EPA/540/4-90/018
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Kentucky
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview............... iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
'' t.\ "
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a
1 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-
m
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
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 arid
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
-------
T- he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
. waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
" establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
'' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
ifow ott| potential ^^ x,
?NVt ^ >i V5s**^
^at Mppens if -
iS-iOi^v * J- . s , -. _ '
: is an'
anger?
?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
terejsn'tan
J5* ss xsjis''
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 ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
vm
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
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
»t , "
%%% v£U^
: 'S f \v
that a
jctext step?
V ^r .""
How does
of lite -
IX
-------
^-K
low ^S people find
u ^s sxi "> "* j ''
... _ 1-*s-s> x* ^ " v«
"^ X3f*<&: ">>-"=
a site a > - - j
ISBoml pdosity for J :
Cleanup using s"" ^s _ *"j
hxpexfunti money? !
s. * ,,,,, ,s,,x : ,5,f..; , :
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). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent/ long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data oh 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.
"Alter a site is added 7
to the NPl* wto are ~
iM steps |o"
"
,<"
. '>'
''«'
< ' , K"
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
the public have
»^i' ',*' ,j '
say m me final
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the ...
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study. .. ;
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their .
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost. ,
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and.
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
xu
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are. large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be £j
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the "action needs to be
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
to j* site,
to f>e
tailored too?
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
Once the design is
="~ " !,iiowloitg
it take to
the
and &ow much
Cdoes it cost?
E
«" - ^
ction is complete/ is
site automatically
GSIPL?
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to .safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences/a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, hi some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if 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 f, " \ -«., ' " *v - - ^
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to Cwa JPP^ make patties
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.
foe the
SVX.
,> ,f%
xv
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
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.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
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, sdil 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.
v\ -
'" *w.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
xix
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of K
Kentucky is located between the Midwestern states and the Southeastern states along
the western side of the Appalachian Mountains. The State covers 40,410 square miles
and consists of the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern portion of the state, knobbed
hills to the north, bluegrass in the central region, wooded hillsides, and the Western
Coal Field. Kentucky experienced a 1.8 percent increase in population during the 1980s
and currently has approximately 3,727,000 residents, ranking 23rd in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries are manufacturing,-coal mining, construction, and agriculture.
Kentucky manufactures food products, electronic/electrical equipment, apparel, primary
metals, chemicals and related products, and nonelectrical machinery.
How Many Kentucky Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
4
13
a
17
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
District 01
District 02
District 03
District 04
Cong. District 07
5 sites
6 sites
2 sites
2 sites
2 sites
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process* ?
Site
Studies
f Remedy
"Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 13 site as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Kentucky, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Kentucky Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(502)564-6716
(404) 257-2234
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
«*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
»- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
«*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
K A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
** 4fe **
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
^*Wfc?ft^ JbWVVMJllA ^^AV****1*W Mt»
She Name
AIRCO CARBIDE, INC./DIV AIRCO INC.
B.F. GOODRICH (CALVERT CITY)
BRANTLEY LANDFILL
CALDWELL LACE LEATHER CO
DiSTLER BRICKYARD
DISTLER FARM
FORT HARTFORD COAL STONE QUARRY
GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
GREEN RIVER DISPOSAL
HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL
LEES LANE LANDFILL
MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL
NEWPORT DUMP
RED PENN SANITATION CO. LANDFILL
SMITH'S FARM BROOKS
TAYLOR A L
TRl-CITY INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL
JklJL *J MAI»V>
County
MARSHALL
MARSHALL
MCLEAN
LOGAN
HARDIN
JEFFERSON
OHIO
GRAVES
DAVIES
HARDIN
JEFFERSON
FLEMING
CAMPBELL
OLDHAM
BULLITT
BULLITT
BULLITT
3 JLU I.AJ
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Prop.
Prop.
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
.\i V?bO.I,v; VJ, JLXY7.Ul.UVr.IXjr
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
09/01/84 *- *- * *
09/01/83 "K *- * +
02/21/90 +
06/24/88 * +
09/01/83 * "^ ^ ^ *
09/01/83 «*- ^ ^ ^ +
Q8/24/88 <*
06/24/88 «*
06^4/88 ^
07/01/87 * <*-
09/01/83 "K ^ ^- ^- ^ ^~
06/01/86 * *
09/01/83 * ^ ^ ^- ^ ^
03/31/89 "^ "^
06/01/86 + + . +
09/01/83 "K "K *- ^ ^- ^
03/31/89 "K "K
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
AIRCO CARBIDE, INC./
DIVISION AIRCO IN!
KENTUCKY
EPA ID # KYD041981010
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Marshall County
1/2 miles northeast
ofCalvertCity
Site Description
The 2 3/4-acre Airco Carbide site is an industrial /anc/f/7/that lies near the southern bank
of the Tennessee River. From the mid-1950s until 1971, the landfill accepted 18,000
tons of caustics, acids, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), zinc, mercuric acetate, and
mercuric chloride. From 1971 to 1980, an industrial lessee dumped 14,000 tons of
metal-contaminated coal ash at the landfill, as well as polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), ferric
hydroxide sludge, and construction wastes. The landfill was unregulated until 1968,
when it received a permit under Kentucky's new solid waste management program.
The landfill was capped and closed in 1981. Another Superfund site, B.F. Goodrich
(Calvert City), borders the Airco property on the east. Because of their proximity and a
common history of use, these two sites were studied together and will undergo a
combined cleanup. This site is located in a highly industrialized area. Approximately
3,600 people live in nearby Calvert City, and the closest residents live about 1 mile
south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, and soil are contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs
including benzene and toluene from the former waste disposal practices.
Direct contact with or accidentally ingesting the contaminated surface
soils, groundwater, and drainage sediments poses a risk to human health.
Cleanup Status
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
i
continued
-------
AIRCO CARBIDE, INC./DIVISION AIRCO INC.
Response Action Summary
Initial Actions: When Air Products, Inc., the industrial lessee,
discontinued use of the site in 1980, it closed the landfill in accordance
with a State-approved plan. In 1981, Air Products constructed a clay cap
over the landfill, a measure designed to keep rainwater and runoff'from spreading site
contaminants.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following remedies for the
Airco Carbide site, in conjunction with cleanup at the adjacent B.F.
Goodrich site. The remedies for groundwater are: (1) extract and treat
contaminated groundwater; and (2) discharge treated water to the Tennessee River
using a permitted outfall. The selected remedies for soil are: (1} impose deed
restrictions to prevent residential development on the site; (2) excavate contaminated
surface soils around portions of the landfill and place them in the former burn pit area on
the Goodrich site; and (3) build an organic vapor recovery system and impermeable cap
over the burn pit. The selected remedies for the landfill includes: (1) rebuild the* dikes
around the landfill for flood prevention; (2) improve the existing clay landfill cap by,
adding more clay and re-contouring the surface; and (3) install a system for extracting
leachate from the waste. The parties potentially responsible for the contamination at
the Airco Carbide and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy in 1989.
Site Facts: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the
Airco Carbide and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy, but the State intervened,
and the activity has been temporarily suspended. The State also wanted soil and ' ;
sediment cleanup to occur in the areas surrounding the landfill. This issue has now
been resolved due to State legislative amendments, and activities are.continuing.
Environmental Progress
The closure activities described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials at the Airco Carbide site while further investigations and
cleanup activities are being completed.
-------
B.R GOODRICH
(CALVERT CITY)
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD006370167
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Marshall County
Calvert City
Site Description
The B.F. Goodrich site is a 2-acre industrial landfill near the southern bank of the
Tennessee River. The B.F. Goodrich Company disposed of wastes on the site from
1969 to 1972 and engineered a former creek channel for landfilling. Workers disposed
of 54,000 tons of construction waste and plant trash, buried 370 cubic yards of salt-
brine sludge, and burned over 2 million gallons of liquid chlorinated organics in several
burn pits at the site. From 1973 to 1980, the only waste disposed of at the site was
excavation dirt. In 1980, an inspection by the Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection disclosed a leaching problem along the river
side of the landfill. The landfill was closed under a State-approved closure plan in 1980.
Another Superfund site, Airco Carbide, Inc., borders the Goodrich property on the east.
Because of their proximity and a common history of use, these two sites were studied
together and will undergo a combined cleanup. The site is located in a highly
industrialized area. Approximately 3,600 people live in nearby Calvert City, and the
closest residents are about 1 mile south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene from the former waste
disposal activities. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of
contaminated groundwater,-surface soils, or sediments poses a health
risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
B.F. GOODRICH (CALVERT CITY)
Cleanup Status
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Summary
Initial Actions: Workers sealed the landfill in 1980 with a clay cap to
prevent rainwater and runoff from spreading contaminants and then
planted the area. , /
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the remedy for the site, which will
be cleaned up in conjunction with the adjacent Airco site. The remedy for
groundwater includes: (1) extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and
(2) discharge treated water to the Tennessee River via a permitted outfall.
The remedy for soil includes: (1) excavate contaminated surface soils around portions
of the landfill; (2) place them in the former burn pit area; and (3) build an organic vapor
recovery system and cap over the burn pit. The selected remedy for the landfill
includes: (1) rebuild the dikes around the landfill for flood prevention; (2) improve the
existing clay landfill cap by adding more clay and recontouring the surface; (3) install a
system for extracting leachate from below the waste; and (4) impose deed restrictions
to prevent residential development on the site. The parties potentially responsible for
the contamination at the Airco and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy in early
1989. -
Site Facts: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the
Airco Carbide and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy in 1989, but the State
intervened, and the activity has been temporarily suspended. The State wanted soil and
sediment cleanup to occur in the areas surrounding the landfills. This issue has now
been resolved due to State legislative amendments, and activities are continuing.
Environmental Progress
Sealing the landfill with a cap and stopping further dumping activities at the site have
significantly reduced the potential for exposure to contaminants until the planned
cleanup activities occur at the B.F. Goodrich site.
-------
BRANTLEY
LANDFILL
KENTUCKY
EPA ID # KYD980501019
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
McLean County
Highway 85
Alias:
Barmet of Kentucky
Site Description
The Brantley Landfill site was used as a coal strip mining pit in the late 1960s. In 1978,
Doug Brantley and Sons, Inc. received an industrial landfill permit for the disposal of salt
cake fines, a by-product from Barmet Aluminum Corporation's aluminum recycling
operation. Before the landfill was closed in 1980, 250,000 tons of salt cake fines were
disposed. Salt cake fines are dust-like material containing various contaminants that
react with water to form gases, including ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen
sulfide. The waste was deposited in pond water in the mine and is also believed to
have been deposited below the water table. A layer of soil placed over the landfill area
during closure has partially eroded, and some waste materials are exposed. In 1986,
the EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD) conducted air monitoring in the
vicinity of the Brantley Landfill. Detectable concentrations of ammonia were measured
in most samples downwind from the disposal area. Moreover, the Kentucky Division of
Air Pollution Control has received numerous complaints from residents of ammonia
odor. In 1987, ESD collected soil, water, and sediment samples at and around the
landfill, which showed that the site was contaminated. Land use within a 1-mile radius
of the site is primarily agricultural and residential. Approximately 200 people live within
1/4 mile of the site.' There are six private wells within a 1-mile radius of the site; the
closest is approximately 500 feet north of the landfill and belongs to the current site
owner.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Soil beneath the landfill cap is contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, copper, titanium, vanadium, aluminum, magnesium, and
sodium from former waste disposal practices. The salt cake fines contain
various heavy metals and react violently with water to form several gases,
including ammonia. Dust and gas emissions have been reported at the
site, but the site has since been closed and covered. Placement of
wastes below the water table could have caused groundwater
contamination, which could affect drinking water sources. The site has
been fenced to restrict access.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
BRANTLEY LANDFILL
Cleanup Status
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Summary
Entire Site: The EPA is planning to begin a study of the type and extent of
site contamination in 1990. The investigation will also recommend the
best'strategies for final cleanup. After completion of the study, slated for
1991, the EPA will select the cleanup strategy and will begin cleanup activities.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order w'\\\ be signed by Barmet Aluminum Corporation to
address the inadequacy of the cover over the landfill area.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Brantley Landfill site while
further investigations and long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
-------
CALDWELL LACE
LEATHER C
KENTUCKY
EPA ID # KYD045738291
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Logan County
1/2 mile northwest
of Auburn
The 40-acre Caldwell Lace Leather Company site consists of three tannery waste areas.
From 1972 to 1982, wastes such as chrome and vegetable tanning sludge from
the leather-tanning process were buried in trenches or placed in unlined lagoons in a 5
1/2-acre area of the property. In 1982, the Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) granted a permit to Caldwell to mix waste
sludges into the soil on a 29-acre landfarm. This method of disposal continued until
1985. KNREPC granted a conditional permit in 1983 for a third disposal area, a 5-acre
landfill, which accepted only solid wastes from tannery operations. Leather-tanning
operations occurred at the facility until 1985 when it was sold to North Park, Inc. In
1983, KNREPC detected chromium in a private well 1,200 feet from the landfill area.
This well has been taken out of service. Approximately 600 people obtain drinking
water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. The closest surface water intake for
a public water system is 2 miles southeast of the site. The majority of people around
the site are now connected to the public water supply.
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
A private well 1,200 feet from the landfill area is contaminated with lead
and hexavalent chromium, the most toxic form of chromium. This
contamination occurred from the site landfills and disposal areas. The site
presents a potential risk to public health because of the possible exposure
to chromium and lead from drinking the groundwater.
Cleanup Status
This site is being addressed in an initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
CALDWELL LACE LEATHER COMPANY
Response Action Summary
Initial Action: The site has been regradecl and capped to prevent
exposure to the contaminated materials. A fence surrounding the site
prevents access by people and animals.
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA began a study to determine the type and
extent of the contamination at the site. An initial sampling program for the
study is scheduled to take place in 1990. The study, which is expected to
be completed in 1992, will recommend alternatives for site cleanup. As part of the plan
to close the site properly, Caldwell and North Park, Inc. have been monitoring surface
water and groundwater to track the extent of the contamination.
Site Facts: In 1984, Caldwell entered into an Agreed Order with the State to correct
past violations and to prevent further violations of State law. In 1985, the State
approved a plan to close the old landfill.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions of capping the site and restricting access with a security fence have
reduced potential for exposure and contaminant migration. Monitoring activities,
currently under way, will ensure that the contamination plume does not extend into
public and private drinking supplies.
-------
DISTLER BRICKY
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980602155
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hardin County
1/2 mile southeast of West Point
The 3-acre Distler Brickyard site is located on a 70-acre abandoned brick manufacturing
plant property that operated from the late 1800s until the mid-1970s. In 1976, the
property was leased by Kentucky Liquid Recycling, Inc., which began transporting
waste to the brickyard property. Waste disposal continued at the site until 1979, when
the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet ordered disposal
operations to cease. A brick complex, associated buildings, and an open field covered
with grasses and shrubs are located on the site. There were approximately 2,300
drums on the site, 1,550 of which contained various liquids, sludges, and solids.
Spillage from the deteriorated drums killed grass, trees, and birds on the site. A
contaminated groundwater plume is located beneath the site and could threaten the
city drinking water wells and the Ohio River. Approximately 3,000 people live within a
4-mile radius of the site and 70,000 people depend on wells within a 3-mile radius of
the site for drinking water. The site is partially fenced, and a railroad track runs through
the site. Sparks from the railroad caused a fire in 1980. Runoff irom the site flows to
an unnamed tributary of Bee Branch, which flows through the site. Portions of the site
are in the 50- and 100-year floodplains of the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in groundwater and on-site soils include
various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including
lead from waste disposal activities. Potential health threats include direct
contact with, or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils and
groundwater.
March 1990
NPb HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
DISTLER BRICKYARD
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: As an initial action, the EPA and the State inspected the
site and sampled 28 drums. In 1979, some drum wastes were removed
and, in 1982, the EPA removed over 2,000 drums from the site. Patches
of contaminated soil were also removed, and some contaminated materials were
incinerated.
Soil and Groundwater: Cleanup technologies selected to address soil
and groundwater contamination include: (1) excavating and disposing of
contaminated soils; (2} backfilling with clean natural granular soils; (3)
reshaping surface contours to manage water infiltration and runoff and
planting grass to cover the site; (4) extracting and treating contaminated groundwater
and reinjecting groundwater into the aquifer, and (5) maintaining vegetation and
repairing any erosion for a period of 1 year. The EPA has begun installation of the
temporary groundwater treatment system and is planning to install a permanent
groundwater treatment system. Cleanup activities are scheduled to be completed in
1990.
Environmental Progress
The initial drum removal and incineration actions described above have removed the
sources of contamination and reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
at the Distler Brickyard site while long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
10
-------
DISTLER FARM
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980601975
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
1 mile northwest of West Point
The 9-acre Distler Farm site was discovered in 1977, when the EPA launched a search
for sites previously used to store industrial wastes. In 1978, flood waters scattered
drums of industrial waste stored at the site along the floodplain of Stump Gap Creek.
In an emergency cleanup action, the EPA recovered and repacked 832 drums
containing chemicals characteristic of the paint and varnish industry and then moved
them to higher ground. Later, the State sent the drums to an approved disposal facility.
During the cleanup effort, four drum burial sites were discovered. Approximately 3,000
people reside within 4 miles of the site. The site is bordered by cultivated farmland and
is located 1,000 feet from the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including toluene and benzene, as well as heavy metals from
former drum storage practices. Possible health threats include drinking
the contaminated groundwater or touching the contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
DISTLER FARM
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1978, the EPA monitored the recovery and on-site
storage of the drums containing chemicals from paints and varnishes. The
State later disposed of the drums at a federally approved facility. The EPA
conducted various studies from 1979 through 1984 confirming evidence of soil and
groundwater contamination.
Groundwater and Soil: The final site cleanup action began in 1988.
Cleanup activities include: (1) excavation and removal of all contaminated
soils and off-site disposal in a hazardous waste landfill; (2) backfilling with
natural granular soils; (3) extraction of contaminated groundwater and
temporary accumulation and on-site storage; (4) transportation of contaminated
groundwater to an off-site commercial facility for treatment; and (5) maintenance of
vegetation, erosion repair, and groundwater monitoring for a 1-year period.
Contaminated soil with concentrations above acceptable levels have been excavated
and removed to a hazardous waste landfill. After the soil was removed, the waste pits
were backfilled and the entire area was graded, cultivated, and covered with grass to
control erosion. The groundwater treatment system currently is being installed;
operation and maintenance of the groundwater treatment system could last up to 30
years before the cleanup is considered complete.
Environmental Progress
The emergency drum removal actions and the soil removal described above have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Distler Farm
site. Groundwater treatment, now under construction, will continue to reduce
contamination levels until health standards are met.
12
-------
FORT HARTFORD COAL
STONE QUARRY
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980844625
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Ohio County
1 mile northeast of Olaton
Site Description
The Fort Hartford Coal Stone Quarry is a massive underground limestone formation that
was originally mined for railway ballasts and road bases. In 1981, Barmet Aluminum
Corporation contracted with the Fort Hartford Coal Company to store salt cake fines, a
by-product of Barmet's aluminum recycling operation, at the site. Salt cake fines are a
fine, dust-like material containing various contaminants that react with water to form
several gases, including ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. As of
1989, over 1 million tons of salt cake fines were in place at the site. Storage operations
are continuing, and approximately 500 tons of waste are being transported to the site
each day. The mine is in a rural area; approximately 15 people live within 1/2 mile of
the site, and the nearest residence is 1,500 feet away. Approximately 1,400 people
live within 4 miles of the site. The portion of the site's 120 acres not affected by
mining operations is forested, as is most of the surrounding land. Portions of the
property have been logged, and several of the logging roads remain above the mine. A
few pieces of land beyond the Rough River and Caney Creek, both of which bound the
site, are used for agriculture. Many residents near the site rely on groundwater for their
drinking water supplies. Approximately 25 private wells are within 1 1/2 miles of the
property, and about 700 people obtain drinking water from wells and springs within 3
miles of the site. The Rough River, about 30 miles downstream of the site, is the water
source for the Town of Hartford and is also used for fishing and other recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
FORT HARTFORD COAL STONE QUARRY
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA detected ammonia from the storage of salt cake fines in the air
around the storage areas during a 1986 inspection. Wastes were
deposited below the water table, threatening the groundwater.
Ammonia and lead have been detected in low levels in private wells near
the site, posing a potential risk from ingestion. The subsurface gases
found in the mine include ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen
sulfide. High levels of ammonia have been detected in an unnamed
stream that originates in the waste area. Runoff from the quarry flows
into the Rough River. Workers at the site may be at risk if they
accidentally ingest or touch contaminated surface water or groundwater
or inhale ammonia vapors in ambient air from the site. There is also the
potential for explosion if ammonia, methane, hydrogen, or hydrogen
sulfide gases accumulate within enclosed areas.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination, Barmet Aluminum Corporation, began a study in 1989 to
determine the type and extent of contamination at the site, and to identify
alternative technologies for the cleanup. The site investigation is expected to be
complete in 1991. Barmet is also conducting Expedited Response Actions to identify
areas where water is entering the mine and to isolate the wastes in the mine from
water, which will eliminate the formation of gases. Once the study is completed, the
EPA will select final cleanup remedies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Fort Hartford Coal Stone
Quarry site. Initial studies to address gas formation within the mines will identify
methods to stabilize conditions at the site while further investigations and long-term
cleanup activities are taking place.
14
-------
GENERAL TIRE
RUBBER C
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD006371074
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Graves County
3 miles north of Mayfield
Site Description
The General Tire & Rubber Company site is a 58-acre landfill located northeast of the
company's tire manufacturing plant. The company began disposing of wastes in the
landfill in 1970 shortly after the State approved the operation. Between 1970 and 1979,
when operations ceased, an estimated 200 tons of hazardous waste were deposited in'
trenches on the site. Wastes were deposited below the water table, creating the
potential for movement of contaminants through the groundwater. In 1981, to comply
with a State request General Tire began a groundwater monitoring program. In 1984,
the site was covered and revegetated. Approximately 5,000 people obtain drinking
water from 6 municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. The eastern edge of the landfill
roughly follows Mayfield Creek, approximately 100 yards from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils are contaminated with
heavy metals including cadmium and lead, as well as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene from the former waste disposal
practices. People who accidentally touch or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
GENERAL 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: The General Tire & Rubber company is studying the type and
extent of the contamination at the site. Once the study is completed in
1991, the EPA will review the recommended alternatives for the cleanup
and select a final strategy to address site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the General Tire & Rubber site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the
site does not pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment while
investigations into the final cleanup strategies are taking place.
16
-------
GREEN RIVER DIS]
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980501076
SAL
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Davies County
NearMaceo
Alias:
Kelly Cemetery Road Site
The Green River Disposal site is 14-acre landfill and surface disposal area. From 1978
to 1984, wastes from various industries along with sanitary municipal wastes were
buried at the facility. In 1985, an investigation by the Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection found that on-site private wells were contaminated. Two of
the 976 drums discovered on the site were found to contain heavy metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and cyanide. Wastes at the site are not adequately
covered and runoff Is not controlled, which may lead to surface water contamination.
The facility has a history of leachate outbreaks, underground fires, and has been known
to accept unauthorized wastes. The site held a State permit from 1975 until 1988, but
became inactive in 1984. Approximately 500 people obtain drinking water from private
wells within 3 miles of the site. Blackford Creek, which is used for irrigation and
recreational activities, is 3 miles downstream of the landfill.
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
Groundwater from on-site private wells is contaminated with heavy
metals including arsenic and barium from the former waste disposal
activities. Leachate from the landfill is contaminated with benzene and
heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, lead, and chromium. People who
touch or drink contaminated groundwater may be at risk. Blackford Creek
may potentially become contaminated because runoff from the site is not
presently controlled.
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
17
continued
-------
GREEN RIVER DISPOSAL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA or the potentially responsible parties for the site
contamination will study the type and extent of contamination at the sitet
, The study is expected to begin in 1990 and be completed in 1992.
Alternatives for the cleanup will be recommended at the conclusion of the
investigation.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State ordered Green River Disposal to bring the facility into
compliance with existing laws. In 1986, the company filed for bankruptcy. The EPA
has prepared an Administrative Order by Consenttor the parties potentially responsible
for the site contamination to conduct a study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Green River Disposal site
while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
18
-------
HOWE VALLEY L
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980501191
FILL
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 02
Hardin County
4 miles southwest of Howe Valley
The Howe Valley Landfill site consists of 11 acres located along the edge of a sinkhole.
The site is an inactive industrial waste landfill that was operated by Kentucky Industrial
Services, Inc. from 1967 through 1976 when a state permit expired. During that time,
approximately 2,000 to 5,000 drums of sludges and bulk wastes associated with
various manufacturing and insulation operations were disposed of on site. Waste
insulation material and drums were exposed on the surface of the landfill. In 1979,
groundwater samples collected by the Kentucky Division of Water Quality indicated that
the site might be contaminating the local groundwater. There are approximately 25
people living within a 1-mile radius of the site who depend on private wells for drinking
water. Approximately 35,000 people use Pirtle Spring, 2 miles from the site, as a
source of drinking water.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 07/01/87
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with various heavy metals and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former landfilling practices.
Nearby residents may be exposed to site-related contaminants while
consuming or using groundwater. On-site surface soil is contaminated
with the same contaminants, as well as plastics. Because access to the
site is unrestricted, potential threats to local residents include direct
contact with the contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
Continued
-------
HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
IX initial Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination removed, stored, and sent the drums to an incinerator or a
permitted landfill. These initial actions eliminated the immediate threats to
the public and removed much of the site's contamination.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
conducting studies to determine the extent of contamination. The
i ^ investigation phase of the cleanup process is near completion. Once the
investigation is completed in 1990, the EPA will select a final remedy that will specify
the site cleanup strategies.
Site Facts: In 1988, an Administrative Order was signed by the EPA. This document
directs the potentially responsible parties' investigation of site contamination and their
recommendations for methods to cleanup the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of waste drums described above has removed the surface
contamination sources and reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances
at the Howe Valley Landfill site while further investigations and long-term cleanup
activities are being completed.
20
-------
LEE'S LANE LAND
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980557052
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
41/2 miles southwest of Louisville
Lee's Lane Landfill is a 112-acre landfill and junkyard that lies in the floodplain along the
Ohio River. This operation received over 2 million cubic yards of domestic, commercial,
and industrial wastes between the 1940s and 1975. Approximately 212,000 tons of
these were various chemical wastes. Sand and gravel quarrying occurred on the site
before and during the property's use as a landfill. Portions of the landfill flood almost
every year. In 1975, residents living next to the site reported flash fires around their
water heaters. After explosive levels of methane gas were detected, seven nearby
homes were evacuated and purchased by local authorities. The State closed the landfill
that same year. County, State, and Federal agencies documented the presence of
methane and other toxic gases in the area,east;of the site. The majority of the 1,100
residents of a subdivision located adjacent to the landfill are connected to a public
water supply system, which draws from an underlying aquifer. In 1980, State
personnel discovered 400 exposed drums of hazardous materials, some highly
flammable, on the Ohio River bank next to the landfill. They identified more than 50
chemicals including phenolic resins, benzene, and a variety of heavy metals. Site
access is unrestricted; local residents hunt, fish, exercise pets, and dump trash on the
site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air is polluted with methane gas vented from the landfill.
Groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with benzene,
heavy metals including lead and arsenic, and inorganic chemicals.
Groundwater flow is toward the Ohio River and away from neighborhood
wells.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
LEE'S LAME LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
x* Emergency Actions: In 1980, after methane was discovered in homes,
the Kentucky Department of Hazardous Materials and Waste Materials
(KDHMWM) installed a gas venting system at the landfill. In 1981, the site
owners pumped liquid wastes from the exposed drums found near the Ohio River. , .
They shipped hazardous wastes to an approved disposal facility, removed the drums
and other wastes from the river bank, and buried them on the site. In 1987 and 1988,
EPA emergency staff performed cleanup activities at the landfill, including site security
and migration control. Workers also regraded and reseeded the bac/rf/V/thatfloods had
washed out. . . , ,
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1,986 which
included: (1) providing for a gas collection system; (2) alternate water
supplies; (3) removing exposed drums; (4) capping of soils in "hot spots"
in an area of exposed trash, and disposing of exposed waste at an approved landfill; (5)
taking steps to prevent erosion and possible failure of the Ohio River embankment; (6)
establishing standards for groundwater at the site; (7) imposing institutional controls;,
and (8) monitoring groundwater, gas, and air. The EPA finished cleaning up this site in
1987 and is now conducting operation and maintenance activities, scheduled to last for
30 years.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order is being negotiated with one party potentially .
responsible for site contamination to undertake operation and maintenance of the gas
collection system.
Environmental Progress
Cleanup activities have been completed at the Lee's Lane Landfill site. The site is now
safe for nearby residents and the environment while operation and maintenance
activities continue to ensure that residual contaminants remain within safety levels.
22
-------
MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR
DISPOSAL
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980729107
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Fleming County
Near Hillsboro
The 279-acre Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal site is a disposal facility for low-level
radioactive wastes. From 1963 to 1977, the State licensed private operators to dispose
of low-level radioactive wastes, and an estimated 5 to 8 million cubic feet were
accepted. Most was solid waste; however, other types of waste were also accepted,
some of them highly radioactive. 533,000 pounds of source material {consisting of
uranium and thorium or ores containing them), 2 T/2 megacuries of by-product
materials, and 950 pounds of special nuclear material (plutonium or enriched uranium)
were buried in an area known as the Restricted Area. Workers capped each trench
with a layer of soil after it was filled, but the dirt eventually collapsed into the trenches.
Water collected in the trenches, leaching radionuclides into the environment. The
Restricted Area is situated entirely on the flats and encompasses the disposal trenches,
"hot wells" (sealed concrete pipes containing plutonium and uranium), waste storage
buildings, an evaporator facility, and parking sites. The area surrounding the site is rural
and agricultural. Approximately 300 people live within a 5-mile radius of the disposal
facility, and the closest home is within 1/4 mile. About 120 wells and 25 springs are
situated within 5 miles. In 1985, nearby residents were connected to the public water
supply of Fleming County. The site is situated on a spur of Maxey Flats, a ridge 300
feet above surrounding stream valleys. The plateau of the spur drops steeply on three
sides, and rainwater runoffMs channeled to nearby Rock Lick Creek, which feeds the
Licking River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, surface water, and leachate are contaminated with
various radioactive materials, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
petrochemicals, and heavy metals from the former waste disposal
activities. There is no evidence of human exposure to the site
contaminants. However, local residents should reduce the use of stream
water for agricultural irrigation, as this water exceeds EPA standards for
both tritium and radium.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the radioactive contamination at the site.
Response Action Status
* Immediate Actions: Solidification of 286,000 gallons of tank leachate was
completed in 1989, which was necessary to prevent a potential release of
radioactive water off site due to the poor structural integrity of the holding
tanks. The EPA plans to dispose of the solidified leachate blocks in an underground on-
site trench in 1990.
Radioactive Contamination: Under EPA monitoring, the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination began an intensive study of
the contamination problems. This investigation is exploring the nature, and
extent of radioactive contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final
cleanup. It is slated for completion in 1990, at which time EPA will select a final
cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: Negotiations with the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination concluded with an agreement, signed in 1987, to perform an
investigation of the site. The local community has an active interest in the cleanup of
this site, and a technical assistance grant has been awarded to a community group to
follow site progress.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions to solidify leachate described above have significantly reduced
the potential for exposure to radioactive wastes at the Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
site while further investigations and long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
24
-------
NEWPORT DUMP
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD991277112
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Campbell County
Wilder
Site Description
The 40-acre Newport Dump site was originally purchased by the City of Newport in the
late 1940s and was used for disposal of residential and commercial wastes until its
closure in 1979. Trenching and area filling were the most common methods used to
dispose of wastes at the site. The Commonwealth of Kentucky started to require
permits for landfills in 1968. The City received a permit in 1969 to operate the site as a
municipal sanitary landfill. During its operation, the City was cited on numerous
occasions for operational violations at the landfill and for handling hazardous waste
without a permit. Ownership of the site changed in 1979 from the City of Newport to
the Northern Kentucky Port Authority (NKPA). Approximately 1,200 people reside
within a 1-mile radius of the site. The Licking River, which flows into the Ohio River, is
used for recreational activities. Use of groundwater in the vicinity of the site is minimal,
but approximately 250 feet downstream of the site, the Kenion County water district
maintains a raw water intake from the Licking River for the Taylor Mill Water Treatment
Plant. The water district serves residents of Kenion and Boone Counties with a
combined population of approximately 75,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants in groundwater and surface water included heavy metals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
from former waste disposal activities. Soils on-site were contaminated
with heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), solvents,
and PCBs from leachate and runoff. Site closure activities completed to
date have prevented the public from coming in contact with landfill
contaminants, although access to the site is not restricted.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
NEWPORT DUMP
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In efforts to comply with a 1980 Agreed Order, the
NKPA installed a leachate collection system, regraded portions of the site,
constructed a clay cap over the waste, and covered the area with
vegetation. In response to another Agreed Order, the NKPA completed permanent
vegetative cover of the site and began designing a groundwater monitoring system.
Operation and maintenance of the leachate collection system continues.
Entire Site: The EPA implemented a monitoring program of surface
water, groundwater, and soil; restored and extended the leachate
collection system; and restored, regraded, and revegetated the existing
clay cover. The site is currently undergoing operation and maintenance activities and
the contamination concentrations are below the standards set for the site. The EPA
has initiated the process of deleting this site from the NPL and to turn the operation
and maintenance responsibilities over to the State.
Site Facts: In 1978, the City of Newport and the Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Resources (DNREP) entered into an Agreed Order to
bring about closure of the site as a landfill. When ownership transferred from the City
to NKPA in 1979, NKPA was required to prepare the final closure plan for the site. In
1980, NKPA and DNREP reached an Agreed Order requiring proper closure of the site.
A third Agreed Order superseding the previous orders was entered into by NKPA and
DNREP in 1984.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Newport Dump site. The area is now
safe to nearby residents and the environment while the EPA completes the final
processes to delete the site from the NPL and to transfer operation and maintenance
responsibilities to the State.
26
-------
PENN SANITATION
COMPANY LANDFI
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD981469794
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Oldham County
1,1/2 miles southeast of Pewee Valley
Site Description
The Red Penn Sanitation Company Landfill site covers approximately 150 acres. From
1954 to 1986, 85 acres of the site were used for waste disposal and the remaining 66
acres were used as a borrow/area. The site was licensed by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky as a 40-acre sanitary landfill in 1968 and operated until 1986, when the permit
expired. The landfill was-first licensed by the Oldham County Health Department in
1959, From 1967 to 1974, 2,000 to 3,000 drums of "drawing solution" from a
manufacturing facility were disposed of in the permitted area of the landfill. The
electromagnetic wire manufacturing process used by the manufacturer generated
wastes containing phenol, acids, xylene, and xylenol. An estimated 7,800 drums of
paint waste and sludge from a truck plant were disposed of at Red Penn in a 5-year
period beginning in 1968! In 1986, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management was
notified by one of the owners of Red Penn Sanitation Company that suspected
hazardous wastes, including drums, had been found at the site. Approximately 850
people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. A public water
intake is located about 250 feet downstream in Floyd's Fork, a major stream bordering
the landfill. This intake provides Water for 250 people at the Peewee Valley Women's
Reformatory. Creeks that border the site are currently used for fishing, swimming, and
livestock watering.
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
MarcH 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
RED PENN SANITATION COMPANY LANDFILL
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with low levels of the pesticides aldrin
and chlordane. Soil is contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and
chromium, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene and
xylene from the drums found on the site. A drainage ditch on the site is
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and selenium.
Trespassers and future cleanup workers, if not adequately protected, may
be exposed to contaminants in the waste and surface soils through
inhalation or accidental ingestion. People swimming, wading, or fishing in
the creeks might be exposed to contaminants through skin contact.
People who eat fish taken from the creeks, or consume milk or meat
products from nearby livestock, crops, or garden produce possibly are
exposed to contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Approximately 220 tons of drums and soil were
removed from two areas on the property in 1986 during a removal action
financed by the owners of the landfill.
Entire Site: A study is being conducted at the site to determine the extent
and types of any contamination present and to identify alternative, actions
for cleanup. The study which are is scheduled to be completed in 1991, at
which time the EPA will select cleanup activities, which are scheduled to begin soon
thereafter.
The immediate drum removal action described above has greatly reduced surface
contamination and limited the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the
Red Penn Sanitation Landfill site while further investigations leading to the selection of
a final remedy are taking place.
28
-------
SMITH'S FARM BROOKS
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD097267413
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bullitt County
11/2 miles southwest of Shepherdsville
The Smith's Farm Brooks site is a 560-acre area that includes a 37 1/2-acre landfill and
over 30 acres where unlicensed dumping occurred over a 20-year period. This area
contains 100,000 to 200,000 drums, many of which are buried or partly buried. Several
leachate streams at the site drain into an unnamed tributary and into Bluelick Creek.
Approximately 500 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
site responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
/A
Threats and Contaminants
Cadmium from former waste disposal activities pollutes the on-site
groundwater. Sediments and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), plastics, polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs), and heavy
metals including arsenic, chromium, lead, and nickel. Intermittent
streams and leachate on site are contaminated with VOCs and heavy
metals. There is a threat of fire or explosion if any of the drums remaining
on the site should contain flammable liquids. Drinking or touching
contaminated surface water may present health hazards.
Bioaccumulation of contaminants and consumption of locally raised
vegetables that are irrigated with potentially contaminated groundwater
also may present a health threat.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the drum disposal site and cleanup of the,
landfill and deeper groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
SMITH'S FARM BROOKS
Response Action Status
x" Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA constructed access roads to make
it possible to retrieve drums and then staged and transported 2,000 drums
off site. Certain non-flammable hazardous materials were loaded into
trucks and shipped for off-site disposal. PCB-laden liquid was analyzed and properly
disposed of. The EPA also transported empty drums from the site. In 1988, the EPA
sampled nearby water wells and provided a temporary water supply to nearby
residences.
Drum Disposal Site: In 1989, the EPA selected remedies for cleanup of
the drum disposal site. First, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of
contaminated waste, soils, and sediments will be incinerated; then the
area where drums were disposed of will be capped. Trenches will be
excavated in the capped area to better characterize the waste. These actions are
scheduled for 1991 through 1993, after completion of design activities. After the
characterization, other remedial alternatives may be explored. Groundwater in the
drum disposal area will continue to be monitored, with 5-year reviews.
Landfill and Deeper Groundwater: A study is currently under way to
determine the type and extent of contamination at the permitted landfill, in
the deeper groundwater, and in additional suspected areas along the
largest stream on site. The study will evaluate the alternative technologies for cleanup,
and cleanup is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: The permitted landfill is involved in a legal dispute with the State of
Kentucky over the planned landfill closure. One potentially responsible party for the site
contamination signed a Consent Order in 1989 to conduct a study of the contamination
at the permitted landfill and in the deeper groundwater.
Environmental Progress
The immediate drum removal actions and the provision of a safe water supply to
affected residents have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances while further investigations and long-term cleanup activities take place at
the Smith's Farm Brooks site.
30
-------
TAYLOR A L
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980500961
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bullitt County
12 miles south of Louisville
Alias:
Valley of Drums
The Taylor A L site is located on 13 acres and was first identified as a waste disposal
site by the Kentucky Department of National Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP) in 1967. The owner excavated pits on site and emptied the contents of
waste drums into the pits before recycling the drums. Soils from nearby hills were
eventually used to cover the pits. Thousands of drums were also stored on the
surface. The owner never applied for the required State permits throughout the history
of site operations from 1967 to 1977. The KDNREP first documented releases of
hazardous substances in 1975. They pursued legal actions against the owner until his
death in 1977. The EPA inspected the site in 1981 and discovered deteriorating and
leaking drums that were discharging pollutants into a nearby creek. Approximately 100
people live in a residential area located within 1 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, surface water, and soil were polluted with heavy
metals and organics including ketones, phthalates, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from spills and deteriorating waste drums. Accidental
ingestion of and contact with the contaminated groundwater, soil, and
surface water presented possible health threats. Approximately 4,000
drums containing hazardous wastes were leaking into a nearby tributary of
the Ohio River.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
TAYLOR A L
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on site stabilization and monitoring.
Response Action Status
X- Immediate Actions: As early as 1979, the EPA responded to releases of
oil and hazardous substances at the site. KDNREP contacted six
potentially responsible parties in 1980, who voluntarily identified and
removed approximately 30% of the wastes remaining on site. In 1981,
the EPA conducted a cleanup action to upgrade the existing treatment system and to
remove the remaining 4,200 drums of surface waste off site. The EPA also installed
interceptor trenches to halt runoff into a nearby creek.
Site Stabilization and Monitoring: The EPA completed the following
methods to clean up the site: (1) removed contaminated pond water; (2)
secured pond sediments, sludge and materials from low-lying areas
beneath the cap; (3) installed a final cover to contain the waste materials;
(4) constructed a surface water drainage diversion to reroute surface water; and (5)
conducted tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the clay cap to reduce runoff of
surface contaminants. After the cleanup work was completed in 1987, groundwater
monitoring data showed that contaminant levels were reduced by 100 to 1,000 times
from the original levels.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Taylor A L site. Cleanup activities at
the Taylor A L Site have reduced contamination to safety levels and continue to ensure
that nearby residents are protected. The EPA plans to delete the site from the NPL in
1994 after the completion of 5 years of continued operating and maintenance activities
and a thorough inspection of the cap.
32
-------
TRI-CITY INDUSTR
DISPOSAL
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD981028350
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bullitt County
Shepherdsvllle
The Tri-City Disposal Company operated a 57-acre industrial landfilla\ this site. From
1964 to 1968, wastes from Louisville area industries were accepted. In 1968, State
officials reported that highly volatile liquid wastes resembling paint thinners were
disposed of on site. A 1968 aerial photograph suggests that several hundred drums
were on the surface and several others were buried. During the landfill's operation, no
State or Federal permit was required. A number of small farms are now located over
the old disposal area. In 1987, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM)
detected organic contaminants in groundwater and soil samples taken from the site.
Approximately 1,600 people obtain drinking water from springs and wells within 3 miles
of the site. Brushy Fork of Knob Creek is 2,200 feet downs/ope of the site and is used
for livestock watering and recreational activities.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
L\
Threats and Contaminants
A spring near the site contains tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination
from former waste disposal activities. The sediments of a small feeder
spring/creek of an intermittent stream are contaminated with lead. Soil
and groundwater is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and with organic compounds. Drinking or any other exposure to
contaminated water would threaten the health of people who come into
contact with it. However, the water from the springs is no longer used
as a drinking water source. The EPA has supplied two families with an
alternate water supply.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
------- |