyl plastic cap. Topsoil was spread over the cap, and
the area was revegetated and fenced. Wastes were held in clay-lined ponds on site
and then discharged to Cold Creek Swamp. Groundwater, sediments, and surface
water around the site are contaminated. The Stauffer Axis Plant and the the Stauffer
Cold Creek Plant, another nearby NPL site, are being treated in a combined effort. The
site is located in an industrial area where approximately 1,600 people are employed by
all the industrial facilities in the area. There are a few sparsely populated rural
communities within a few miles of the site. Groundwater is the sole source of drinking
water in this area, and approximately 4,000 people, including the employees of the local
industries and the residents of the Axis community, are served by wells within 3 miles
of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill and ponds is contaminated
with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including carbon disulfide.
Mercury has been found in the sediments of the Cold Creek Swamp.
Thiocyanates were also found in sediments under nearby Halby Pond.
People could be exposed to the contaminants through direct contact or
accidental ingestion and inhalation of contaminated groundwater, and
sediments. Also, people could be exposed to mercury by eating fish that
are contaminated from Cold Creek Swamp .
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
STAUPFER CHEMICAL COMPANY AXIS PLANT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in initial action and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater cleanup, cleanup of the Cold Creek Swamp, and cleanup of
the Solid Waste Management Units.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Three extraction wells with an aeration pond and .surface
water discharge have been pumping and treating contaminated
groundwater since 1980.
Groundwater: Stauffer Chemical assumed the responsibility to study the
nature and the extent of the contamination in the groundwater and to
conduct subsequent cleanup activities. The study was completed in 1989.
The following methods have been selected to augment the existing
groundwater cleanup at the site: (1) modification of the existing groundwater system;
(2) installation of additional monitoring and extraction wells; (3) extraction of:
groundwater from the surface agu/ferthrough existing and additional intercept wells; (4)
groundwater monitoring on the site to determine the adequacy of the cleanup action;
(5) perform studies to determine the best approach for treating the source of
contamination; and (6) decommission wells no longer needed for monitoring.
Currently, the technical design for the cleanup systems is under way. These cleanup
activities are expected to be completed by 1993.
Cold Creek Swamp: The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination were asked to perform an investigation to determine the
i ^ nature and extent of contamination at Cold Creek Swamp and to identify
long-term remedial actions for cleanup. The investigation, started in 1990, is planned to
be completed in 1991. After this investigation is complete, final cleanup remedies will
be selected.
Solid Waste Management Units: The solid waste management units are
active federally regulated waste facilities. An investigation to determine the
, ^ nature and extent of contamination into the units is expected to begin in
1991. Additional studies will be performed on the source units (disposal ponds)
following the design of the groundwater treatment remedy.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent was signed between the EPA and
Stauffer Chemical in 1986 to investigate the site in an effort to determine the nature
and the extent of the contamination. Stauffer Chemical is responsible for the study.
There is concern that a rayon manufacturer adjacent to the Stauffer Chemical plants
may be using contaminated groundwater in processing operations.
Environmental Progress
Extraction wells have been pumping contaminated groundwater since 1980, reducing
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials while further cleanup activities
continue at the Stauffer Chemical sites.
14
-------
STAUFFER CHESB
COMPANY - CO
PLANT
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD095688875
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Mobile County
Twenty miles north of Mobile
Alias:
ICI Plant
The 947-acre Stauffer Chemical Company's Cold Creek Plant manufactures pesticides
and formerly operated two on-site landfills to dispose of process wastes including
liquids and solids contaminated with pesticides, solvents, and heavy metals. Stauffer
reports that the two landfills are lined with natural clay and are covered with plastic
caps. The landfills are graded, planted with grass, and fenced. Stauffer maintains
monitoring wells at the two landfills. Arsenic and lead have been detected downs/ope
from one of the landfills. This site and Stauffer Axis Plant, another nearby NPL site, are
being treated in a combined effort. There are a few sparsely populated rural
communities within a few miles of the site. Also, there are 20 residential drinking
water supply wells within 2 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
m
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including carbon disulfate. Sediments are polluted
with heavy metals including mercury. Accidentally ingesting or touching
the contaminated groundwater and soil pose a health hazard to
individuals. Also, exposure to mercury-contaminated Cold Creek Swamp
sediment and fish may pose a significant threat to public health.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY - COLD CREEK PLANT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on groundwater
cleanup at the site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: In 1989, the EPA selected the following remedies to clean
up the site: (1) modify the existing groundwater intercept and the
treatment system; (2) install additional monitoring and installation wells; (3)
continue extracting groundwater from the surface aquifer through existing and
additional intercept wells; (4) monitor groundwater movement at the site to determine
the adequacy of the remedial action; (5) conduct treatability studies as appropriate for
source treatment; and (6) decommission wells no longer needed for monitoring. Akzo
Chemicals and ICI Americas will jointly clean up the site. The construction for the
cleanup work is expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: There is concern that an adjacent rayon manufacturer uses contaminated
groundwater in the manufacturing process.
Environmental Progress
The plastic cap on the landfills and the fence have reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Stauffer Chemical Company - Cold Creek Plant while
awaiting the final cleanup actions.
16
-------
T. H. AGRICU
NUTRITION CO
ALABAMA
EPA ID# ALD007454085
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Montgomery County
Downtown Montgomery
The 11 1/2-acre T. H. Agricultural & Nutrition Company site was previously used to
distribute pesticides. During the 1970s and possibly the late 1960s, the company
operated under the name of Thomson-Hayward Chemical Company, but this company
closed in 1980. The company changed its name to T. H. Agricultural & Nutrition
Company in 1981. When the plant operated, insecticides, herbicides, and possibly
other chemical wastes were buried in pits and trenches covering 1 acre of the plant
site. The City of Montgomery's water supply division has 21 wells within 3 miles of the
site, and this system serves approximately 250,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Lindane was discovered in the groundwater on and off the site. Drinking
contaminated groundwater is a potential health hazard to the nearby
residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
T. H. AGRICULTURAL & NUTRITION COMPANY
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1981, T. H..Agricultural & Nutrition Company
voluntarily agreed to remove 2,900 cubic yards of contaminated soil to a
federally approved facility. !
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will carry out an investigation between 1990 and 1992 to evaluate the
nature and extent of contamination and to determine remedies for site
cleanup. Cleanup activities will begin soon thereafter.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the T.H. Agricultural & Nutrition Company site while further investigations
take place. :
18
-------
TRIANA/
TENNESSEE RUVE
ALABAMA
EPA ID# AL7210020742
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Madison County
Triana, near Huntsville
Aliases:
USA Redstone Arsenal
Olin Corp/Huntsville Plant
US Army Missile Command
The Triana/Tennessee River site occupies approximately 1,400 acres near the small
town of Triana and is also situated along 20 miles of the Tennessee river and its
tributaries. DDT was manufactured for commercial use by a lessee, Olin Corp., at
Redstone Arsenal (RSA) in Huntsville between 1947 and 1970. The manufacturing,
handling, and disposal practices at the facility led to the discharge of DDT residues
through RSA's drainage system into the Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek tributary
system, which enters the Tennessee River. An estimated 475 tons of DDT residues
accumulated in the sediment of the tributary system. The plant was closed and
demolished in 1971, but the area remains contaminated with DDT. The area
surrounding the site is rural and has a population of 600 residents. The community has
been affected by the contamination because the residents depend on, to some extent,
locally caught fish for food. Until the introduction of a water supply system in 1967,
residents used water from Indian Creek and the Tennessee River.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek and the Tennessee River have
shown signs of contamination of DDT. Eating fish from contaminated
rivers, creeks, and streams could be harmful to the health of the public.
Drinking water from these sources may also be a potential health threat.
To a lesser extent, touching the sediments from the contaminated river,
creek, or tributaries may be harmful. The contamination of the Tennessee
River and its tributaries has affected the recreational use of the area. The
Huntsville Spring Branch flows through the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge, and
contamination threatens the wildlife there.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
TRIANA/TENNESSEE RIVER
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on; cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Olin Corporation submitted their final engineering design for
cleaning up the site in 1986 and began construction on the initial cleanup
phase. All construction was completed in 1987. The first year's monitoring
showed reduced levels of DDT in selected fish species. The methods that
were used to clean up the site included: (1) bypassing, and burying on site, the most
heavily contaminated channel area; and (2) continuing on-going investigative programs
for fish and water studies and investigations of the movement of contaminants through
the water and the fish. Fish, water, and sediment monitoring will continue in order to
determine progress made at the site. Olin has until 1998 to meet the targeted levels of
performance. If they do not achieve the performance levels with the selected remedy
constructed, Olin will be required to construct another remedy. If Olin meets the
performance standards for 3 years, they will then be required to operate and maintain
the constructed remedy for the remaining 7 years.
Site Facts: In 1983, Olin and the EPA settled on Olin's responsibility to conduct a
study of the site and on the final design for its cleanup. The settlement included a
Consent Decree that required Olin to develop and carry out a remedial plan to isolate
DDT from humans and the environment. The plan was submitted and reviewed by a
panel consisting of representatives from the EPA, Tennessee Valley Authority, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Army, Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, and Olin Corporation. This panel will oversee Olin's cleanup action until
it meets the performance standards.
Environmental Progress
Initial cleanup activities have been completed at the Triana/Tennessee River site. The
parties potentially responsible for site contamination, under EPA guidance, will continue
to oversee monitoring activities at the site and will ensure the effectiveness of the
treatment methods used.
20
-------
USA ALABAMA
AMMUNITION P
ALABAMA
EPA ID# AL6210020008
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Talladega County-
East of the Coosa River, north of Childersburg
The Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (AAAP) covers approximately 5,170 acres just
east of the Coosa River, 4 miles north of Childersburg. The plant was established in
1941 and was used for the manufacture of explosives including trinitrotoluene (TNT),
dinitrotoluene, nitrocellulose, and tetryl. The Army ceased operations in 1945, but the
plant was on standby status until 1973, when it was declared excess property. Most of
the structures used in the manufacturing processes have been demolished or
destroyed by controlled burning. Sources of contamination include disposal sites, as
well as spills and general wastes including recycled acids from the manufacturing
operations. Because the site is of a complex nature, and the site activities were so
varied, the site has been divided into Areas A and B for cleanup purposes. Present use
of the site includes timber cutting and licensed deer hunting. Land use around the site
is primarily recreational, industrial, agricultural, or undeveloped. Three farms border the
site and a small residential community lies several thousand feet southeast of the site
next to Talladega Creek, which may be considered a groundwater divide located
between AAAP and the City. Only an estimated 40 residents live within 1 to 2 miles of
the site. There are other residences both north and south of the site, but they are
buffered from the site by other industry or extensive undeveloped or wooded areas
Childersburg uses groundwater for drinking water. The total population using the river
as a source of drinking water is estimated to be 1,800, and the population using
groundwater is estimated to be 700.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 07/07/87
L\
Contaminants of concern on site are the nitroaromatic compounds,
including TNT, and have been detected in the surface water and the
groundwater, which is the main source of drinking water. Lead, asbestos,
and nitroaromatic compounds have been detected in the soil. Coming in '
direct contact with or accidentally ingesting the contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soils could be a major health threat. There
is also a possibility of a fire or explosion due to the nature of the wastes
on site. Ecological risk will be evaluated as a part of the Army's continued
study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
USA ALABAMA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
Areas A and B.
Response Action Status
Area A: The Army completed an investigation for Area A of the. site to
evaluate the nature and the extent of the contamination. The results of the
, investigative study helped the Army to decide on the engineering designs
to be used to clean up the site. The EPA concurred with the selected procedures, and
the Army has carried out the cleanup operation. The cleanup actions in Area A included
soil excavation and decontamination of storage igloos and buildings. The work was
completed in 1988.
Area B: The Army is currently investigating Area B of the site tp evaluate
the nature and the extent of the contamination. Previous investigations
. , have found that groundwater contaminaed with nitroaromatic compounds is
above Federal drinking water standards, and surface water contaminated with
nitroaromatics and lead is also above water quality standards. The investigation is
scheduled to be completed in 1990. Once the study has been completed, the EPA will
make a final remedy selection.
Site Facts: A Federal Facility Agreement has been filed between the Army, the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and the EPA for remedial actions
at the site. AAAP is also participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), a
specially funded program established in 1978 under which the Department'of Defense
(DOD) has been identifying and evaluating its past hazardous waste sites and has been
controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from these sites. The Army has
selected 24 separate study areas within Areas A and B of the AAAP site.
Environmental Progress
The Army has cleaned up the contamination in Area A of the installation, and
investigations into the extent of contamination in Area B and the remedy
recommendations and selection are proceeding with assistance from the EPA. The
potential for exposure to hazardous materials has been reduced while investigations
into the final cleanup solution are taking place.
22
-------
USA ANNISTON
ARMY DEPOT
ALABAMA
EPA ID# AL3210020027
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Calhoun County
Anniston
The Anniston Army Depot site comprises 600 acres in the southeast area of the
Nichols Industrial Complex. This area consists of an extensive series of shipping and
warehouse buildings that have been used since 1948 for the repair and modification of
combat vehicles and artillery equipment. The depot's initial mission was limited to
ammunition storage, refurbishment, testing, and decommissioning of combat vehicles
and various types of ordnance. A 1979 study revealed that on-site disposal of wastes
generated by chemical cleaning, painting, and plating operations had resulted in
groundwater contamination. Two facilities were closed as a result of the 1979
investigations: a 2 million-gallon lagoon (A-Block Lagoon) and a landfill operation (Site Z-
1). Approximately 39,000 residents live near the site in Anniston. The southeast
industrial area is drained by Dry Creek, which flows into Choccolocco Creek, a tributary
of the Coosa River. Coldwater Spring is located adjacent to Dry Creek approximately 1
1/2 miles south of the depot boundary. The spring is the primary source of drinking
water for approximately 72,000 people in Calhoun County.
Site Responsibility: This sjte js bejng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
ZA
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, chlorinated
solvents, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A soil removal
operation was conducted by the Army on two separate occasions to
remove contaminated soils to a permitted treatment facility. The
contamination included chromium, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene
(TCE), phenols and dichloroethylene. Aquatic life that may be at risk from
contamination in the Coldwater Spring includes pygmy sculpin, water
snake, crayfish, and various aquatic insects. Residents could drink and be
directly exposed to contaminated water if site-related contaminants have
migrated into Coldwater Spring.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
USA ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in an initial action and in two long-term remedial phases
focusing on extraction activities and the installation of extraction wells.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The Army excavated contaminated soil and removed it to an
off-site approved disposal facility. This removal action was completed in
1983.
Extraction Activities: The Army installed an air stripper in 1987 to treat
the 400,000 to 900,000 gallons per day of groundwater pumped from
___ underneath the Metal Finish Facility. It is recommended that a network of
groundwater quality monitoring points be established to evaluate extraction system
effectiveness in each area. These monitoring wells ideally would be sampled prior to
groundwater extraction system start-up to establish baseline conditions, and at some
regular interval thereafter (e.g., semi-annually). .
Extraction Wells: A total of 16 extraction wells were installed in 1988; 7
wells are at the trench area (Site Z-1), 6 wells in the northeast area, and 3 in
the old landfill area. The wells were evaluated to provide a basis for site
characterization and groundwater extraction system design and
optimization. The extraction wells and treatment facilities are scheduled for
construction completion in 1990. The extraction systems are recommended for 24-
hour continuous operation. Automatic on/off systems for intermittent operation (i.e.,
pumping) are recommended for all wells and are especially recommended for low-
yielding wells in critical capture areas. Extraction system performance monitoring
during the first 3 to 6 months of system operation is recommended to provide
additional data on long-term aquifer behavior, drawdown effects and contaminant
capture.
Site Facts: A Federal Facility Agreement has been negotiated between the Army, the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and the EPA for remedial actions.
Anniston Army Depot is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the
specially funded program under which the Department of Defense (DOD) has been
cleaning up its hazardous waste sites. The Army has completed the records search
phase and has finished an assessment of cleanup alternatives. ;
Environmental Progress
The Army has already taken several steps to improve conditions at the Anniston
Army Depot, such as excavating and removing contaminated soil and installing an air
stripping treatment system to pump and treat contaminated groundwater. Cleanup
activities are continuing, and extraction wells have been installed; therefore, the site
currently does not pose an immediate threat to the public or to the environment.
24
-------
This glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Alabama. The terms and
f, abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
G-l
-------
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corro-
sive in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with acids, they neutralize each other,
forming salts.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and organic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also cause chemical reactions that increase its
hazard to human health and the environment.
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where waste is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of water, such as streams, come together.
i
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the partips will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent],
Decommission: To revoke a license to operate and take out of service. :
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
G-2
-------
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Nitroaromatics: Common component of explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pressures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a ni-
troaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
G-3
-------
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer. ;
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may'have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability. '.
Remedial: A course of study combined with actions to correct site contamination
problems through identifying the nature and extent of cleanup strategies undfer the
Superfund program.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
G-4
-------
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
(OS-240)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |