EPA/540/4-90/019
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Louisiana
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
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 i
' "" " - ' " ,, ^ - .,, f - -. ' f
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-1
-------
TT
^
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
^ line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
m 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 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.
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
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
iv
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
' closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
r
VI
-------
T: he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
."j waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
5 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
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vn
-------
'i v v, *Xv *
waste,T ~ ;
Jitfi??=*X-\
SKSfSNIp1
at Happens J|T' % v ^» 1
~ Is ant ""--*- --*"
Siow VAi-lhiai!^''^ '
STEP1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
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
that
may
a
e%i'st
step? ,
< *
thter
fpPA use
lite $$rtiljte olft*e, -
site i«spectk)«,t ""
IX
-------
r
rtow do |N&D|i!e
tit whelfa EfA>- *
a. sitVa -
l priorit foir
,1-. !
<$ requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book:
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
a site is
> the
axe
to"
"-'*'
-''<.'
%vs?*'
«C
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
usgiMVWftsgy
How are cleanup
ltematiyes*
oes the |mb|ie foaw
e 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
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
'action, n^eeete to ire
I^Mo^ed to a site, does
t&e aeslgtt b-f the ^ ,,
tieed to be
xiii
-------
SUPERFUND
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety;
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
the
/ Itbw long
idoes it take t<
PTsite arid how Btueh
does it cost? ,-
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.
tiont is complete/ is,
?the site automatically
ed" from the
JPL?
./s
Si
+.
'y?^
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a " T - "v'""" N -
NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to , £»&' *P*& *£*&* paries.
site is placed on the NPL,
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.
lot i&e
'<'<.-.
V. "£>.
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
]x*nitial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
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
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xvm
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process/ all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
one? 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 i
State of Louisia
Louisiana is located in the south central United States on the Gulf of Mexico. The State
covers 47,752 square miles consisting of lowlands marshes and Mississippi River
floodplains. Red River Valley lowlands and upland hills of the Florida Parishes.
Louisiana experienced a 4.8 percent increase in population through the 1980s and
currently has approximately 4,408,000 residents, ranking 20th in U.S. populations.
Principal state industries include wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing,
construction, transportation, mining and government facilities. Louisiana produces
chemical products, foods, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, apparel and
petroleum products.
How Many Louisiana Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
10
fl
11
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01, 03, 04 1 site
Cong. District 06 2 sites
Cong. District 07 3 sites
Cong. District 08 3 sites
10
8-
4 -
2 -
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics) and
creosote (organic), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and radiation.
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), creosote
(organics), heavy metals (inorganics),
petrochemicals, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
cresote (organics), heavy metals
(inorganics), and pesticides.
Soil GW SW Seds Solid & Air
Liquid
Waste
Contamination Area
Air: Volatile organic componds,
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and gases.
*Appear at 10% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process4
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 7 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Louisiana, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Louisiana Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VI Superfund Public
Relations Office
(504) 342-8925
(214) 655-6705
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(214) 655-2240
' Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow K) 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.
i
+- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
«* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used on/ywhen all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
jrroj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
gress Toward Cleanup ai
Site Name
BAYOU BONFOUCA
BAYOU SORREL
CLEVE REBER
COMBUSTION, INC.
D. L MUD, INC.
DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT
GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES
LOUISIANA ARMY AMMUNITION
OLD INGER OIL REFINERY
PAB OIL & CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC.
PETRO-PROCESSORS OF LOUISIANA
i L\s?Lt ones
County
ST TAMMANY
IBERVILLE
ASCENSION
LIVINGSTON
VERMILION
ASCENSION
VERMILION
WEBSTER
ASCENSION
VERMILION
E.BAT. ROUGE
in me oiaie 01 .uuuisia.ua.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
Final 09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
Final 09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
Final 09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
Prop. 06/24/88 4-
Prop. 06/24/88 4- 4-
Final 07/22/87 4- 4-
Final 03/31/89 4- 4-
Final 03/31/89 4- 4-4- 4-
Final 09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
Final 03/31/89 4-
Final 09/24/84 4-4-4-4-
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
BAYOU BON
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980745632
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
St. Tammany Parish
Near SlideU
Site Description
Bayou Bonfouca is a flat, overgrown, 55-acre site at the location of the former American
Creosote Works Plant and lies within the 100-year floodp la in. Wood pilings were
treated with creosote here for nearly 80 years before the plant burned down in 1970.
The fire caused a serious creosote spill that polluted sediments in Bayou Bonfouca,
which forms the southern boundary of the site. The site was abandoned afterwards.
The shallow artesian aquifer \s contaminated. Approximately 750 residents live within 1
mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water at Bayou Bonfouca are contaminated
with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from previous wood
treating activities at the the site. Sediments and soil are also
contaminated with PAHs and creosote compounds. People may be
exposed by drinking contaminated groundwater, accidentally eating
contaminated soil, or touching polluted sediments. Another possible
threat is eating contaminated fish and shellfish from the bayou.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
BAYOU BONFOUCA
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The potentially responsible parties hired a rental
fence company to install and maintain a fence at the site, and to put up
warning signs around the fence.
Entire Site: Site cleanup plans chosen in 1985 were revised in 1987 to
comply with new legislative requirements when the new law was signed.
Site remedies are now planned for groundwater extraction and treatment
of contamination, followed by reinjection; excavation of 150,000 cubic
yards of contaminated bayou and channel bottom sediments; incineration of excavated
sediments and waste piles in an on-site facility; and placement of a cap over the
incinerator residue and surface soils with high PAH concentrations. The construction
contract for groundwater pumping and treatment was signed in 1989. The remaining
cleanup is scheduled for 1991.
Environmental Progress
Initial fencing around the area has reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances at Bayou Bonfouca, making the area safer while awaiting planned cleanup
activities.
-------
BAYOU SO
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980745541
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Ibervffle Parish
6 miles northwest of Bayou Sorrel
Aliases:
Environmental Purification Advancement
Halliburton Services (CLAW)
Grand River Pits (local name)
Site Description
Forty to 50 acres of the 265-acre Bayou Sorrel site have been used for waste disposal.
Early in 1977, the Environmental Purification Advancement Corporation (EPAC) began
accepting wastes at the site from petrochemical industries in Louisiana, Texas,
Arkansas, and Missouri. Operations included landfarming, open liquid impoundments,
drum burial, and landfilling of chemically fixed wastes. The EPAC may also have
received wastes from a nearby injection well. In 1978, a truck driver died when waste
mixing produced a poisonous gas. State and Federal regulators inspected the site and
found unknown materials in large, open, unlicensed ponds. When a State District Court
ordered the site closed in 1978, about 36,400 cubic yards of wastes remained on site.
Four landfills contain contaminants: a spent lime cell, a crushed drum cell, four covered
liquid waste ponds, and a landfarm. The rest of the marshy site is overgrown with
brush and trees. It is prone to flooding and poor drainage. The site lies in a rural area;
only three homes are within 2 miles. Bayou Sorrel gets its drinking water from the City
of Plaquemine. The nearest well is 1/2 mile away, but it is used only for washing and
not for drinking. The population swells seasonally as people come to fishing camps.
The site is on the East Atchafalya Basin Floodway Protection Levee, adjacent to the
Upper Grand River and Pat Bayou.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
One million cubic yards of soils and sediments are contaminated with
wastes from pesticide and herbicide manufacture, sulfide-containing
wastes from hydrocarbon processing and exploration, and spent wash
solutions used in equipment cleanup. Wetlands are also threatened. The
site is home to three endangered species: bald eagles, peregrine falcons,
and ivory-billed woodpeckers. Workers or others at the site could be
exposed to chemicals by direct contact with soils or sediments, inhalation
of vapors, or accidental ingestion of contaminated materials.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BAYOU SORREL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in an initial action and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on the entire site.
*
Response Action Status
*""" Initial Action: In 1979, all exposed disposal areas were dewatered, filled,
and covered with soil.
Entire Site: The engineering design for site cleanup was approved in
1989, with the following site remedies selected: (1) regrading to control
runoff, limit erosion and surface water ponding, and to divert stormwater
from waste areas; (2) capping former disposal areas with materials to keep water from
reaching the contaminants within the coverings, safely draining the area, and venting
any.gases formed; (3) placing all wastes now exposed to weather under the new caps
or disposing of them off site in approved facilities; (4} installing slurry walls
underground around the old landfill and pond areas to keep contaminants from moving
into the soils and groundwater; (5) fencing all capped areas to restrict access and
building access roads around them to allow continued use of recreational areas; and
(6) installing a groundwater monitoring system. These activities are under way and are
scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a 1987 Consent Decree with the parties potentially
responsible to conduct cleanup activities at the site.
Environmental Progress
Contamination levels at the Bayou Sorrel site continue to be reduced by the ongoing
activities described above. Once all cleanup actions are completed, the EPA will
monitor the site to ensure that the site is safe and no longer poses a threat to public
health or the environment.
A
-------
CLEVE REB
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980501456
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Ascension Parish
25 miles southeast of Baton Rouge near Sorrento
Aliases:
Uniroyal, Inc.
Reber Landfill
Site Description
The 25-acre Cleve Reber site, originally a borrowp/f for the construction of a local
highway, was used between 1970 and 1972 as a landfillior both municipal and
industrial wastes. Waste handling was causing employees to be ill, and the site was
abandoned. When the site was listed on the NPL, approximately 550 exploded and
corroding drums were visible on the surface. They contained sulfur, asphalt, tars,
plastics, and oily wastes. An estimated 6,400 drums were still buried on site after the
EPA removed the surface drums in an emergency response action. There are 11
residences close to the site. The nearest home and drinking water well are 100 feet
away. Sparsely populated residential and agricultural areas lie to the north and west;
the land to the east and south is covered by dense vegetation and swamp.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soil has been shown to contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. There are four ponds on the site containing
contaminants similar to those in the soil. Risks involve coming into direct
contact with contaminated surface soils and with the contaminated water
in the small ponds. Groundwater is not currently polluted, but there is a
possibility that it could become so in the future.
Cleanup Approach
The site will be addressed in two stages: immediate actions limiting the spread of
contamination and a long-term remedial phase focusing on source control and
groundwater monitoring.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
CLEVE REBER
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the State fenced the site, and the EPA
conducted an emergency removal of 1,100 surface drums and waste piles.
- - Workers placed a thin clay cap over the areas thought to contain buried
drums and wastes. The EPA conducted two comprehensive field investigations in
1984 and 1986 that indicated all significant contamination was restricted to the site.
\ Source Control and Groundwater Monitoring: Remedies selected for
Wthe site include: (1) excavating and on-site incinerating of buried drums and
sludges; (2) draining and backfilling on-site ponds; (3) stabilizing the non-
burnable wastes with a cementing agent; (4) capping remaining
contamination with an impermeable cap that keeps out runoff, and (5) monitoring
groundwater. The engineering design of the cleanup technologies is complete.
Responsible parties will begin cleanup of the site at the end of 1991.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that fencing of the site and the removal of contaminated
drums and waste piles has significantly reduced the potential of exposure to
contaminants at the Cleve Reber facility while it awaits final cleanup activities to begin.
-------
COMBUSTIO
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD072606627
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Livingston Parish
Denham Springs
Site Description
The owners of the 6-acre Combustion, Inc. site piped wastes to Denham Springs from
their petroleum hydrocarbon recycling plant located about 1/4 mile southwest. Wastes
included non-reclaimable tars, paraffins, waste oil, sediments, and wastewater. During
the facility's life, workers built 11 irregularly shaped earthen pits to contain oily wastes
and wastewater. These pits contain about 3 million gallons of material. Although the
pits were constructed to isolate the wastes, they are connected by a series of trenches
or pipes that allow mixing. Three buried tanks and two aboveground tanks that stored
wastes before they were processed to recover oil exist on the site. The owners also
may have treated other potentially hazardous chemicals at the facility. Combustion, Inc.
began closing the facility late in 1980 and had completely shut down operations by
1982. Approximately 500 people live within 1 mile; the nearest residence is 600 feet
from the site. Groundwater within 3 miles of the site is used for irrigation and drinking
water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
ZA
Threats and Contaminants
Toluene has been detected in the air. Specific contaminants found in the
groundwater include toluene and xylenes. The soil was found to contain
lead. The on-site liquids and sludges are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and lead. Exposure risks
include inhaling the air as well as direct contact with soil, groundwater, or
runoff. A low level of contamination has been detected in the shallow
aquifer; however, residential wells remain uncontaminated at present.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
COMBUSTION, INC.
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: After the site was originally proposed for the NPL in 1986, new
technical information about the site became available. The EPA reprpppsed
the site in 1988 to allow an additional 60-day comment period. Beginning in
1988, the potentially responsible parties were conducting a study, with the State of
Louisiana leading the oversight, to evaluate the extent of contamination and to
determine possible remedies for the site. The potentially responsible parties have
proposed several cleanup actions involving the removal of contaminated wastes and
soils from the pond and process areas. The study is planned for completion in early
1992.
Environmental Progress
After proposing the Combustion, Inc. site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions at
the site and determined that there were no immediate actions required to make it safer
while awaiting the results of the studies and the final long-term cleanup activities.
-------
D.L. MUD, IN
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD981058019
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Vermilion Parish
21/2 miles southwest of Abbeville
Alias:
Galveston-Houston Yard
Site Description
The 14-acre D.L. Mud, Inc. site is an inactive drilling mud facility and vacant lot. The
facility went out of business in 1986, but while it was operating, oil drilling muds, salt
water, and other drilling fluids were placed in 11 on-site tanks. Soils are contaminated
to a depth of 2 feet, threatening groundwater. Within 3 miles of the site, approximately
2,600 people draw their drinking supplies from private wells. Approximately 1,000
acres of cropland are irrigated with these private wells, and 9,000 acres are irrigated
with surface water supplies. The site lies in a rural area 1 1/2 miles west of the
Vermilion River, which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. Next to the southeast portion of
the site is the Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Site, which is also on the NPL.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with organic materials including alkanes and
related compounds, and heavy metals including lead, mercury, chromium,
arsenic, and zinc. The groundwater may also be contaminated with these
substances.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on contaminants at the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
D.L. MUD, INC.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) negotiated an agreement for cleanup of the site with the potentially
responsible parties, who then removed drilling muds from the tanks and
sent them to be properly incinerated. The tanks and piping were dismantled, cleaned,
and hauled to a metal salvage facility. Contaminated soil under and around tanks was
removed to the depth of uncontaminated clay and taken to a facility for incineration.
Excavated areas were backfilledwith clean soil. Used drilling muds were also removed
from portions of the site where they had been dumped. The LDEQ supervised the
cleanup activities.
Entire Site: A site investigation is scheduled to begin in 1990. This
investigation will determine the effectiveness of past cleanup activities and
determine if any further threat is posed by the site to public health or the
environment.
Environmental Progress
The removal of soils, muds, and solid waste by the potentially responsible parties and
the LDEQ eliminated the sources of contamination and reduced the potential of
exposure to contamination at the site. The D.L. Mud site is safer while it awaits further
long-term cleanup activities.
10
-------
DUTCHTOWN
TREATMENT
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980879449
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Ascension Parish
Near the intersection of
Interstate 10 and Hwy. 74
Site Description
From 1965 to 1982, the 21 1/2-acre Dutchtown Treatment oil refinery and reclamation
facility generated waste oil, wastewater, and oily sludges. Found on the site are a rail
car tanker, 10 aboveground storage tanks, an oil pit, and a holding pond containing oily
wastes, sludge and contaminated soil. About 130 people live within 1/4 mile of the
site. About 4,000 people live within 3 miles of the site, and approximately 1,500 obtain
drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. The site is within the watershed of
the Mississippi River within 1 mile of coastal wetlands, and Grand Goudin Bayou lies
approximately 1,900 feet downslope 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: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including chloroform and benzene,
contribute to groundwater, air, surface water, and soil contamination.
Sludges are contaminated with ethylbenzene, carbon tetrachloride and
dichloroethane. The main threat of this site is to drinking water. The
upper aquifer (7 to 12 feet below the surface) is contaminated, although a
lower aquifer 30 feet below the surface appears not to be contaminated.
Inhalation of fumes poses a threat, as does direct contact with the waste
pits and storage tank contents. Although the site is fenced, it is not
guarded, and vandalism is a possibility.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase iocus\r\g on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: The State took action in 1984 to prevent an overflow
of the on-site lagoon. In 1987, the EPA cleaned up a diesel fuel spill that
ran off site as a result of vandalism.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination will be conducting an investigation into the
contamination at the site. The investigation will determine the extent of
surface and sub-surface contamination remaining after the removal. An evaluation will
then analyze the possible alternatives for future cleanup of the site. The potentially
responsible parties will excavate the waste pit contents and storage tanks contents.
These materials will be thermally destroyed off site. The excavated areas will be
backfilled. Any further remedy necessary will be assessed during the investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for
cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1989, 15 parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site
agreed to all terms of a Consent Decree to perform a removal action to thermally
destroy off site the contents of the tanks and waste pits. They have also agreed to the
terms of an Administrative Orderto perform the comprehensive study of site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions taken to prevent overflow of a contaminated lagoon and
cleanup of a diesel fuel spill at the Dutchtown Treatment site have limited the spread of
contaminated wastes and lessened the potential for exposure to contaminants at the
site. Thus, the site is safer while it awaits further long-term cleanup actions.
12
-------
GULF COAST
SERVICES
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980750137
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Vermilion Parish
21/2 miles southwest of Abbeville
Alias:
Galveston-Houston Yard
Site Description
The 12-acre Gulf Coast Vacuum Services site is an inactive vacuum truck terminal
facility. The D. L. Mud, Inc. NPL.site is adjacent to the northwest portion of this site.
While the site was operating, oil drilling muds, salt water, and other drillirig fluids were
placed in three earthen pits. Alluvial terrace deposits overlie the shallow sand aquifer
that is used for drinking water and irrigation. The site is 1 1/2 miles west of the
Vermilion River, which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. When the operators of the site
filed for bankruptcy in 1984, the site was left abandoned, unsecured, and
inappropriately closed. Although this is a rural area, 2,600 people in the area obtain
drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. About 1,000 acres of
farmland are irrigated by these wells.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) including
benzene and toluene and heavy metals including cadmium and chromium.
The drilling miids, salt water, and other drilling fluids in the pits contain
VOCs including benzene and toluene. The water supply may be
threatened by the potential for the pit contaminants to travel into the
groundwater, which would contaminate wells and the 1,000 acres
irrigated by the groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES
Cleanup Approach
This site will be addressed in immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
X* Immediate Actions: Fences and a containment levee have been erected
and pit water has been pumped down, treated and discharged.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting a study into the contamination
at the site. The study, which is scheduled to be completed in 1991, will
define the contaminants and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
Once completed, the EPA will review the study's findings and select the final cleanup
methods for the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions taken have slowed the spreading of contaminants into the soil
and shallow aquifer, thereby reducing the threat to the local area drinking water
supplies. The Gulf Coast Vacuum site is safer, while investigations leading to the
selection of long-term clean up remedies take place.
14
-------
LOUISIANA
AMMUNITION SIT
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LA0213820533
REGION 6
r| CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Webster Parish
22 miles east of Shreveport
Site Description
this U.S. Army installation is situated on rolling forest land near.the towns of Minden
and Doyline. It covers 15,000 acres, but the hazardous areas drawing Superfund
attention are 16 unlined 1-acre pits that received wastes from munitions manufacture
and include a burning ground, a landfill, lagoons, and an oily waste landfarm. Several
contractors have operated the facility since it began producing explosives in 1942.
Operations include loading, assembling, and packing ammunition, as well as
manufacturing metal parts and providing associated support functions for ammunition
production. About 10,250 people live in this predominantly agricultural-area within 2 ,
miles of the site. The nearest home is next to the site's south, boundary, The water-
table aquifer is about 20 feet deep and is reportedly used for drinking water.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with various
explosives: Trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclonite (RDX), trinitrobenzene (TNB),
and homocyclonite (HMX). TNT and TNB have also been found in the
surface water. Potential exposure could occur if contaminants migrate
off-site, by direct contact, inhalation, and accidental ingestion of
contaminated media and by accumulation of contaminants in the food
chain. The shallow contaminated aquifer is connected with the deep
Wilcox aquifer used by the facility and possibly by some area residents as
a potable water supply.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
LOUISIANA ARMY AMMUNITION SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases designed to eliminate soil
contamination and cleanup of the soil and groundwater at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Soil Decontamination: Initial studies into the nature of site contamination
and potential solutions were completed in 1987. A performance burn to
test the technology was conducted in late 1988. The Army began
incinerating wastes from Area P in early 1989, and by October had burned
63,000 tons of soil. This work is scheduled to be completed in 1990. Studies to
control the source of contamination are continuing.
Soil and Groundwater Cleanup: The Army is currently conducting a study
into the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination at the
site. The investigation will better define the nature of contaminants and will
recommend cleanup options for groundwater.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA, the Army, and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality entered into a Federal Facility Agreement. Remedial actions
covered by the agreement include the cleanup of the hazardous waste site and
contaminated groundwater. The plant is also participating in the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP), the federally funded program established by the Department of Defense
(DOD) to identify, investigate, and control hazardous wastes on military or other DOD
installations.
The incineration of wastes and contaminated soils at the Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant site is reducing the potential for exposure to hazardous substances. The Army is
conducting investigations, which will lead to further reductions in contaminants,
thereby protecting the public health and the environment.
16
-------
OLD INGER OI
REFINING
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980745533
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Ascension Parish
Between Hwy. 75 and the Mississippi
River, 41/2 miles north of Darrow
Alias:
Darrow Oil
Site Description
The 14-acre Old Ihger Oil Refining site, midway between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, was used as an oil refinery and waste oil reclamation plant from 1967 to 1978.
On site are 2 lagoons, 2 cracking towers, 9 storage tanks, a buried waste oil pit, and
8 1/2 acres of swamp. A large spill occurred on the property in 1978, and the site was
sold shortly thereafter; it was abandoned in 1980. Groundwater and soil are
contaminated with organic chemicals to depths of 40 to 60 feet. Pollution is extensive
on site: 41,600 cubic yards of waste oils and heavily contaminated soils, sludges, and
sediments; 2 1/2 million gallons of highly contaminated surface water; and 7 1/2 million
gallons of slightly contaminated swamp water were deposited at the site. The waste
materials include oil contaminated with hazardous petrochemicals, various oil additives,
and oil combustion products. 'In addition, 10 million gallons of slightly contaminated
groundwater containing hazardous chemicals are present in the shallow aquifer.
Approximately 170 people live within a 1-mile radius of this rural site, although 19,500
live within 10 miles. The nearest residence and drinking water well are 1/2 mile south.
Limited farming and oil and gas drilling occur nearby. The site is classified as wetlands,
a sensitive environment.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, sediments, sludges, and soil are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and benzoaromatic hydrocarbons. Water samples from the wells
of nearby residents in 1989 showed no contamination from the site.
Direct contact with site wastes is the biggest public health threat.
Wetlands are also threatened by site contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
OLD ESTGER OIL REFINING
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, water levels in the lagoon were lowered,
dikes and fences were built, and liquid levels in pits were drawn down and
disposed of. In 1984, contaminated water was removed from the lagoon
and two tanks. In 1985, further fencing was erected and another pit drawdown and
disposal was completed.
Entire Site: Planned groundwater treatment includes the closing and
sealing of a well on site, and pumping and treating the shallow
groundwater aquifer by carbon adsorption. Treatment of the contaminated
soil and sludges includes the containment and capping of slightly
contaminated soils where they lie and on-site land treatment of heavily contaminated
soil and sludges. Contaminated surface water on site will be treated by carbon
adsorption and discharged off site. The EPA is currently in the process of accepting
contractor bids to conduct the selected cleanup remedies. Site contamination
treatment activities are scheduled to start in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions taken to reduce the contamination in the pits and lagoons and to
limit site access have reduced the potential for contact with site contamination and the
further spread of contaminated materials. These initial cleanup actions have made the
Old Inger Oil site safer while it awaits final long-term cleanup activities.
A
18
-------
PAB OIL AND
SERVICES, IN
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD980749139
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Vermilion Parish
Hwy. 167, 3 miles north of Abbeville
Site Description
The 9-acre Pab Oil and Chemical Services, Inc. site is an abandoned oil field waste
disposal area. Under a lease agreement, the firm began operation in the late 1970s.
During 1980 to 1982, it operated under a temporary license from the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources. The company claims to have stopped receiving
wastes in 1982. An abandoned irrigation canal runs along the eastern side of the site.
Three on-site pits were used to separate oil, water, and solids. Site pits cover an area
of approximately 300 feet by 360 feet. The site is surrounded by a leaking levee rising
6 to 7 feet above the general grade. An estimated 39,000 cubic yards of oily sludge are
held within the levee. Three steel tanks, which are believed to hold liquid "slop" oil,
are also located on the site. Waste material was reportedly placed in one tank by
unknown parties after the site closed in 1982. Over 20,000 people live within 3 miles
of the site. The site is located over the Chicot Aquifer, which is a major source of
drinking water. Three Abbeville city wells located within 3 miles of the site provide
water for 18,000 people. Private wells within 3 miles of the site serve an additional
2,100 people. Primary land use in the vicinity of the site is agricultural and residential.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Sludges deposited in the on-site pits are contaminated with heavy metals
including chromium and lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
including toluene and xylene. The site is unfenced and creates a potential
for direct contact with contaminated soil or water. High rainfall and the
relatively short distance to surface water create the potential for
contaminants to wash off site to Coulee Kenny Irrigation Canal, which
drains into the Vermilion River. About 1,100 acres of crop lands are
irrigated by surface water within 3 miles of the site. Uncontained wastes
are located over relatively shallow groundwater, creating a potential for
contaminants to move into groundwater; however, nearby shallow
residential wells have shown no contamination to date.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
FAB OIL AND CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA will conduct an investigation, scheduled to start in
1990, into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The
investigation will define the contaminants for groundwater, surface water,
soil, and remaining sludges, and will recommend alternatives for all contaminated
areas. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the study recommendations and select a
final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In 1980, new State regulations governed off-site disposal of drilling mud
and saltwater generated from oil and gas production activities. The potentially
responsible parties failed to comply with these regulations, resulting in notices of
violation and referral to the Louisiana Attorney General. In 1982, the State ordered the
site closed. In 1989, the EPA issued Special Notice letters to the potentially
responsible parties and received a good faith offer. Negotiations for an Administrative
Order are currently underway and planned for completion in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions at the Pab Oil and
Chemical Services site and determined that the site currently does not pose an
immediate threat to area residents and the environment. The EPA has determined that
no immediate actions are required at the site, pending the start of long-term cleanup
activities.
A
20
-------
PETRO-PROC
OF LOUISIAN
LOUISIANA
EPA ID# LAD057482713
Site Description
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
East Baton Rouge Parish
10 miles north of Baton Rouge
This Petro-Processors site actually contains two site areas, consisting of the 7-acre
"Scenic Highway" parcel and the 55-acre "Brooklawn" tract. The areas were operated
concurrently between 1969 and 1972 by the same managers. Workers trucked locally
generated hazardous wastes to the more convenient of the two spots. Both sites
threaten the same surface waters and aquifer systems. Scenic Highway began as a 20-
foot deep borrow pit dug out for highway construction. The pit was filled with
hazardous chemical wastes from 1964 to 1968, when it became full. Left full and
uncovered for 5 years, it was finally closed with plastic sheeting and soil in 1973. The
Brooklawn tract bears five distinct areas of waste disposal and contamination: the Bluff
Area; the Cypress Swamp; the Bayou Area, including contaminated sediments and soils
in Bayou Baton Rouge; two diked lagoons; and various covered areas, in which most of
the wastes reside. All materials seem to have been placed at Brooklawn between
1967 and 1981. An old channel of the bayou runs through a portion of this area and
may be the cause of waste migration. There are several houses located about 800 to
1,000 feet from the border of Scenic Highway. The nearest drinking water well is about
3,000 feet upgradientof the site. The community is predominantly rural with some
industialized areas.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/24/84
Threats and Contaminants
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
heavy metals, and oils contaminate the groundwater, soil, and surface
water. In 1969, a spill from the lagoons killed 30 cattle and contaminated
part of a nearby ranch. The site is located over the "400-foot sands," a
major drinking water aquifer. The lagoons are in the Mississippi River
floodplain. In 1983, Brooklawn's Cypress Pond was inundated by the
river, and the floodwaters came within 4 inches of overtopping the lower
pond. Spontaneous ignition of the waste resulted in fires in the upper
lagoon on several occasions. Bayou Baton Rouge flows by both sites.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
PETRO-PROCESSORS OF LOUISIANA
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The cleanup program includes a year of remedial planning;
design and construction of a conceptual closure plan for the site;
groundwater monitoring, modeling, and recovery; waste excavation from
both sites and placement into an EPA-approved vault prepared on site or on
adjacent properly; and perpetual operation and maintenance of the remedy. The
potentially responsible parties were also given permission to burn liquid organic wastes
from beneath the surface at the Dow Chemical Company Plaquemine incinerator. The
potentially responsible parties completed site studies in 1987 and the EPA-approved
cleanup began that same year. Roads, bridges, levees, and stormwater treatment
facilities were built in 1987, but waste excavation and stabilization activities at the site
halted abruptly when they led to air emission problems. The EPA and the other parties
involved studied the problem and modified the cleanup remedy. Rather than excavate
the wastes, workers will instead pump and treat groundwater and liquid waste. They
will also build clay caps over both parts of the site to prevent rainwater and erosion
from moving contaminants. Engineering specifications for this work were presented to
the EPA in 1989, and work on the clay caps ensued. The cleanup is under way and
scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1984, the Federal Court ruled that the parties potentially responsible for
the contamination were to clean up the site under the supervision of the EPA, the
State, and the Court.
Environmental Progress
The surface drainage control measures have reduced the spread of contaminants,
making the Petro-Processors site safer while it awaits final completion of the clay caps
and treatment activities in 1992.
22
-------
T-5 his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
,, fact sheets for the State of Louisiana. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
aejineain the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups. .It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into the earth until water is reached which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
G-l
-------
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where waste is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
Dewaten To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
G-2
-------
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances produced from petroleum in refinery operations
and as fuel oil residues. These include fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are made. These chemical substances are often
toxic to humans and the environment.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
G-3
-------
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-4
------- |