EPA/540/4-90/025
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Mississippi
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
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
**% v-v %>!.>«
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
^ s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
^s "-%' 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.
hi the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the'
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to deternjtine 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 w,hen the rem-
edy is in place, j Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
groundwater —j- 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 jwill assure
that the remed^ is carefully
followed and tljiat it continues
to do its job. i
Likewise, EPA jioes not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make — as a
Nation — in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
• the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
v
-------
_
VI
-------
The 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 *
:ff JISV
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 zvhenever 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
-------
*x ;
S -\ V
p ,
f *- 4
r
i*
* v
Iff i il H i r •"* w* ^ >^%_ j ^
I^What happens f I., ^ ^s;'
1% there Is ait imjnlnei^t,v, ^
| danger? ^ T>x
£'
% •• ^v ••,-.•• ^,.,,
x -s%^r,i
••^ X~ x"5 -
,Z ,*/%}\\Cv':;??
- -'- ^"""y "\'-*,--i
™,, 5", ,,'1-f i
1 si^y ' '': : ' -i
« 3 -Mv •. •! ^ >«^K^s >«»>•••• <.-
> % V S ' ^ ^^"-^
* --^> ^ -f
' "f"^^4
**i-'s,lJ§
there isn't an
iHowdoe$v
Ibout'potentiaF""™^^^'™
hazardous waste ^\,~,r, J
*."^*~ r« «si\ J '•'•'••
sites? - >~:^
, . so -;r^"\* 'S
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. Thejse 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. i
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
Jimminent danger; \x^s>
"
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care i of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For; example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
^nyf deatUlp actions "s^x"^ care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's lime to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
•> >, «
str. -, " •• ""* ••"•> '•'^'•'•- ;
'"* ' •. V^.'.'tSVi'^WS'.S'.'.V.Vl'.irt^.'.S'.". •.V.'.V.V.SV.V.'i.V.stw -is ^.%^
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
If the preliminary
", that a setiotis threat"
the
m.jise
msMtsofthe — ,-'•'••
^ite intspectioti?
'% - s * -.^ . ^ ^
IX
-------
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in tjhe 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 environmeints 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.
do people
I out whether EPA
^considers a site a
|naiionai priority for
using
"'- '""?? --4
' - "V. &T'iWivK?
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office ^t the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have beefl evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous wjaste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the IsIPL 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 ohly 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. I
-------
•-•Xs
StJPERFUND
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
After'a site isjs&ded-
to t^e NPL/ what *&%-,"
the steps to ekaimp?--"«
- ~~~~- ~~"-
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
How are cleanup
S-H. n,, S -V ^ VWiV., Jt f
? alternatives
| identified
* evaluated?
" •••
"<<,
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 rjot 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 jsite investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human heajlth or envi-
ronmental risks. i
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. |
j.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly tojthe 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, th! e 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. i
I
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy inust 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 pjroblem (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 clecjn 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.
|Poes the public have,
I a say in the final ,, ^
| cleanup decision? ;J{X
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the Ukely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
; If every |leaimp
a<$ion needs to be
-tailored to a -sits, does
i tibe desigfi 'd£ the
fiob?
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
t *
site, special plans for environmental protection, wdrker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
t- Once the design is
I complete, how long
j :<|oes it take to"
fTIctuajly ckan up the
* site and how much
r 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 weije 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. !
, Once the cleanup «
! action is complete/ is
rthe site automatically s;
"deleted" from the ~ "
i NPL?
!"
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 ensure1 that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards lor environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring br opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated afe "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 bookJ
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
J3m E)PA make patties
e for the
v --- v~;.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
^ 7, are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site — or part
of the site — are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvn
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL D
Count/ Name
Site Description
Sit* RespoiafbOltu:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
r.Zr.'"'' ' *'
/,.;; "',''<,
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 goafs of the cleanup plan are given here.
xviii
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
•*»*.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
xix
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to deyelop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into accbunt 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 Missis
Mississippi is located on the Gulf of Mexico and bordered by Tennessee to the north,
Arkansas and Louisiana to the west, and Alabama to the east. The State covers 47,689
square miles and consists of low, fertile delta, loess bluff and sandy Gulf coastal
terraces, which give way to rugged, sandy hills, pine woods, and prairie. Mississippi
experienced a 3.9 percent increase in population during the 1980s and currently has
approximately 2,620,000 residents, ranking 31st in U.S. populations. Principal State
industries are manufacturing, food processing, seafood, government, wholesale and
retail trade, agriculture. Mississippi manufactures apparel, lumber, wood products,
foods and related products, electrical machinery and equipment, transportation
equipment.
How Many Mississippi Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
2
1
3
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
Cong. District 04
1 site
1 site
1 site
tO
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Soil, Liquid and Solid Wastes:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
creosote (organics), and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
creosote (organics), and heavy
metals (inorganics).
0 i
3 - -
CO
"8 24-
*
Soil, Seds SW
Solid &
Liquid
Waste
Contamination Area
"Appear at 33% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* ?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design *
Initial actions have been taken at 1 site as interim cleanup measures.
Construction
Complete
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Mississippi, providing specific!
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmentjal
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Mississippi Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(601)961-5062
(404) 347-2234
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
The JVPL Progress Report ————
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (•*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
•>- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991,
+ An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
+ A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used OAT//when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed .and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Mississippi
Page She Name
County
NPL Date
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1 FLOWOOD SITE RANKIN
3 NEWSOM BROTHERS OLD REICHHOLD MARION
5 WALCOTTE CHEMICAL WASHINGTON
Final 09/01/84
Final 06/01/86
Delete 12/30/82
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
FLOWOOD SITE
MISSISSIPPI
EPA ID# MSD980710941
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Rankln County
Flowood
The Flowood site covers approximately 225 acres and consists of wetlands and
lowlands of the alluvial plain of the Pearl River. It is separated from the river by levees.
Two manufacturing facilities have existed at the site since the 1940s. The
northernmost facility has been operating as a corrugated box company since the 1950s.
From 1956 to 1983, it was owned by the Continental Forest Company and was then
purchased by the current owner, the Stone Container Corporation. The second
manufacturing facility is owned by the Rival Manufacturing Company and has been
used to manufacture stoneware cooking pots since the 1970s. The past owner, the
Marmon Group, used the facility from the 1950s to 1970s to manufacture ceramic tiles.
The site consists of wastewater discharge areas and downstream areas adjacent to the
two manufacturing facilities. The immediate area of the site includes a borrow pit, a
canal used as a discharge area, and other undeveloped land areas adjacent to the plant
sites. State officials first became aware of the presence of hazardous substances in
the canal during a routine industrial wastewater inspection in 1982. At that time,
wastewater that was being discharged by a manufacturing facility directly into the canal
contained elevated levels of lead. The State issued an emergency permit for
wastewater treatment and subsequently removed the wastewater from the canal later
that year. The EPA was notified about the site by the State in 1983. Approximately
940 people live in the Town of Flowood. The site is located in an area of mixed
industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential uses, as well as undeveloped swamp
and forest areas.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The sludge and sediments located in the lagoon and canal, the soil around
the levee, and surface water in nearby Lake Marie and Neely Creek are
contaminated with lead from former manufacturing wastes. Groundwater
in the immediate vicinity of the waste disposal areas contains low levels
of contamination. Potential exposure pathways at the site include
accidental ingestion or skin contact with contaminated soil and
groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
FLOW0OD SITE
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: Based on the results of the site investigation completed in
1988, the EPA has chosen the following remedy for site cleanup: ;
groundwater monitoring and the excavation and sfaM/zaf/on/solidifibation
of contaminated soils from the site. The treated soil will then be backfilled
into the lagoon area and capped as necessary. The design of the selected clearjup
remedies began in 1989, with cleanup actions scheduled to commence in 1990^and
continue through 1993. i
i
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA sent a Special Notice to the parties potentially :
responsible for the site contamination to conduct the investigation and determine the
extent and nature of contamination and to identify possible alternatives for ;
cleanup. The EPA and the Marmon Group signed a Consent Agreements 1986.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Flowood site before final
cleanup actions take place. i
-------
NEWSOME BROT
OLD REICHHOLD
MISSISSIPPI
EPA ID# MSD980840045
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Marion County
Columbia
The 81-acre Newsome Brothers site presently includes several storage tanks, three
holding ponds, a concrete drainage system, and several buildings in the former
processing areas. The site was used by several owners from the 1930s through 1974
as a sawmill, and for the production of turpentine, resins, and other wood derivatives.
From 1975 to 1977, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. manufactured, among other things,
wood preserving compounds made from pentachlorophenol (PCP) mixed with diesel oil.
In 1976, the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission found that
Reichhold was discharging wastewater containing phenols, oil, and grease into a nearby
stream. Reichhold continued operations on the property until 1977, when an explosion
and fire destroyed much of the processing facility. The company subsequently
abandoned the site. Reichhold reportedly buried many drums containing waste
materials in five separate areas of the site. In 1980 and 1981, ownership of the site
was transferred, but Reichhold Chemicals regained ownership of the property in 1988.
The site borders the southern end of the heavily urbanized area of Columbia. This
urban residential area has a population of approximately 12,000. The primary land use
in the surrounding area is agriculture. Public water supply wells are within 1/4 mile of
the site and less than 100 feet deep.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
from former process wastes. The soil is contaminated with VOCs and
PAHs. Accidental ingestion or direct skin contact with contaminated soil,
pond sediments and creeks are potential health hazards. Runoff from the
site may endanger aquatic life in the nearby Pearl River.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
NEWSOME BROTHERS OLD RElCHOLD
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
Initial Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed 600 drums from the site. | Two
on-site ponds were drained, and the water was treated and dischargejd
through a local treatment facility. One pond was filled with soil. Additional
removal activities occurred between 1987 and 1988, when approximately 3,900 buried
drums and 1,920 tons of contaminated soil were excavated and removed from the site.
Entire Site: The cleanup methods selected by the EPA for this site
include: (1) removing the black tar-like waste material, treating it through
incineration, and then sending it to a federally approved landfill; (2) i
excavating and removing the contaminated soils and sediments from|the
site for disposal at a federally approved facility; and (3) filling and capping the on-sfte
ponds and recontouring the land to prevent runoff and collection of surface water; No
action is planned for groundwater cleanup; however, monitoring will continue both on
and off site for 5 years. The EPA is currently designing the cleanup remedies andi
expects to start site cleanup activities in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial drum and contaminated soil removal actions described above have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances while the EPA compjetes
the design of the selected remedy and starts final cleanup work at the Newsome
Brothers site.
A
-------
WALCOTTE C
MISSISSIPPI
EPA ID# MSD980601736
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Washington County
Greenville
Alias:
Walcotte Chemical Community Warehouse I
Site Description
The 1-acre Walcotte Chemical site is a former warehouse that operated from 1953 to
the early 1960s. Chemicals used in producing fertilizer were stored in drums on the
site until the early 1960s. The drums deteriorated to the point where the partially
exposed chemicals in them could explode or start a fire. Groundwater near the site is
used for residential, industrial, and irrigation purposes. Approximately 35,000 people
live within 3 miles of the site. The site is located in an urban, residential, and business
district. The nearest home is within 60 feet of the site. The site is located near Lake
Ferguson, connected to the Mississippi River, which is used by area residents for
recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Deletion Date: 12/30/82
Threats and Contaminants
Drummed waste contaminants included toluene, formic acid, and various
pesticides. The site is located in a floodplain of the Mississippi River,
resulting in the potential for contaminants to move through the surface
water into the drinking water and surface soils. However, these risks
were lessened by the series of levees that protect the city from periodic
river flooding.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in one long-term remedial phase that focused on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
WALCOTTE CHEMICAL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The initial activities included sampling the drums to verify their
contents in 1981. Due to the explosive nature of the drummed chemical
wastes, area residents were temporarily evacuated upon request of!the
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources before initial cleanup activities occurred.
After the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination voluntarily agreed to
clean up the site, the EPA monitored their removal of the drummed wastes. The
drums were staged, repacked, and transported to an EPA-certified landfill in 1932.
These actions eliminated the threats caused by site contamination, effectively Cleaning
up the site. The EPA, in conjunction with the State of Mississippi, determined that the
site was safe for public health and the environment, and the site was deleted from the
NPLin1982. j
Site Facts: The EPA sent Notice Letters to the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination, giving them the option to participate voluntarily in the cleanup
actions. Illinois Central Railroad, which had acquired ownership of the property, agreed
to remove the drums from the site. I
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Walcotte Chemical site and t(ie site
was deleted from the NPL in 1982. Following monitoring to ensure the effectiveness
of the cleanup, the EPA and the State determined that the site is now safe for nearby
residents and the environment. I
-------
T
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Mississippi. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
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.
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.
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
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewaterl Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
i
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken td solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities (jranlje
separated into a number of these phases. I
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at;a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EJPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer. j
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing.! Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad. j
Polycydic 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, |
i
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. i'
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 oj" admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability. !
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters. '
G-2 '
-------
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.
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.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-3
-------
------- |