EPA/540/4-90/011
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Georgia
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overviewvolume, 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 I
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
\ s 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
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-
111
-------
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.
-------
VI
-------
:s he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
I 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 xvhenever 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.
vn
-------
rHow does EPA learn^
tabottt potential i^
I hazardous waste
fsites?
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.
f What happens If
|-there is an imminent
danger?
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.
If there isn't an
= imminent danger,
~ how does EPA
I determine what i£ x
~ anj$ cleanup actions
should be 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
vin
-------
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
«: assessment
that a sedffiKf
eaddst what's Ihe
v«ij.'
-.5-.
HowdaesBFA.3a.sie; ,;
1 tfce «saJ*s of Hie ^ _ _
IX
-------
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). Thaf 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 do people firtd
^otrt wheite BPA *" ;s ^
; considers a site a
-v \ w MJ. ; v, 5
^national, priority for^ s ;
I cleanup using -^ ^s :
. Superfund money? ;| ^ c
No;
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.
$J:tefr a jsiteis, added
t|te KPL, W&at are -
/<
""-frffff^
,-r
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
; How are cleanup >v>
alternatives ;
^identified
I evaluated?
£
I
|
*-,
I
I Does the public haye~;
fa say in the final ^V y J\;
t cleanup decision? '',f^'" \
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 heeds, 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 encourages1 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, of 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. .
Yesi 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
n If eyeiy'deaimp
, actioh needs |p be
; jtoilpred toj.site, does
;- &e'des%j* of the,
~ remedy jneed to jbe^rr-V
tailotetl too?
xiii
-------
SUPERFUND
"" site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
'Once the design is
complete, how lortg
|" does it take to "
|-actuaUy cleanup
f- site and how much
? does it cost?
i ,T
I
^
I
r
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 ground water 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.
iX)ttce the cleanup
faction is complete/ is
[the site automatically
|"deieted" from the s~
\?
X X
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".
If 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.
for t!*e ~
pay?
XV
-------
XVI
-------
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 ecdlogical 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
xlnitial 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.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA IDS ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Site Description
Site Responsibility:
NPL LISTING HISTOJW
-Threats and Contaminants -
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:
Environmental Progress
JI $ I !, T -H
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.
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. I
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 Georgia
Georgia is located on the eastern seaboard and bordered by Tennessee and North
Carolina to the north/Tennessee and Alabama to the west, and Florida to the south.
The State covers 58,910 square miles and consists of the Atlantic coastal plains and
f latlands which give way to.the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge Mountains in the central
and northwest sections of the state. Georgia experienced a 16.1 percent increase in
population during the 1980s and currently has approximately 6,342,000 residents,
ranking 11th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing,
forestry, agriculture, and chemicals. Georgia manufacturing produces electronic and
electrical machinery, apparel, textiles, transportation equipment, food, lumber, and
paper. "
How Many Georgia Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
2
11
1
14
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01, 08, 09, 10 1 site
Cong. District 03, 06 3 sites
Cong. District 02 4 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
12--
10--
8--
4 --
2 - -
Soil GW Seds SW
Contamination Area
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
pesticides, and radiation.
GroundwaterVolatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and pesticides.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics) and
pesticides.
Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* ?
Site ^^^ Remedy ^^^ Remedy ^^^ Cleanup
Studies ^^P" Selected ^^r Design ^^r Ongoing
f 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 Georgia, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Georgia Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(404) 656-7404
(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
-------
The JVPL 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 on/y 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
-------
jrxuj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
£ies£> iuwcuu v/icetuujj at JL
She Name
CEDARTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC.
CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. LDFL
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO.
HERCULES, INC. 009 LANDFILL
LUMINOUS PROCESSES
MARINE CORP LOGISTICS BASE
MARZONE INC./CHEVRON CHEM. CO.
MATHIS BROS. LDFL (S. MARBLE TOP RD)
MONSANTO CO.
POWERSVILLE LANDFILL
T. H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO.
USAF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS INC.
\cju OAtcia
County
POLK
POLK
POLK
DOUGHERTY
GLYNN
CLARKE
DOUGHERTY
TIFT
WALKER
RICHMOND
PEACH
DOUGHERTY
HOUSTON
PEACH
juu uuu
NPL
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Delete
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
3 oitttc UA urcuAgia,
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
02/16/90 *- *-
03/31/89 «*
01/22/87 *
10/04/89 *
09/01/84 *
12/30/82 * "^ + *
11/21/89 * "K
10/04/89 "^ *"
03/31/89 "^
09/01/84 *" B^
09/01/84 * "K *-
03/31/89 *" «^
07/07/87 "*"
06/24/88 *- "*-
-------
-------
-------
CEDARTOWN
INDUSTRIES, INC.
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD095840674
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Polk County
Southwest section of Cedartown
The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site covers 7 acres in the southwest section of
Cedartown. Originally, the site was the location of a foundry and machine shop. From
1978 to 1980, Cedartown Industries operated a secondary lead smelter with lead from
discarded automobile batteries that were stored on the site. In 1980, the company sold
the property to H & M Transfer Co., which parks and repairs its vehicles on a portion of
the site. Remaining on site when Cedartown Industries ceased operations, were an
uncovered pile containing 5,000 cubic yards of slag and flue dust from the smelting
operations and a 32,000-gallon lined surface impoundment The Newala Limestone
Formation underlies the site. It feeds a large spring that is the sole source of water for
Cedartown's water system. This spring and a well that supplies the Polk County water
system, both within 3 miles of the site, provide drinking water to an estimated 25,700
people. The site is adjacent to Cedar Creek, which is used for fishing and other
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments in the impoundment and the soil around the slag pile are
contaminated with lead from former site operations. People on the site
could be exposed to lead by touching or accidentally ingesting
contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
CEDARTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Removal of the contaminated slag pile is being done under
an Administrative Order.
Entire Site: A study by the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination is scheduled to begin in 1990. The study will determine the
extent of the contamination and will identify alternative technologies for the
cleanup.
Site Facts: Negotiations have been completed and the Consent Order has been signed
with five parties potentially responsible for the site contamination to study the extent of
the contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Cedartown Industries site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the
site does not currently pose an immediate threat to the public or the environment,
while further studies are made into the best alternatives for permanent clean up are
taking place.
-------
CEDARTOWN
LANDFILL
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD980495402
Site Description
IPAL
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Polk County
Cedartown
The Cedartown Municipal Landfill covers approximately 130 acres just outside of
Cedartown. The area is an abandoned iron ore mine that was used as a municipal
landfill by the City of Cedartown from the early 1960s until late in 1980. The City owns
the land and had a permit from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to
operate it as a sanitary landfill, accepting industrial wastes from local industries.
According to the City, the landfill was covered with soil after it was closed in 1981. The
City periodically stockpiles construction rubble and soil on the site and uses it for fill
material for other areas. Cedartown Spring, 8,500 feet from the site, serves as a water
supply source for approximately 8,600 Cedartown residents. The Knox and Newala
Geologic Formations, both within 3 miles of the site, provide drinking water to the
25,000 residents of Polk County.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene from former waste
disposal activities. Site contamination poses a risk to those individuals
who accidentally ingest or make direct contact with the contaminated
groundwater or soils.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will begin a study, scheduled to start in 1990, to determine the extent of
contamination at the site and to identify alternative technologies for the
cleanup. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the investigation findings and select
the final cleanup strategy for contamination.
Site Facts: Negotiations have been completed and a Consent Order was signed on
March 30, 1990 with 15 parties potentially responsible for the contamination of the site
to conduct a study on the nature and extent of contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Cedartown Municipal Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA conducted
preliminary investigations and determined that the site does not currently pose an
immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while further
studies into the best alternatives for permanent cleanup are taking place.
-------
DIAMOND SHAM
CORP. LANDFILL
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD990741092
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Polk County
West of Cedartown
The Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill site is less than 1 acre in size and is located at
the intersection of West Avenue and 10th Street in Cedartown. Between 1972 and
1977, the company buried drummed and bulk waste in five 6-foot deep trenches at the
landfill. According to the company, the waste included fungicides, amides, oil, and oil
sludges, esters, alcohols, and metallic salts. The trenches are unlined, in an area of
permeable soils, and in the floodplain of Cedar Creek, which is a major tributary of the
Coosa River. Area groundwater underlying the site is shallow. An estimated 25,000
people draw drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the site. The Cedartown
Spring is a sole source of water supply for the City of Cedartown, while Cave Springs
well serves Polk County. Cedar Creek has been used for fishing and possibly for
swimming.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and surface and subsurface soils are contaminated
with heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, and zinc from
wastes deposited on the site. Potential health threats include direct
contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface
water, and soils as well as breathing of contaminated dust and
particulates on the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the groundwater and soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUSWASTE SITES
continued
-------
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Groundwater and Soil: The party potentially responsible for the site
contamination, Henkel Corporation, is planning to conduct an investigation
into the nature and extent of the groundwater and soil contamination at the
site in 1991. The investigation will define the nature and extent of the contamination
and will recommend alternatives for final groundwater and soil cleanup. The
investigation is planned to be completed in 1993. Henkel Corporation is presently
conducting a limited investigation to identify areas where the study should focus and
sources of contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA
determined, after an initial evaluation, that the site does not currently pose an
immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while studies
into a permanent cleanup solution are being conducted by the Henkel Corporation.
-------
FIRESTONE XI
AND RUBBE
COMPANY
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD990855074
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dougherty County
Albany
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company has manufactured tires in this 330-acre site in
Albany since 1968. Until 1980, drums of waste cement were stored on the ground in
an area covering less than 1 acre. Wastes were buried in a pit on another area of the
site during fire-training exercises. Groundwater in this area has been found to be
contaminated. The facility received interim approval from the EPA for the
management of hazardous wastes; however, the final permit application has been
withdrawn. Approximately 400 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3
miles of the site. Wells drawing on the contaminated groundwater are also used for
irrigating 1,000 acres of cropland.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including benzene and toluene from former waste disposal practices.
Heavy metals including zinc also have been found in the groundwater
underlying the site. Touching or drinking the contaminated groundwater
on the site could threaten the health of residents using the resource. Use
of contaminated water to irrigate crops could also expose people to
chemicals.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination are scheduled to begin a study to determine the type and
extent of contamination and will also evaluate the cleanup alternatives.
Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the findings of the site
investigators and select a final cleanup strategy to address groundwater contamination
and any additional contamination areas identified in the study.
Site Facts: On March 28,1990, the EPA sent a special notice tetter requesting that the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination conduct the investigation into
contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. site to the NPL, and performing a
preliminary investigation, the EPA determined that the site does not present an
immediate threat to the neighboring community or the environment while further
studies into the best possible method for permanent cleanup are taking place.
-------
HERCULES, IN
009 LANDFIL
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD980556906
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Glynn County
Brunswick
Alias:
O09 Landfill
The Hercules, Inc. 009 Landfill covers 7 acres on a 16 1/2-acre parcel of land. The
company manufactured the insecticide toxaphene and disposed of approximately
19,300 tons of solid wastes from its Brunswick plant on this now inactive site. The
landfill began operations in 1976 with a State permit, which was revoked in 1980
because of well contamination. Hercules fenced the landfill, covered the area with
clean soil, contoured it to prevent runoff, and planted vegetation on it. The closest
residence is 200 yards from the site. There are private wells within 1/4 mile of the site.
Residential wells in the area generally tap the shallow aquifer underlying the site. The
landfill is in a marshland and 1 mile from coastal wetlands.
Site Responsibility: This sjte js 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
The shallow and deep groundwater, sediments in a drainage ditch, and
soil are cofitaminated with toxaphene. People who touch or accidentally
ingest contaminated groundwater, sediments, or soil may be at risk.
However, the levels of toxaphene found in private wells are below the
EPA limit for this chemical in drinking water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire, site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
HERCULES, INC. OO9 LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Hercules is studying the type and extent of contamination at
the site. Once the study is finished in 1991, the EPA will review the
investigation findings and select final cleanup remedies for groundwater,
sediment and soil contamination at the site.
Site Facts: Hercules and the EPA agreed, under a Consent Order In 1988, that the
company would conduct a detailed study of the extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
Actions before NPL Listing to fence and cover the landfill reduced risks of direct contact
and migration of contaminants. After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed
preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate actions were needed at
the Hercules Inc. 009 Landfill while further studies and cleanup actions are taking place.
';~ 1.'....,
io
-------
LUMINOUS PR
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD990855819
ES
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Clarke County
Athens
The 1-acre Luminous Processes site is a defunct manufacturing plant. The company
was operational from 1952 to 1978 and used radioactive isotopes to paint watch and
clock dials. The site was abandoned by the owners in 1980. Radioactive contamination
was left behind in the soil and the building on the site. The site was originally licensed
by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. , ,
Site .Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Deleted: 12/30/82
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with radium-226 and tritium from former
manufacturing processes.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase that focused on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
LUMINOUS PROCESSES
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Site cleanup began in June 1982. State workers excavated
18,015 cubic feet of contaminated soil, shipped 2,402 drums, and disposed
of 482.7 millicuries of radium-226. They backfilled'the excavated areas,
seeded them with grass, and closed access to the public. The next step was removing
contaminated structures from inside the building and cleaning up polluted areas
outdoors that had not been previously identified. The site was also fenced, and
warning signs were posted. The entire cleanup, including site restoration, was
completed in 5 months.
Site Facts: In April 1982, the EPA and the State entered into a Cooperative Agreement
for cleanup actions to be conducted in three phases. All cleanup actions at the site
were completed prior to the initiation of the first final NPL list.
Environmental Progress
As a result of the cleanup activities described above, and based on subsequent
sampling to ensure that all radiation sources and contaminated materials had been
removed, the EPA and the State deleted the site from the NPL. The Luminous
Processes site has been restored to a safe condition and no longer poses a threat to
the neighboring community and surrounding environment.
12
-------
MARINE CORPS
tA!
^Tx.-
LOGISTICS BASE
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GA7170023694
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dougherty County
5 miles southeast of Albany
Aliases:
USMC Logistics Base 555
MCLB
The Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) site is divided into three areas: MCLB (the
facility), the Boyette Housing Area, and the Branch Clinic. Work in support of the base
mission includes maintenance, repairs and rebuilding of ground combat and combat
support equipment, fuel storage, and motor transport. Maintenance activities at MCLB
over the years generated a variety of materials that were disposed of on the facility.
These materials include construction debris; miscellaneous industrial wastes including
waste fuel, oil paints, thinners, and solvents; and municipal waste water treatment plant
sludge. Current disposal practices are regularly monitored for conformance with local,
State, and Federal regulations. Fourteen potential sources of contamination have been
identified within the area of the site. The base is surrounded by agricultural, residential,
and commercial lands. Four aquifers underlie MCLB and the Albany area. From
shallow to deep they are: the Ocala, Tallahatta, Clayton, and Providence Aquifier. The
4,200 military personnel and dependants living on the base obtain drinking water from
three multi-aquifer artesian wells tapping the three upper aquifers.
Site Responsibility: y^is site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
n\
Threats and Contaminants
In 1986, the Marine Corps found the pesticides DDE and DDT, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments from the bottom of a
drainage ditch that had formerly received hazardous substances. A study
completed in 1987 indicated high levels of arsenic, chromium, lead,
methylene chloride, and trichlorethylene (TCE) in shallow soils. A 1989
sampling showed TCE and trace amounts of metals in monitoring wells
near the sludge drying beds of the industrial waste treatment plant. There
are currently no data which indicate immediate threats to the environment
or human health; however, a risk assessment will be an initial step in the
study to determine the nature and extent of contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. > '.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Marine Corps cleaned up the sludge drying beds in c:
accordance with a permit issued under Federal regulation. Workers
»_^ removed contaminated materials from the beds and transported them to an
EPA-approved disposal facility. The beds were then covered with a 12-inch concrete
cap in 1988. Part of the site closure plan requires that six test wells be installed to
pump groundwater to the surface and treat it to remove contaminants. Three test
wells have been installed to date, and additional wells will be installed based on the -,.-.
results from current treatment.
Entire Site: The Navy/Marine Corps have planned an intensive study of
soil and groundwater contamination at the site for the beginning of 1990,;
This investigation, slated for completion in early 1992, will explore the ;
nature and extent of pollution problems at the site and will recommend the best
options for final cleanup. ' ' 'I
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Agreement for remedial action has been negotiated ,
between the Navy/MCLB, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the EPA.
The Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), which seeks to
identify, investigate, and control contamination from hazardous materials on DOD
properties. . ; . ' .:<
Environmental Progress
By removing the contaminated sludge from the drying b6ds; capping the beds, and
installing monitoring wells, the Navy/Marine Corps has,significantly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials.at the Marine Corps tp'gistics Base: while
further studies into potential health risks and cleanup strategies for th'e-site are taking
place. ': , ;:'.;,.,'..:'. '*"..';',,'';,;.,."','*'.'^.'..'; , ".v
14
-------
MARZONE INC.
CHEVRON P
CHEMICAL CO*
GEORGIA L-
EPA ID# GAD991275686
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Tift County
Tifton
The now-defunct Marzone, Inc. pesticide plant was established in 1950 at this 3-acre
site in Tifton, at the junction of Golden Road and the Georgia Southern and Florida
Railroad line. The facility operated until 1982, when a new owner began using its
warehouse as a distribution center. Chevron Chemical Co. started blending dry
powders at the site in the 1950s and constructed a building,for formulating liquids,
some time during 1963 through 1964. This owner also added a drum storage facility,
three 10,000-galIon solvent tanks, one 12,000-gallon toxaphene (insecticide) tank, and a
wastewater pond. The site has changed ownership five times since 1970; four of
these owners were agricultural chemical companies; The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division's records show numerous, environmental problems at the site
starting in 1973. In May 1984, the EPA andthe State inspected the site and found'that
pesticides were present in the soils and groundwater. Within 3: miles of the site, are 28
private wells tapping the shallow, contaminated aquifer. These wells are the sole
source of drinking water for the residents in the .area'.; - v,'"- -. :: ; , - - .-. '-,;
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPLLISTING HISTORY,
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Qontaminanjtsc
, The .groundwater .a'nji spii£ ha v$ jb'e'ei^ pest ^ides!':'" ,
, ;inc!udingT;o^phen^
Discoloration 'of the soiTand numerous de'a'd bfrds'oh the' site'ihdicated
the spread of contamination. Imminent threats to public health that '
existed at the site from direct contact with and inhalation of pesticide
residues found in the groundwater and soils have since been removed.
Gum Creek, located 250 yards south of the site, receives the bulk of the
drainage from the site and could potentially be polluted.
March 1990
N P L R AZ A R D D ITS' WASTE SiTE S'~
continued
-------
MARZONE INC./ CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
x" Emergency Actions: In 1984, EPA emergency workers conducted an
extensive cleanup to eliminate the immediate threats at the site. The
_ actions performed were: (1) removal and disposal of stored wastes; (2)
decontamination of buildings and equipment; (3) excavation of contaminated surface
soils; (4) draining water and accumulated sediments in a truck-loading area near the
railroad tracks; and (5) transport of 1,700 tons of waste materials to an EPA-regulated
disposal facility. Chevron Chemical Co., responding to a 1985 agreement with the EPA,
agreed to help clean up the site. The company subsequently excavated the
wastewater lagoon, a drainage ditch, and a railroad ditch; filled them in; and transported
the contaminated soil to an EPA-approved disposal facility. Other owners also
undertook cleanup actions in the early 1980s, before the site came to EPA's attention.
In 1984, Kova Fertilizer removed 49 drums of pesticide wastes. These initial actions
have stabilized conditions at the site while the EPA pursues alternatives for final site
cleanup.
Groundwater: Groundwater cleanup is required, and the EPA is seeking a
party potentially responsible for the site contamination to perform an
intensive study of groundwater problems. The study is planned to start in
1990 and end in mid-1992. It will explore the nature and extent of the contamination
and will recommend the best alternatives for final cleanup of the groundwater.
Site Facts: Under a Consent Agreement with the EPA signed in April 1985, Chevron
agreed to conduct initial cleanup actions to stabilize the site. Notice, letters were sent
on March 10,1989 to the parties potentially responsible for the contamination of the
site. The public is concerned about possible contamination of private water wells.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove wastes and excavate soils and sediments from the
Marzone/Chevron site have greatly reduced the immediate threats to the surrounding
community and the environment until final cleanup actions can be performed.
16
-------
MATHIS BROS.
LANDFILL
(S. MARBLE T,
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD980838619
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Walker County
In Lafayette, along the east side of S. Marble Top
Rd.
The privately owned Mathis Bros. Landfill operated on this 20-acre parcel on South
Marble Top Road in Lafayette, 1 1/2 miles north-northwest of Kensington. Only
5 acres of the hilltop property were used for waste disposal. The landfill operated from
1974 to.'^SO.and had a permit from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to
accept nonhazardous wastes. Operators buried approximately 3,000 tons of hazardous
wastes in unlined trenches while the landfill was in business. Records from one
generator, ;Velsicol, Chemical Corp., indicated that their wastes contained arsenic,
organic chemicals, and herbicides. The landfill was abandoned some time after 1980.
The landfill is unprotected from the elements, and rusted, leaking drums lie on the site
surface. Most of the land use within a mile around the site is pasture and forest. The
Kensington Water and Sewer Authority provides drinking water to approximately 4,300
people from wells 1 1/2 miles south of the site, and a private well lies 1,900 feet away.
Aaestimated'75 people live within a 1-mile radius. Three homes are located within
1,000 feet of the site, and 25 are within 1/2 mile. Surface water within 3 miles
downstream of the wastes is used for fishing and irrigation. The soil under the wastes
is permeable, a condition that facilitates movement of contaminants into groundwater,
40 feet below the soil surface.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
;-.-.. federal and potentially responsible
-,: ' parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01722/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Lead from former waste disposal practices was found in sediments from
a drainage route west of the site and in soils off the site. On-site
contaminants found in the soil include lead and various residues from
herbicide production and latex waste from carpet manufacture. To date,
private wells have .shown no evidence of contamination; however, as a
result of the soil characteristics, the potential exists for the groundwater
serving these wells to become polluted. Although preliminary sampling
results have not revealed contamination in area water bodies, local
residents have reported fish kills.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
MATfflS BROS. LANDFILL (S. MARBLE TOP RD)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The party potentially responsible for contamination at this site
is conducting an intensive study of pollution problems. This investigation,
conducted under EPA monitoring, will explore the nature and extent of
contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for
completion in mid-1991.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA signed a Consent Decree with the party potentially
responsible for the contamination to accept financial responsibility for conducting the
study of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the Mathis Bros. Landfill
does not pose an immediate threat to local residents or the environment while studies
are being conducted to select the cleanup technologies for a permanent remedy at the
site.
18
-------
MONSANTO CO
GEORGIA
EJPA ID# GADOO1700699
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Richmond County
In Augusta on Marvin Griffin Road
Site Description
Two small landfills are the areas of concern at the 75-acre Monsanto Co. site on Marvin
Griff in Road in Augusta. The landfills, each about 6 feet deep, received hazardous
waste containing about 5% arsenic trisulfide. Workers disposed of phosphoric acid
sludge containing approximately 725 pounds of arsenic in the first landfill from 1966 to"
1971, when the landfill was closed. The second landfill, active from 1972 to 1974,
received plastic drums of sludge containing over 800 pounds of arsenic. The second
landfill was closed in 1977'. In 1979, the company began collecting data from two
monitoring wells, one downgmdientirom each site, and detected arsenic
contamination in the groundwater. The Tuscaloosa Aquifer, underlying the site,
supplies most of the drinking water used by area residents. Most residents near the
site use private wells. The Town of Gracewood, 2 1/2 miles from the site, uses the
aquifer to supply the water for its population of 1,500. The closest home is a mile from
the site. Butler Creek lies 1,180 feet southeast of the site, and Phinizy Swamp is 4,570
feet northeast of the landfills.
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
Groundwater is contaminated with arsenic from former disposal practices
at the landfills on the site. Potential threats include direct contact with
and drinking of contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
MONSANTO CO.
Response Action Status
X* Initial Actions: Approximately 830 pounds of arsenic wastes from the :
landfills were excavated, deposited in steel-lined drums, and disposed of off
site at a permitted waste management site. In 1983, Monsanto excavated
the landfills, and the remaining waste material was removed off site to a
permitted waste disposal site. The landfills were subsequently sampled, backfilled with
clay, and replanted.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
contamination at this site began an intensive study of site problems in
1989. This investigation, scheduled for completion in early 1991, will
determine the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination and will
recommend cleanup strategies. A draft report summarizing the results of the study for
cleanup of the entire site is scheduled for submittal in 1990.
Site Facts: The party potentially responsible for the contamination at the site signed an
Administrative Order on Consent on April 24, 1989, to perform the study of site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
The actions taken to remove the arsenic wastes and to cover the landfills have reduced
the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Monsanto Co. site while
further investigations into the cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
20
-------
POWERSVILLE
LANDFILL
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD980496954
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Peach County
Powersville
The Powersville Landfill covers 15 acres in the community of Powersville. Beginning in
the 1940s, the site was used as a borrow pit to provide sand and fill for local
construction projects. In 1969, Peach County began using the pit and the surrounding
area as a sanitary landfill for municipal and industrial waste. The County built a separate
waste disposal area at the landfill for pesticides and other hazardous materials in 1973
under a request by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. The landfill was
closed in 1979, after State officials concluded that it was no longer an acceptable site
for waste disposal. Residents became concerned about the unusual taste of their well
water and, in 1983, groundwater from an adjacent church well was found to be
contaminated. The landfill is situated in the recharge zone of three aquifers, one of
which is a major source for local water supplies. Approximately 40 to 50 residences
housing an estimated 150 people are within 1 mile of the site. The area is primarily
agricultural, with general crop farming, cattle and dairy farms, and orchards.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
ZE
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as vinyl chloride; heavy metals, including copper, zinc, and lead; and
pesticides such as dieldrin and lindane from the former waste disposal
activities. Soil in the waste fill area is contaminated with heavy metals
and pesticides such as alpha chlordane from the pesticide disposal
activities. The site has numerous erosion channels and gullies. If erosion
continues, contaminants may be transported to other areas and may pose
a health hazard to those who touch the contaminated soil. Because the
groundwater contains contaminants, people using well water may be at
risk. In addition, cattle or crops may accumulate contaminants if farmers
use well water for irrigation or watering livestock.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
zi
continued
-------
POWERSVILLE LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire site: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean.up the site,
which includes: (1) covering the hazardous waste and municipal fill areas
with a synthetic material or clay to prevent rainwater from coming into
contact with buried contaminants; (2) grading the area so water drains
away from the cover into natural drainage channels; (3) closing the landfill according to
Federal procedures; (4) installing additional monitoring wells to determine whether the
contamination is moving from the covered areas; and (5) extending the municipal water
supply to residences affected by contaminated well water. In addition, the site deed
will include provisions to ensure that the cleanup is not affected by future construction
and that water wells are not drilled near the site. The site will be inspected to ensure
that erosion or settling is not occurring. The parties potentially responsible for the
contamination are currently designing a plan to cover the landfill and extend the
municipal water supply. Once the design phase is completed in 1991, cleanup
activities will begin.
Site Facts: In 1988, a Consent Decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court calling for
cleanup of the site, including placing a soil cover on the site and providing alternate
water supplies for residential and industrial needs.
\Envtronmental Progress
After placing the Powersville Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA conducted a preliminary
evaluation and determined that the site did not currently pose an immediate threat to
the community or the environment while detailed studies leading to the final cleanup
activities were taking place.
22
-------
T. H. AGRICULT
& NUTRITION CO
GEORGIA
EPAID# GAD042101261
Site Description
>
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dougherty County
In the suburbs of Albany
The T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. prepared and packaged pesticides on this
7-acre site in Albany. The site is in an agricultural area of the state. The company
purchased the facility in 1966 from a previous operator. The company's operations
continued until 1976. The facility served as a warehouse/distribution center until 1982,
when it was closed. During the 1970s, and possibly in the late 1960s, the company
operated under the name Thompson-Hay ward Chemical Co. and took the present name
in 1981. An; estimated 3,300 Lee County residents within 3 miles of the site obtain
drinking water from wells that are drilled into the shallow, contaminated aquifer.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with pesticides including
toxaphene, lindane, DDT, and methyl parathion from former pesticide
production and disposal activities at the site. The health of people who
drink or touch the contaminated groundwater could be adversely affected.
Kinchafoonee Creek is less than 1 mile northeast of the site and joins
Muchalee Creek and the Flin River, which are dammed to form Lake
Worth. Lake Worth is used for recreational activities and to generate
electricity.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO.
Response Action Status
oversaw the action.
Initial Actions: In 1984, the T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. transported
contaminated soils, debris, and building rubble from the site to an approved
hazardous waste facility. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division ;
Entire Site: The EPA will conduct an investigation, scheduled to begin in
1990, to determine the type and extent of the contamination at the site and
to identify measures for cleaning up the site. The work to clean up the site
is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA sent out special notices on March 29, 1990 to the parties
potentially responsible for the site contamination. The EPA invited them to participate
and assume responsibility for the the site investigation process.
\Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated materials from the T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. site, the
immediate threat of exposure to hazardous substances has been greatly reduced, while
investigations into alternatives for a permanent cleanup are taking place.
24
-------
USAF ROBINS
AIR FORCE BA
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GA1570024330
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 03
Houston County
East of the City of Warner Robins
Robins Air Force Base covers 8,855 acres and is situated east of the City of Warner
Robins in the Coastal Plain of Georgia. The area includes a 1,200-acre wetland. Two
distinct areas make up this NPL site; Landfill #4 and an adjacent sludge lagoon. Landfill
#4 operated from 1965 to 1978, and the lagoon operated from about 1962 to 1978.
General refuse, garbage, and industrial wastes were disposed of in the landfill. The
lagoon received wastes from two industrial waste treatment plants and other waste
chemicals. The water supplies for the base and the City of Warner Robins come from
the Coastal Plain aquifer. More than 10,000 people could be affected, because ,>/;
contaminants have been detected in the groundwater near the site and in the surface
water on site. However, the general groundwater flow is to the east, away from the
City of Warner Robins and the base wells. The site is adjacent to a mixed hardwood
swamp along the western border of the Ocmulgee River floodplains.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including cadmium, lead, and cyanide and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene from
the former waste disposal practices have been detected in the
groundwater. The leachate from the site also contains heavy metals and
VOCs, along with the pesticide DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(RGBs). Pesticides such as chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin have been
detected in the sediments from a drainage ditch. Heavy metals and VOCs
have been detected in the soil, and TCE and phenols have been detected
in the surface water on site. People could be exposed to the
contaminants by accidentally coming into contact with contaminated
surface and groundwater. People may also be exposed to toxic chemicals
is by eating plants and animals that may contain bioaccumulated
contaminants from the wastes on site. The spread of hazardous materials
from the site could pose a threat to the adjacent wetland.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
USAF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA directed work at the lagoon and the landfill,
which included installing monitoring wells and sampling of the soils and
streams. The results obtained from the sampling and monitoring program
are being used to complete the contamination study reports.. The proposed
plan is scheduled to be submitted in 1990, and the EPA's final decision for a cleanup
remedy is scheduled to be submitted in early 1991. As a result of the studies
completed and the comments provided, the Air Force may propose two separate
cleanup approaches. One approach may include the source materials and groundwater,
and would maintain the current schedule. A second cleanup action may address
associated surface water and wetlands with any necessary cleanup actions, which will
be determined by future assessments.
Site Facts: Robins Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP), which is a program established by Congress in 1978 under the
Department of Defense (DOD). Under this program, the Air Force completed a records
search and a preliminary survey. A Federal Facility Agreement between the Air Force,
the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the EPA was completed and
executed on September 25, 1989. An agreement between the Air Force and the State
to recover costs for the investigation was completed at the same time. The agreement
contains schedules for conducting the current study to determine the nature and extent
of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress,
By installing a monitoring well system and by sampling soils and streams, the EPA and
the Air Force have taken initial actions to ensure the safety of the drinking water supply
and examine the potential for exposure to hazardous materials while the site undergoes
further investigations into the alternatives for cleanup of the site,
26
-------
WOOLFOLK C
WORKS INC.
GEORGIA
EPA ID# GAD003269578
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Peach County
In the center of Fort Valley
Site Description
The Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. site covers 18 acres near the center of Fort Valley.
The company began operation in 1910 as a lime-sulfur plant and has evolved into a full-
line pesticide plant manufacturing pesticides in liquid, dust, and granular forms for the
agricultural, lawn, and garden markets. The methods of handling these products over
the years have resulted in extensive contamination at the site. State records indicate
numerous instances of untreated industrial waste being discharged into surface waters.
During a routine inspection in 1979, the EPA discovered that the facility was
discharging unauthorized wastewater from the production of pesticides into Bay Creek.
Records indicate that the majority of the wastewaters were discharged into a storm
sewer on the site. The waste would flow into an open ditch located south of the plant
and then into Big Indian Creek. Three of the five Fort Valley municipal water supply
wells are within 1,000 feet of the facility. This system is the sole source of water in the
area. Late in 1986, the EPA found arsenic and lead in two of the wells. The
contamination did not, however, exceed Federal drinking water standards. An
estimated 10,000 people obtain drinking water from municipal 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: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants in the groundwater and soil consist of heavy metals
including lead and arsenic and pesticides including chlordane, DDT,
lindane, and toxaphene from former process wastes. The surface water
of the site was contaminated with arsenic, lindane, and toxaphene during
a storm. The municipal wells near the site are potentially contaminated
and may pose a possible health threat through the consumption of
groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
I-** Initial Actions: In 1986 to 1987, a former owner capped an area of
contamination, removed 3,700 yards of contaminated soils, and destroyed
and removed major contaminated structures to an off-site disposal facility.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will study the type and extent of groundwater contamination and will
evaluate the cleanup alternatives. This evaluation is expected to be
completed in 1992 at which time the EPA will select the appropriate remedies for final
site cleanup.
Site Facts: In spring 1990, negotiations were taking place between the EPA and the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination of the site to determine the
characterization of the contamination at the site and to identify possible cleanup
alternatives that would take place at the site.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove contaminated soils and prevent further site contamination
by capping the disposal areas have reduced the immediate threats to area residents
and the surrounding environment. The EPA has determined that no additional actions
are required to protect public health while further studies leading to selection of. the
final site remedy are conducted.
28
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Georgia. The terms and ab-
Lr, s breviations 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.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able 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 de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible 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.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into the earth until water is reached which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
G-l
-------
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off. ,
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
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 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].
Cooperative Agreement A contract between EPA and the states wherein a State agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis. , .,
Downgradienfc 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.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a SpeciarNdtice 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. V
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.
G-2
-------
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: 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.
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.
Polychiorinated 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.
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.
G-3
-------
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
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.
TricMoroethylene (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-
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-4
------- |