EPA/540/4-90/005
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Arkansas
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««w.\4 X-- % *< *^<^ *.* > ,, 0^\*W^ «s '. ^ \~" S? ^ '""'
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
p" 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
THE NPL
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-
iii
-------
tively 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
notontheNPL. 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
IV
-------
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.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
sS*" *
t^|y|\ 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.
-V-. .
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists*
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever 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.
vu
-------
H
ow does
, **>-. ^
t>o,w| potential
STEP 1: 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
viii
-------
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 envkonment. 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.
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
be
-------
\
x«>>
%$y*^
*-
>x,
\
x
.">
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.
HOW d0 people ftetd ^ The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
r-j.4. ^jtether E£A x \ * on the NPL b7 calling their Regional EPA office at the number
k c&* * "X ^ listed in this book
national _
Cleanup «sing
XN\
s
-------
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.
*r\
x-
\^5 ^
"A*
>" v.
-«*»^ - ^ ^
kC>xS^*\
,^_^
x>-
N^JX
"**«
vA^
^K
5«5l
XI
-------
Poes tfie psfclk "^ ^
Wsdfin tfee J^at^^rj
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
& site/ does
Xlll
-------
>nee Ihe design is^v ,5
[complete, how long ^
does,it tajke^to \s ^ ]
actually ciejm ti£ ie t
ft
*?
does it cost?
:te<*i ft,
HMv* \
.b L I ( K
XsJ
f deleted^ ftom Ihe
i»hkt i.
i
-------
sir^»^
. ^ *. ^
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.
"x,
O -i,.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
he 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 mueh 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
at the site.
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.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
NPL Listing
Histo.ry
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
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 res9urces 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.
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 in1
State of Arkans;
Arkansas is the smallest state between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean.
The State covers 53,187 square miles and consists of prairies, southern lowlands
forests, northwestern highlands, the Ozark Plateaus, and the eastern delta regions.
Arkansas experienced a 4.7 percent increase in population through the 1980s, and
currently has approximately 2,395,000 residents, ranking 33rd in U.S. populations.
Principal state industries include manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, mining, and
forestry. Arkansas produces food products, chemicals, lumber, paper, electric meters,
furniture, appliances, automobile parts, transformers, apparel, fertilizers, machinery, and
petroleum products.
How Many Arkansas Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
1
8
1
10
Cong. District 01 3 sites
Cong. District 02 3 sites
Cong. District 03 4 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
M
8
o
*
4-
2-
Soil GW SW Seds Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics),, volatile organic
compounds .(VOCs), dioxin, and
creosote (organics).
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics) and creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics) and
creosote (organics).
Appear at 25% 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 6 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Arkansas, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Arkansas Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Public Relations
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
EPA Superfund Hotline
(501) 562-7444
(214) 655-6705
{214} 655-2240
(202) 475-7751
{800} 424-9346
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
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.
xxiii
-------
A A V
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
^AVWl^ Jb*^VV«*AX* ^riTAVt-UMkUtLS Ml
Site Name
ARKWOOD, INC.
CECIL LINDSEY SITE
FRIT INDUSTRIES
GURLEY PIT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
MID-SOUTH WOOD PRODUCTS SITE
MIDLAND PRODUCTS SITE
ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
VERTAC, INC.
L. i.1*. JLJ t_rJLI>^»»3
County
BOONE
JACKSON
LAWRENCE
CRITTENDEN
SEBASTIAN
PULASKI
POLK
YELL
PULASKI
PULASKI
1 JUU U.U1
NPL
Final
Delete
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
\f Wl«Cl.t.\s \fJL .nj.JVaJUU9a»3
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
03/31/89 *- *
10/04/89 ^- ^- 4" 4- *
09/08/83 "K "^ "K «h
09/08/83 4-^-^-^-4-
09/08/83 "*" * 4- 4-
07/22/87 "K 4-
09/08/83 "^ "^ 4- *- 4- 4-
06/10/86 4- ^- 4-
07/22/87 ^" "^
09/08/83 +-+- + +-+
-------
-------
-------
ARKWOOD, I
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD084930148
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Boone County
1/2 mile south of Omaha
Site Description
The 20-acre Arkwood, Inc. wood-treatment plant site consisted of a millwork shop, a
treating plant that used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP), and a yard for storing
pretreated wood prior to sale. Operations began in the early 1960s. In 1973, the
owner leased the,facility to Mass Merchandisers, Inc. (MMI), which operated it until
1984. The plant was dismantled in 1986. During operation, the plant generated 6,000
to 7,000 pounds of waste each year. Operations wastes were dumped into a sinkhole
on site until 1970. The sinkhole has since been sealed. Waste oils were placed in a
ditch next to the railroad until 1974, when MMI began using a chemical recovery
system. Other wastes, including liquids used to wash the treatment equipment, were
stored in. a tank and then spread over the storage yard to control dust. A cave, now
sealed, was also used for waste disposal. The site was listed on the NPL when PCP
and other organic chemicals were found in local wells. Approximately 650 people
within 3 miles of the site rely'bn private wells for drinking water. The closest well is
less than 1/4 mile from the site. The area surrounding the site is predominantly
agricultural.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/04/85
Rnal Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
PCP was found in groundwater monitoring wells on site and in New
Cricket Spring, one of 13 area springs. Sediments on site are heavily
contaminated with PCP, but stream sediments off site showed much
lower levels of contamination. Soil samples from disposal areas on site
were shown to contain PCP, mostly concentrated in the top 2 feet of soil.
Creosotes and hazardous by-products of PCP were also found in the soils.
Rural residents who live less than 1 mile from the site use groundwater
as their sole source of drinking.water. Significant potential for
contamination of the groundwater supplying drinking wells exists, based
on underground geology and water flow at the site. Possible threats
include drinking the contaminated groundwater or accidental ingestion or
contact with the contaminated soil and sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ARKWOOD , INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase addressing the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In response to the immediate threat of contact with
hazardous materials, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination installed fencing and warning signs in 1987.
Entire Site: MMI, under EPA supervision, is conducting a site investigation
to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. The study will be
completed in 1990. The feasibility study to evaluate possible cleanup
alternatives also will be finished in 1990. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate
cleanup alternatives and select a final cleanup remedy for the site.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA signed an Administrative Order requiring MMI to conduct
investigations to determine the type and extent of contamination and identify
alternatives for remedial action.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site and installing warning signs has limited access to the site, thereby
reducing the potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Arkwood, Inc. site,
and making the area safer while it awaits further cleanup activities.
-------
CECIL LIND
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980496186
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Jackson County
31/2 miles northeast of Newport
Alias:
City of Diaz Dump
Site Description
From the early 1970s to 1980, the 5-acre Cecil Lindsey site was used as a salvage
operation collecting machinery, cars, and scrap metals. Some municipal and industrial
wastes were also reportedly disposed of on the property, although the operators had
no permit to accept them. Drums that previously held pesticides and oils containing
heavy metals were disposed of on site. About 20 homes housing 50 residents are
located within 1 mile of the site, the nearest being 600 feet away. The nearest drinking
water well is 1,200 feet away, but all private drinking water wells are upgradientoi the
site. The site is adjacent to the Village Creek wetlands and forested bottom land in an
agricultural area. Portions of the site, which lies within the floodplain of Village Creek,
are often flooded.
Site Responsibility: This site has been addressed
through Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Deleted: 09/22/89
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in
groundwater underlying the site. Heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, and copper were found in soil throughout the site and VOCs
were found in the southern portion of the site. Threats to drinking water
are remote. Wells are not currently contaminated, nor are they likely to
be, since they are upgradient of the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site has been addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at soil
cleanup and groundwater monitoring.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
CECIL LINDSEY SITE
Response Action Status
Soil Cleanup and Groundwater Monitoring: In 1987, the EPA placed
groundwater and access restrictions, installed monitoring wells, removed
the drums, and performed 1-year site monitoring. Other than these actions,
a "no-action" remedy was selected, since the EPA, in conjunction with the State, has
determined that the site has been cleaned to levels that are safe to people and the
environment. No further actions are necessary. Sampling results snowed that
contamination levels in the groundwater have lessened. The EPA deleted the site from
the NPL in 1989.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has eliminated the potential for
accidental contact with any contaminated material on site. As a result of these actions,
the EPA has determined that the site meets established ecological and health
standards and deleted the site from the NPL in 1989. Although there is no present
danger to the drinking water, nearby homes will continue to be protected through the
use of monitoring wells around the Cecil Lindsey site.
-------
FRIT INDUS
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD059636456
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lawrence County
22 miles northwest of Jonesboro
Site Description
Frit Industries is a 30-acre site housing an active fertilizer plant. Product materials
(micronutrients) and raw waste were stored in piles on the ground without a liner or
cover. Waste piles on site were unprotected from rain, wind, and surface water
runoff, therefore, materials have been dispersed across the site. In 1979, a fire
consumed portions of a product storage facility. The water used to extinguish the fire
further contaminated the soil and surface water. The nearest residence is 3 miles
away. Although the community has a municipal waster system, there is an industrial
park well approximately 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
MPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
ZE
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with zinc
sulfate, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Runoff from the site is channeled
into a nearby creek by approximately 1 mile of drainage ditches. This
creek flows into another creek, which discharges into the White River 4
miles downstream of the site. People could become exposed to heavy
metals in the soil and water of Coon Greek and the drainage ditches,
which have received 81,000 gallons of contaminated water. Threats to
people include accidental ingestion of contaminated waters or soil,
inhalation of dusts generated at the site, and direct contact with
contaminants from dusts, groundwater, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire
site.
March 1990
NP.L HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
FRIT INDUSTRIES
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Since 1981, Frit Industries has been studying the site runoff,
the potential for groundwater contamination, and the buildup of heavy metals
in the sediments of drainage ditches and Coon Creek. The company submits
regular reports to the State and to the EPA for comment and has proposed a cleanup
plan involving a plant for treating runoff. Frit Industries submitted final reports to the
EPA, which is evaluating whether the contamination has been successfully contained
and whether to delete the site from the NPL.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order signed in 1982 required Frit to construct a surface
water runoff treatment plant and to continue the monitoring of runoff. In 1983, an
additional Administrative Order required Frit Industries to perform an investigation at
the site and to conduct any necessary cleanup activities .
Environmental Progress
Frit Industries and the EPA are currently conducting site testing to determine if the
water runoff treatment plant is effective and the site can be deleted from the NPL.
Meanwhile, the EPA has determined that the site is safe while awaiting completion of
the site evaluation.
-------
GURLEY PIT
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD035662469
Site Description
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Crittenden County
1 mile north of Edmondson
Gurley Pit encompasses approximately 3 acres, which are. divided into three levees or
cells. In 1970, Gurley Refining Company leased the pit for disposal of secondary oil
refinery wastes. From 1970 until 1975, the pit was used for disposal of oil sludges and
filter material. In. 1975, the company closed the part of the refining operations that
generated the wastes disposed of at the site. Site discharges contaminated a nearby
stream, Fifteen Mile Bayou, damaging fish and wildlife, this is an agricultural area, with
five residences within 1/2 miles. The nearest drinking well is 2 miles southeast of the
site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
IA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including
arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc. Sludges and surface water are
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals
including lead. The site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Fifteen
Mile Bayou,.which discharges to the Mississippi River. Overflows have
occurred during rain events that have had an adverse effect on fish and
waterfowl. Also, several people use the shallow aquifer as a source of
drinking water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on groundwater contamination and cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
GURLEY PIT
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: After a flood in 1979, the EPA performed emergency
cleanup of oil from the pit and installed drains and pumps to remove
accumulated stormwater. In 1984, the potentially responsible parties for
the site contamination built a fence and repaired the dikes.
Groundwater: Contamination from the pit has not migrated through the
sub-surface into the groundwater. Elevated levels of inorganic
contaminants were detected but were consistent with natural background
levels. No site-related contaminants were identified in the groundwater. Therefore, the
EPA has decided that no cleanup actions are required for groundwater. The
groundwater will be monitored for at least 30 years to ensure that no migration of the
contaminants occurs.
Entire Site: The surface water within the pits will be treated on site and
the discharge will go into the bayou. Oil containing PCBs from the water
treatment process will be incinerated off site. The sludge will be stabilized
on site and placed in a federally approved vault.
Site Facts: The EPA completed an Enforcement Decision Document in 1986 which
addressed cleanup of the contamination sources at the site. In early 1990, the EPA
issued a Unilateral Order under which the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination would clean up the source of contamination. There have been citizen
complaints about odors from the site.
Environmental Progress
The emergency cleanup of oil and the installation of drains and pumps to remove
contaminated surface water undertaken, by the EPA and the potentially responsible
parties at the Gurley Pit have reduced the potential exposure to contaminants at the
site. Further emergency actions will be taken to address the threat of accidential
contact with and off-site migration of acids and heavy metals from the pits. The pits
will be pumped down again, and the. fence will be repaired while final cleanup activities
continue.
-------
INDUSTRIAL
CONTROL
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980496368
Site Description
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Sebastian County
8 miles southeast of Fort Smith,
1 mile west of Jenny Lind
The Industrial Waste Control (IWC) site is located on 8 acres and is a closed and
covered industrial landfill. The site is located in a strip mine that was abandoned and
then used for local dumping. The site was operated under permit by IWC from 1974 to
1978. Industries used it to dispose of a wide variety of liquid and solid wastes. IWC
built several ponds on the site for liquid wastes, and as many as 9,000 drums of waste
also may have been buried there. In 1977, heavy rainfall flooded the waste ponds,
contaminating nearby pastures and ponds. Fish kills were reported and local
landowners filed for damages. As a result, the State closed the site in 1978. The
landfill areas were covered with soil and graded, and natural vegetation has partially
covered the site. The site is located in a rural area. Eighteen homes lie within 1/2 mile,
and the nearest residence and well are 200 feet away.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), and heavy metals
including chromium, nickel and lead. Because the site is not being used,
there is no immediate health risk from human contact with polluted soil or
water. However, future use of the site or future migration of
contaminants does cause concern. No contaminants currently exist in
usable water sources, although it is possible that buried drums will
disintegrate in the ground, releasing additional wastes that could percolate
through the soil and threaten groundwater. A major concern is the
possibility of groundwater contamination spreading through the
interconnections between the extensive underground mine workings to
the north and the surface strip mine under the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WAST ESITES
9
continued
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on source control
and groundwater protection.
Response Action Status
Source Control and Groundwater Protection: The remedies selected for
the IWC site include: (1) removing about 3,000 liquid-filled drums for EPA-
approved disposal off site; (2) excavating about 20,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, which will be stabilized and redeposited in the
excavations; (3) building an underground barrier wall of slurry to prevent contaminant
movement; (4) installing a french drain (in this case, a perforated pipe at the bottom of
a trench surrounded by sand and gravel filters) for collecting and diverting groundwater
around the site to avoid contamination; (5) building ditches and berms to prevent
surface water from flowing onto the site; (6) removing groundwater found during
excavation to an off-site hazardous waste facility or treating it on site, as appropriate;
(7) covering the site with a multi-layered cap consisting of a synthetic liner, clay, sand,
soil, and plants; (8) installing a fence and imposing land use restrictions; and
(9) monitoring groundwater and assessing the site every 5 years for remedy
effectiveness. Site studies were completed in 1987 and a study of cleanup alternatives
was completed in 1988. Engineering design of the selected cleanup actions was
completed in 1989. Cleanup actions have begun and are expected to be completed in
1990.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1989 with the Steering Committee for the
parties potentially responsible for site contamination to implement the selected cleanup
actions.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Industrial Waste Control site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions
at the site and determined that no immediate actions were required to make it safer
while awaiting the completion of the cleanup activities.
A
vx
10
-------
MUNICIPAL
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980809941
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Pulaski County
East Graham Road just inside
the Pulaski County line
Alias:
Graham Road Landfill
Site Description
The Jacksonville Municipal Landfill site consists of 80 acres and was bought by the city
in 1960 and operated as a municipal landfill until 1973. .Forty of the 80 acres are
contaminated. The landfill had no permit and kept no records of the wastes it
accepted. The site was closed when the State turned down its permit application. The
site came to the EPA's attention in 1983, when citizens complained that the landfill had
been accepting hazardous wastes. A former county employee maintains that wastes
were at first burned, but odor complaints prompted a change to dumping wastes into
unlined trenches as deep as 25 feet. No cover was applied over disposed hazardous
wastes. Drums of industrial and chemical waste were also accepted. The site floods
during heavy rainfall. Groundwater in the area is as little as 5 feet below the ground
surface. About 10,000 people live nearby; they draw drinking water, from public and
private wells, within 3 miles of the the site. The nearest private well is 1,320 feet from
the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and Municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Soil contamination appears to be restricted to the drum areas on the site:
there is no off-site contamination. Principal contaminants include TCDD
(dioxin), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and herbicides. The landfill
floods during heavy rains, contaminating surface water with herbicides.
The site was unrestricted and children were seen playing on it until 1985.
The water table is shallow and the site is poorly drained. The potential
exists for exposure through direct contact with hazardous materials and
soils on site. Contaminated water could leave the site because no runoff
controls exist.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The City of Jacksonville installed a fence around the site in
1986.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting an intensive site investigation
to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. The investigation
will define the contaminants and will recommend cleanup options. The
study is planned for completion in 1990. Phase I of the study was
completed in 1989. Soil, waste piles, sediments, trenches, groundwater, surface
water, and drums were all sampled. Soil borings were taken to assess the depth of
contamination. Workers installed 20 groundwater monitoring wells, and these, as well
as residential wells, were sampled. Investigators prepared a topographic survey.
Sample analysis is being evaluated. Initial assessment indicates hazardous chemicals
are restricted to the site.
Site Facts: The site is within 1/2 mile of the Rogers Road Landfill, which is also listed
ontheNPL.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site has reduced the potential of exposure at the Jacksonville Landfill.
Further initial actions will be taken to reduce the threat of direct contact with or airborne
migration of hazardous wastes. Drums will be overpacked and removed, and soil will
be excavated and disposed of while investigations into a permanent cleanup solution
are taking place.
12
-------
MID-SOUTH
PRODUCTSS
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD092916188
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Polk County
1/2 mile southwest of Mena
between Hwy. 71 and Hwy. 375
Site Description
The 57-acre Mid-South Wood Products site operates as a wood treatment plant. It was
originally a post and pole factory in the late 1930s. Wood treating operations with
pentachlorophenoKPCP) and creosote were conducted between 1967 and 1977. The
site involves several areas: among these is the Old Plant site that was used to treat
wood with PCP and creosote; and the Small Old Pond that received these chemicals as
wastes; both of these areas have been covered with soil. The Old Pond area was used
to store PCP and creosote sludge and has since been graded and covered with soil.
Materials from the Old Pond were spread over the landfarm areas and mixed into the
soil. The landfill area contains waste wood products. Clear Lake receives runoff from,
all the other areas. In 1977, the chromated copper arsenate process was introduced at
the plant. It is still being used and surface drainage from the plant is put in sumps.
Approximately 40 to 50 people live on 18 properties next to the site; 14 wells are
located nearby. About 5,700 people are served by drinking water wells within 1 mile of
the site. Investigations of the plant began in 1976, when several fish kills were
reported downstream of the site; valuable stream fisheries are located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed
through Federal and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, standing surface water, soil, and sediments are
contaminated with PCP, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), and
heavy metals including arsenic and chromium. The people served by
drinking water wells risk exposure by drinking contaminated groundwater.
The surface water contamination may affect valuable stream fisheries in
the area of the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
MID-SOUTH WOOD PRODUCTS SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in an initial action and a long-term remedial phase
addressing soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Homes northwest of the site, the direction of groundwater
flow, have been connected to the Mena city water system.
Soil and Groundwater Treatment: Studies of site contamination and
possible remedies were completed in 1986. The selected remedies
currently underway include: excavating, consolidating, and stabilizing
contaminated soils and placing them in the North Landfarm area; covering
the North Landfarm area with a clay cap to keep out water; site grading studies to
locate free oil, liquids, or sludges in the Old Pond area and stabilizing them in place;
installation of a french drain system to channel water to the treatment system; and
cleanup of the treatment facility. The potentially responsible parties have undertaken
both the design work and the cleanup actions at the Mid-South Wood Products site.
The soil cleanup phase is complete and the groundwater recovery and treatment
system is built. Workers will pump groundwater from recovery wells and treat it with
activated carbon. Any resulting oils or sludges will be disposed of off site and the
cleaned water will be discharged to East Fork Moon Creek. Groundwater highly
contaminated with inorganics will be used as process water in the wood treatment
plant. Groundwater monitoring will measure the effectiveness of cleanup activities.
The parties responsible for site contamination will maintain the site, inspect it and
continue to clean the groundwater. The EPA will review remedy effectiveness every 5
years.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site signed a
Consent Decree to perform the cleanup remedy in 1987. A long-term trust fund for
oversight and management activities is being finalized with the potentially responsible
parties.
Environmental Progress
The provision of a safe drinking water source and the cleanup actions already under
way continue to reduce contamination levels at the Mid-South Wood Products site,
making it safer while it awaits completion of the cleanup activities.
14
-------
MIDLAND PR(
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980745665
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Yell County
1/2 mile east of Ola
on Hwy. 10
Site Description
The Midland Products site is a 38-acre wood-treating facility and sawmill that operated
from 1969 to 1979 and is now bankrupt and abandoned. The site is contaminated from
past activities, especially in the 3-acre area where the wood treatment facilities and
liquid waste lagoons are located. The processes involved pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
creosote. Most of the contamination is in the soils and sediments in and around the
lagoon area. Contaminated oil was found in the shallow groundwater but has not
moved off site. Approximately 190 people live in this agricultural area. A home adjoins
the southwest corner of the site; the nearest drinking well is 400 feet west, and
residents within a 3-mile radius depend on private wells. The Petit Jean State Wildlife
Management Area is 1 mile north of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, lagoon sediments, and soil are contaminated with PCP,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), dioxins, and furans from wood
treating operations. People could be exposed by direct contact with or
eating or drinking contaminated materials. A nearby chicken farm and
other commercial establishments may be threatened by the contaminated
runoff.
Cleanup Approach
The-site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at soil and
groundwater cleanup.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
MIDLANDS PRODUCTS SITE
Response Action Status
Soil and Ground water Cleanup: Studies of possible cleanup actions
were completed in 1987. The selected remedies at this site include:
(1) collecting contaminated lagoon liquids and storm'water runoff and
treating the liquids using carbon adsorption; (2) installing four groundwater
recovery wells with oil removal systems, pumping at an accelerated rate, and treating
the groundwater by carbon adsorption; (3) excavating the contaminated soils,
sediments, and sludges from the lagoons and drainage-ways and destroying these
wastes using on-site incineration; and (4) placing the clean ash on site and covering it
with a vegetated soil cover. Engineering design of the selected remedies began in
1988 and is planned for completion in 1990. The State is taking the lead on site
cleanup, with assistance from the EPA.
After listing the site on the NPL and performing interim studies, the EPA determined
that the site does not require immediate actions to protect nearby residents or the
environment. The EPA concluded that the Midland Products site does not pose a
threat while it awaits further cleanup activities.
16
-------
ROGERS R
MUNICIPAL
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD981055809
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Pulaski County
Rogers Road, east of Jacksonville
Site Description
The Rogers Road Landfill is a 10-acre site that was purchased by the City of '
Jacksonville in 1953 and operated as a municipal landfill until 1974. The landfill
accepted industrial and chemical waste in addition to municipal waste. The landfill
closed when the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology turned down
an application for a permit. The site is located 1/2 mile to the west of the Jacksonville
Municipal Landfill, which has also been listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). The
area around the site is heavily wooded and the site itself is overgrown with vegetation.
In 1985, the EPA inspected the site and found about 30 deteriorating drums, which
gave off a strong chemical-odor. Contaminated soils were found around the drums and
lagoons, as well as the runoff paths. The landfill has no liner and drainage is poor,
allowing water to collect. The groundwater is shallow, at a depth of 5 feet. Wastes
were deposited as deep as 20 feet. An estimated 10,000 people draw drinking water
from public and private 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: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soil and the waste sludge from drums are contaminated with
herbicides, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and trichloroethene.
The potential exists for contamination of an aquifer used as a drinking
water supply. People are at risk by direct contact or accidental ingestion
of contaminated soils on site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate action to limit site access and a
long-term remedial phase centered on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA initially inspected the site in 1985. In early
1986, the City of Jacksonville fenced the site to prevent public access.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting an investigation into the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site. The investigation will
define the contamination and will recommend effective alternatives for the
final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be completed in 1990.
Site Facts: An inquiry from a concerned citizen led the EPA to inspect this landfill in
1985.
Environmental Progress
Installation of a fence surrounding the site has reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Rogers Road Landfill site, making it safer while it awaits
further investigation and the selection of the final cleanup remedy.
18
-------
VERTAC, IN
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD000023440
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Pulaski County
Western edge of Jacksonville,
15 miles northeast of Little Rock
Site Description
Since 1948, pesticides were manufactured at the 92-acre Vertac, Inc. site. The
company ceased operations in 1986. Inadequate waste disposal methods.and
production controls resulted in soil and surface water contamination by insecticides,
herbicides, chlorinated phenols, and dioxin. The former landfill areas contain several
thousand cubic yards of waste, and approximately 30,000 drums of herbicide
production waste, remain on site. The site's surface is drained by Rocky Branch Creek
to Bayou Meto and to the Arkansas River. Contamination has been documented in
most of Bayou Meto, which passes through the Arkansas Bayou Meto Wildlife
Management Area. There, contaminants like dioxin, pesticides, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were noted by the U.S. Department of Interior. Nearby Lake Dupree
is contaminated with dioxin. The .area is residential, with the nearest residences
adjacent to the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil and surface water are contaminated with insecticides, herbicides,
chlorinated phenols, and dioxin from site disposal. Possible health
hazards include accidental ingestion of or direct contact with the
contaminants. In addition, surrounding waters and wetlands are
threatened by runoff from the contaminated soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
VERTAC, rap.
Cleanup Approach -
This site is being addressed in six stages: immediate actions and five long-term
remedial phases focusing on landfill area, site study, ground water and soil, barrels of
waste and cleanup of the storage tanks and buildings.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, under orders from the EPA, the parties
potentially responsible for the site contamination installed a fence around
Rocky Branch, which is located near the site. The EPA rebarreled the .
drummed wastes on site to prevent further leakage, and in 1988, again under EPA
orders, the responsible parties began removing soilfrom contaminated residential
areas. ;
Landfill Area: Site studies began here in 1983 when the EPA, the State,
and the Department of Justice asked the potentially responsible parties to
investigate site contaminants and undertake cleanup. The remedies
selected included construction of a slurry wall to prevent contaminants
from moving off the landfill areas, repair of existing clay caps over covered areas of the
landfill, and closeout of a cooling water pond. The potentially responsible parties
performed both the engineering design and completion of the cleanup between 1984
and 1986.
Site Study: The EPA is conducting an off-site study of the nature and
extent of contamination of the site. The study is scheduled for completion
in 1990.
Groundwater and Soil: The State has begun to investigate the;nature and
extent of groundwater and surface soil contamination caused by
underground pipes and tank leakage. Completion of the investigation is
expected in 1991.
Barrels of Waste: The State of Arkansas evaluated various methods of
disposal of the 30,000 barrels'of waste and contracted for the waste to be
incinerated on site. The EPA is providing support services for the project
including air monitoring, ash disposal, and delivery of the drums to the
incinerator. The incineration process is presently ongoing, and tanks and process lines
are also being secured.
Storage Tanks and Buildings: The former owners are conducting this
portion of the on-site study which includes the abovegrpund storage tanks
and their contents, the buildings and contaminated debris left on site. Field
work has been completed and the final study is expected in 1990.
continued
20
-------
VERTAC, INC.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA, the. State of Arkansas, and the Department of Justice
negotiated a Consent Decree with Vertac, Inc., requiring them to conduct a site
investigation and perform cleanup activities. In 1989, the EPA and Hercules, Inc., one
of the former owners, signed an Administrative Order, under which Hercules would
perform an on-site study to determine the nature and extent of site contamination. In
1988, Hercules removed contaminated soil from residential areas under an
Administrative Order. There is highly organized community interest at this site.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup actions performed have reduced the further spread of
contaminants arid the threat of exposure to dioxin wastes in the tanks and drums on
site. The Vertac, Inc. site is safer, while studies continue toward .identifying final
cleanup actions.
21
-------
-------
T'" "'' his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
. site fact sheets for the State of Arkansas. The terms
and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as
described in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work
performed 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.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
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 ground water.
Berm: A ledge, wall or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
G-l
-------
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.
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.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecticide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure treating operations. It is highly toxic and water soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
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 parties 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 remedial
action, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(see PAHs and PNAs). Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes may
cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain system constructed of perforated pipes,
which is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
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.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
G-2
-------
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
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.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leak-
ing drums may be contained within oversized barrels as an interim measure prior to
removal and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering of water or other liquids through subsur-
face rock or soil layers, usually continuing downward to groundwater.
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.
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.
Poly chlorinated 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 because
they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them produces 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.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, andbiphenyls,
are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY;
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.
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.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land surface in which drainage collects; associ-
ated with underground caves and passages that facilitate the movement of liquids.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater. Slurry
walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated area and filling the
trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from passing through it. The
groundwater trapped within the area surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted
and treated.
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.
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals. They
include, light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroethylene,
benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic chemi-
cals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their volatile
G-4
-------
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
-------
------- |